state of the union...What do you think?????

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: acole1

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and think through the issue. :thumbsup:

I took the time to read it. It's a troll, you're a troll, and your partisan ideology is blinding you to the incompetence and hidden agendas of the Bush administration. Clinton, curiously enough, is your bogeyman, although it was Reagan and GHWB who armed Saddam, and GHWB who elected not to disarm him. Great logic there, Chief.

Unlike you, I don't think all those who don't share my own ideological background are foolish or misguided - just you.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: acole1

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and think through the issue. :thumbsup:

I took the time to read it. It's a troll, you're a troll, and your partisan ideology is blinding you to the incompetence and hidden agendas of the Bush administration. Clinton, curiously enough, is your bogeyman, although it was Reagan and GHWB who armed Saddam, and GHWB who elected not to disarm him. Great logic there, Chief.

Unlike you, I don't think all those who don't share my own ideological background are foolish or misguided - just you.

Hidden agendas? Such as what? And, got any proof of alleged agendas (which you guys always seem to lack)? How did Reagan/GHWB arm Saddam? And OK, GHWB didn't disarm him and everyone was mad because he didn't. So Bush 2 comes in and finishes the job and gets a whole bunch of flak for it Only explanation I can come up with is you liberals won't be happy unless you get the credit for it. If that isn't the reason, then do please tell me what the reason is

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: acole1

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and think through the issue. :thumbsup:

I took the time to read it. It's a troll, you're a troll, and your partisan ideology is blinding you to the incompetence and hidden agendas of the Bush administration. Clinton, curiously enough, is your bogeyman, although it was Reagan and GHWB who armed Saddam, and GHWB who elected not to disarm him. Great logic there, Chief.

Unlike you, I don't think all those who don't share my own ideological background are foolish or misguided - just you.

Hidden agendas? Such as what? And, got any proof of alleged agendas (which you guys always seem to lack)? How did Reagan/GHWB arm Saddam? And OK, GHWB didn't disarm him and everyone was mad because he didn't. So Bush 2 comes in and finishes the job and gets a whole bunch of flak for it Only explanation I can come up with is you liberals won't be happy unless you get the credit for it. If that isn't the reason, then do please tell me what the reason is

Ever think that GHWB just went to war to make Iraq back off of its neighbors. Plus, maybe he knew what a quagmire it would be by going to Bagdad and toppling the government in Iraq.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Hidden agendas? Such as what? And, got any proof of alleged agendas (which you guys always seem to lack)? How did Reagan/GHWB arm Saddam? And OK, GHWB didn't disarm him and everyone was mad because he didn't. So Bush 2 comes in and finishes the job and gets a whole bunch of flak for it Only explanation I can come up with is you liberals won't be happy unless you get the credit for it. If that isn't the reason, then do please tell me what the reason is

Maybe the word "hidden" was a poor choice, in that the Bush administration's foreign-policy agenda was published months before he took office.

As for Reagan and GHWB arming Iran and Iraq, just Google Iran-Contra and Iraqgate. Remember that photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? We provided the chemicals that Saddam used to gas the Kurds, and continued sending him cash and arms even after he did it.

Your ignorance on these issues is telling - maybe I'd share your enthusiasm for Operation Iraqi Freedom if I didn't know better, as you appear not to. I gather from your sig that you're a teenager, which makes it a bit more forgivable.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: acole1

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and think through the issue. :thumbsup:

I took the time to read it. It's a troll, you're a troll, and your partisan ideology is blinding you to the incompetence and hidden agendas of the Bush administration. Clinton, curiously enough, is your bogeyman, although it was Reagan and GHWB who armed Saddam, and GHWB who elected not to disarm him. Great logic there, Chief.

Unlike you, I don't think all those who don't share my own ideological background are foolish or misguided - just you.

Yea we armed them? With soviet issued weaponry largely? we armed them through buying their oil. Sure they might have gotten a tad bit of our hardware but hell even IRAN has some of our F14 tomcats not that they work anymore. Shoot most countries had been in favor with us at some point. Sure he's a troll but this forum is run by lib trolls so what?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: EXman

Yea we armed them? With soviet issued weaponry largely? we armed them through buying their oil. Sure they might have gotten a tad bit of our hardware but hell even IRAN has some of our F14 tomcats not that they work anymore. Shoot most countries had been in favor with us at some point. Sure he's a troll but this forum is run by lib trolls so what?

