I'm voting republican

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre
The real joke is the notion that the Democrats are much better. Sure it seems so after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney, but both parties are leading us straight into a fiscal brick wall, and both continue a failed foreign policy which causes the US to be looked upon as a hypocritical tyrant instead of an example of a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

Republicans = Started the war and continue to support the war.
Democrats = Joined on the bandwagon (Obama and several others didn't) and now don't support the war.

Am I wrong?

No, you're really not. But you simply cannot put all the blame on the Republicans. Clinton pretty much laid the groundwork, he demonized Iraq, bombed Iraq, sanctioned Iraq, and made it US policy the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq. Now, was he stupid enough to invade? No. But look at what Obama will do to Iran. He will continue to demonize Iran, and will further sanctions against Iran.

Will he invade Iran? No, but what he'll do is continue a failed, fear-mongering foreign policy against a nation, like Iraq, that is nowhere near a threat to the USA. And as long as Americans are led to believe the false notion that they are a threat to us, then all it takes is another Neo-conservative administration and "another Perl Harbor" and we're at war again.

Both parties are following the exact same failed, dangerous, and expensive foreign policy, arguing only over the details.

Clinton, did exactly what he was suppose to do when it came to handling Iraq. They pushed, we pushed back - equally. The country was in fiscal ruin due to our sanctions and there was a massive amount of animosity building against Saddam's regime. Ex. The attempted assassination on Saddam's sons.

In my opinion I don't believe Iran is a credible threat and there leaders words are nothing but saber-rattling. Given Obama education, past experience and open additude towards middle east affairs - leaving Iraq I seriously doubt he wants war unlike John "Bomb Iran" McSame.

The sanctions against Iraq killed, according to some, half a million Iraqi children. Iraq was NO threat to us, under Clinton, nor under Bush. And the sanctions were one stated reason why we were attacked on 9/11.

And here we go, back to bringing up McCain. Am I supporting him? Apologizing for Bush's actions? No, I certainly am not. But bringing up McCain here is just a result of that same "my party is ok because the other one is worse" mentality. It's "Party over Principle" and it's wrong, just plain wrong.

It's just so damn easy to find fault in the "other" party. But God forbid one have to see the faults of his own party.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bamacre
The real joke is the notion that the Democrats are much better. Sure it seems so after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney, but both parties are leading us straight into a fiscal brick wall, and both continue a failed foreign policy which causes the US to be looked upon as a hypocritical tyrant instead of an example of a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

< cough > War in Iraq based on lies.

< cough > 4,096 American troops DEAD as of 6/12/2008!

< cough > Tens of thousands of American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life.

< cough > TRILLIONS of dollars of current and future debt.

< cough > Torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. :shocked:

< cough > Gutting of Constitutional rights of American citizens.

< cough > War profiteering by administration contributors and business associates.

< cough > Selective release of classified information for political gain.

< cough > Disclosure of identity of a covert CIA operative.

These are the crimes of the administration of only ONE party. :thumbsdown: :|

Sounds a lot like this one thing, maybe you've heard of it? VIETNAM

Political idealogues should be careful about throwing stones in glass houses.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: bamacre
But you simply cannot put all the blame on the Republicans. Clinton pretty much laid the groundwork, he demonized Iraq, bombed Iraq, sanctioned Iraq, and made it US policy the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq. Now, was he stupid enough to invade? No.

wow this is the first time I've seen someone blame clinton for the war in iraq. lol EPIC fail.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre
The real joke is the notion that the Democrats are much better. Sure it seems so after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney, but both parties are leading us straight into a fiscal brick wall, and both continue a failed foreign policy which causes the US to be looked upon as a hypocritical tyrant instead of an example of a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

Republicans = Started the war and continue to support the war.
Democrats = Joined on the bandwagon (Obama and several others didn't) and now don't support the war.

Am I wrong?

No, you're really not. But you simply cannot put all the blame on the Republicans. Clinton pretty much laid the groundwork, he demonized Iraq, bombed Iraq, sanctioned Iraq, and made it US policy the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq. Now, was he stupid enough to invade? No. But look at what Obama will do to Iran. He will continue to demonize Iran, and will further sanctions against Iran.

Will he invade Iran? No, but what he'll do is continue a failed, fear-mongering foreign policy against a nation, like Iraq, that is nowhere near a threat to the USA. And as long as Americans are led to believe the false notion that they are a threat to us, then all it takes is another Neo-conservative administration and "another Perl Harbor" and we're at war again.

Both parties are following the exact same failed, dangerous, and expensive foreign policy, arguing only over the details.

Clinton, did exactly what he was suppose to do when it came to handling Iraq. They pushed, we pushed back - equally. The country was in fiscal ruin due to our sanctions and there was a massive amount of animosity building against Saddam's regime. Ex. The attempted assassination on Saddam's sons.

In my opinion I don't believe Iran is a credible threat and there leaders words are nothing but saber-rattling. Given Obama education, past experience and open additude towards middle east affairs - leaving Iraq I seriously doubt he wants war unlike John "Bomb Iran" McSame.

The sanctions against Iraq killed, according to some, half a million Iraqi children. Iraq was NO threat to us, under Clinton, nor under Bush. And the sanctions were one stated reason why we were attacked on 9/11.