No, we armed them by sending them billions of dollars in cash illegally, and overseeing the sales of arms to Iraq by third countries. See, e.g. this site, or just Google Iraqgate if you prefer. Saddam largely became dangerous because we made him so, and continued to equip him after the gassing of the Kurds that neoconservatives now, ironically, use as a basis for OIF.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Ever think that GHWB just went to war to make Iraq back off of its neighbors. Plus, maybe he knew what a quagmire it would be by going to Bagdad and toppling the government in Iraq.

Right, that was the point of the gulf war. Yet he still got flak for it. My point wasn't about whether it was right or wrong for either Bush 1 or 2 to go into Iraq, but the fact that Bush 1 got flak for not going in and Bush 2 is getting flak for going in, both from the same group of people. That was my point.

Originally posted by: DonVito

Maybe the word "hidden" was a poor choice, in that the Bush administration's foreign-policy agenda was published months before he took office.

As for Reagan and GHWB arming Iran and Iraq, just Google Iran-Contra and Iraqgate. Remember that photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? We provided the chemicals that Saddam used to gas the Kurds, and continued sending him cash and arms even after he did it.

Your ignorance on these issues is telling - maybe I'd share your enthusiasm for Operation Iraqi Freedom if I didn't know better, as you appear not to. I gather from your sig that you're a teenager, which makes it a bit more forgivable.

Googling anything is bound to bring up biased views from either side on anything. What I would like is you to provide me with some solid stuff, not just googling. I've been told before that I can't do that because it can bring up so many non-reputable sources. So I'm going to do the same and ask you to not do the google thing and give me a link to a reputable source to prove stuff.

Oh so now you're saying just because I'm a teenager (yes I am, and in college so I'm not some 14 year old, but just because I have that in my sig doesn't mean I couldn't have been older) it is "forgiveable" that I disagree and am "ignorant" of stuff. Well I agree, I do not know everything and I am not trying to act like I do. But I am not going to be like so many gullible people and accept everything I'm told, I'm going to question it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Googling anything is bound to bring up biased views from either side on anything. What I would like is you to provide me with some solid stuff, not just googling. I've been told before that I can't do that because it can bring up so many non-reputable sources. So I'm going to do the same and ask you to not do the google thing and give me a link to a reputable source to prove stuff.

How about, oh, the source I already provided? It was compiled by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, and is exhaustively sourced from internal State Department and White House documents.

 

[Pens1566]

/crickets chirping

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: DonVito

How about, oh, the source I already provided? It was compiled by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, and is exhaustively sourced from internal State Department and White House documents.

Sorry I did not see that one, I was responding to your other post that I quoted. However, did I ever say that Bush 1 or 2 was always right, or that they never made a mistake? No. I would never go so far as to say any president is flawless or even close. But Bush 2 is obviously not supplying Saddam with chemicals or funding. We may have supplied them, but Bush 2 has gone to remove said supplies. Naturally Saddam had most moved somewhere else (such as Saudi Arabia) because he wasn't stupid and knew he was in trouble. But Bush 2 was trying to clean up past presidents' mistakes.

Originally posted by: Pens1566
/crickets chirping

How true. I'm sick of this stuff, no one will listen anyway - this stuff just goes on and on, no one is going to change their minds.

 

[saahmed]

Originally posted by: jrenz

War on Terror, Well we have spent a butt load of cash on it... Are we winning? I think NOT.

We're not? When was the last time America suffered a domestic terrorist attack?

Umm.. its only been 4 years. Do you think they plain daily terror attacks on the US? Though I think they are thwarting many plans before they even get put together. But still, the war in Iraq really has nothing to do with preventing terror attacks in the US. If you disagree, please explain exactly how it has prevented any terror attacks on US soil, because we all know Saddam isnt the one who hijacked a plane.

 

[eno]

Originally posted by: ericlp

War on Terror, Well we have spent a butt load of cash on it... Are we winning? I think NOT.

Every one is entitled to their own opinion, that's what makes this country great. Bush isn't perfect, no president is. Nothing in this world is. But as far as stating we are losing the battle against this fight. At least we are ffn fighting it. What would you perfer we do, sorry Osama, please don't kill our people again.... F that, fight them until they are dead. Sure they won't all die but don't make it easy on them.