And here we go, back to bringing up McCain. Am I supporting him? Apologizing for Bush's actions? No, I certainly am not. But bringing up McCain here is just a result of that same "my party is ok because the other one is worse" mentality. It's "Party over Principle" and it's wrong, just plain wrong.

It's just so damn easy to find fault in the "other" party. But God forbid one have to see the faults of his own party.

Of course, children were dying and of course it's unfortunate however an economic lockout is the best option. Look at all of the regimes that we've given aid too; does it goto the people whom need it or the dictatorships? A policy of appeasement is flawed letting the dictatorships die out is the best bet. You tell me how great we've been at being the world police...

As for party or principle, so? Obamas candidacy is going to bring us towards better foreign policy and of course it's not the best but what the hell else I am suppose to do? Vote for some 3rd party goon and let McSame win? Fuck that.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: loki8481
demonizing 51% of america is fun... shouldn't you liberals be too busy with your gay orgies and drive-through government subsidized 3rd term abortions to make web sites?

Did y'all attend the same skool that Dubya did?

http://www.animationarcade.com/music/fuzzymath.html

sorry, 50.7%

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: bamacre
But you simply cannot put all the blame on the Republicans. Clinton pretty much laid the groundwork, he demonized Iraq, bombed Iraq, sanctioned Iraq, and made it US policy the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq. Now, was he stupid enough to invade? No.

wow this is the first time I've seen someone blame clinton for the war in iraq. lol EPIC fail.

Yeah, that's what I did. I blamed Clinton for the mess in Iraq. :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab
Obamas candidacy is going to bring us towards better foreign policy

No, it's not. It's a better view of McCain's, but it's the same foreign policy. I am in no way supporting McCain here.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bamacre
The real joke is the notion that the Democrats are much better. Sure it seems so after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney, but both parties are leading us straight into a fiscal brick wall, and both continue a failed foreign policy which causes the US to be looked upon as a hypocritical tyrant instead of an example of a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

< cough > War in Iraq based on lies.

< cough > 4,096 American troops DEAD as of 6/12/2008!

< cough > Tens of thousands of American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life.

< cough > TRILLIONS of dollars of current and future debt.

< cough > Torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. :shocked:

< cough > Gutting of Constitutional rights of American citizens.

< cough > War profiteering by administration contributors and business associates.

< cough > Selective release of classified information for political gain.

< cough > Disclosure of identity of a covert CIA operative.

These are the crimes of the administration of only ONE party. :thumbsdown: :|

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bamacre
The real joke is the notion that the Democrats are much better. Sure it seems so after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney, but both parties are leading us straight into a fiscal brick wall, and both continue a failed foreign policy which causes the US to be looked upon as a hypocritical tyrant instead of an example of a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

< cough > War in Iraq based on lies.

< cough > 4,096 American troops DEAD as of 6/12/2008!

< cough > Tens of thousands of American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life.

< cough > TRILLIONS of dollars of current and future debt.

< cough > Torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. :shocked:

< cough > Gutting of Constitutional rights of American citizens.

< cough > War profiteering by administration contributors and business associates.

< cough > Selective release of classified information for political gain.

< cough > Disclosure of identity of a covert CIA operative.

These are the crimes of the administration of only ONE party. :thumbsdown: :|

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

I was dumb enough to put troops on the ground in Iraq and destablize the whole region! - G W Bush.

oh wait, he didnt say that did he

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab
Obamas candidacy is going to bring us towards better foreign policy

No, it's not. It's a better view of McCain's, but it's the same foreign policy. I am in no way supporting McCain here.

I disagree. The democratic party - which is now being lead by Obama is moving in the right direction. He isn't a Neo-Conservative Warmongering John McCain nor is he a socialist "I don't like the war but I voted for it." Hilary.

This says a lot.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bamacre
The real joke is the notion that the Democrats are much better. Sure it seems so after 7+ years of Bush/Cheney, but both parties are leading us straight into a fiscal brick wall, and both continue a failed foreign policy which causes the US to be looked upon as a hypocritical tyrant instead of an example of a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

< cough > War in Iraq based on lies.

< cough > 4,096 American troops DEAD as of 6/12/2008!

< cough > Tens of thousands of American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life.

< cough > TRILLIONS of dollars of current and future debt.

< cough > Torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. :shocked:

< cough > Gutting of Constitutional rights of American citizens.

< cough > War profiteering by administration contributors and business associates.

< cough > Selective release of classified information for political gain.

< cough > Disclosure of identity of a covert CIA operative.

These are the crimes of the administration of only ONE party. :thumbsdown: :|

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

And? All of these people unlike there Republican counterparts no longer support the war.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab
Obamas candidacy is going to bring us towards better foreign policy

No, it's not. It's a better view of McCain's, but it's the same foreign policy. I am in no way supporting McCain here.

I disagree. The democratic party - which is now being lead by Obama is moving in the right direction. He isn't a Neo-Conservative Warmongering John McCain nor is he a socialist "I don't like the war but I voted for it." Hilary.

This says a lot.

Is Iran a threat to the USA? Was Iraq a threat to the USA while Clinton was in office, even if he had an arsenal of WMD's?

 

[sammyunltd]

Nope.