Why Are Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity So Eager To See More Dead Americans?

[classhandicapper]

Never one to shirk from controversy, here's some more to stir the pot. :lol:

http://lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer21.1.html

[ArlJim78]

very convoluted. US intervention caused their desire to turn the entire world Islamic? and also they merit complete destruction because they started a war with us. okaaaay.

as far as Islamic supremacists are concerned, this guy is a useful idiot.

[rastajenk]

What was the motivation for murder and mayhem before there was ever a Washington policy of foreign intervention? Before there was ever a Washington, George or D.C.? They didn't get this way just in the last hundred years.

[badcompany]

What was the motivation for murder and mayhem before there was ever a Washington policy of foreign intervention? Before there was ever a Washington, George or D.C.? They didn't get this way just in the last hundred years.

Foreign intervention provides a convenient rationale for the malcontents in those countries to blame the interveners for the country being such a sh!thole.

[thaskalos]

Foreign intervention provides a convenient rationale for the malcontents in those countries to blame the interveners for the country being such a sh!thole.

You don't expect the "interveners" to be praised for their efforts...do you?

[badcompany]

You don't expect the "interveners" to be praised for their efforts...do you?

I didn't say I supported these interventions, now, did I?

IMO, it's a no win proposition. If we overthrow the dictator, they bitch. If we don't, they cry "Why don't you help?"

[Tom]

You don't expect the "interveners" to be praised for their efforts...do you?

Lets see....

The Iraqis who had their families gassed by SH, and those who were there to claim remains of their families when we dug up several mass graves?

Those who risked their lives to vote for the first time in their lives, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the long run, both Germany and Japan, even though we bombed the hell out them both, we rebuilt them better than they were. And all those who escaped the holocaust had a nice thought for us.

The French were pretty happy to see us some ashore.
The Dutch didn't complain when we crossed their borders.

[thaskalos]

I didn't say I supported these interventions, now, did I?

IMO, it's a no win proposition. If we overthrow the dictator, they bitch. If we don't, they cry "Why don't you help?"

No...but you didn't say that you condemn them either.

These "interventions" are nothing new; they have been occurring since the beginning of time.

The world's leading power wants to solidify its position at the top...and is capable of doing anything that this task requires. And what this task usually requires is war...always fought for profit...but always disguised to look as if it is fought for truth and justice.

The laws our society lives under will imprison a man for committing a robbery...but will completely ignore some governments who attack other countries, with much the same motive -- killing thousands and thousands of innocent people in the process. And the citizens always stand alongside and cheer. We call it "patriotism"...

Don't get me wrong...I am not saying that our country is the only one to blame in this regard. This has been done by "leading powers" since the beginning of mankind.

We haven't learned since ancient times...

[badcompany]

:17: No...but you didn't say that you condemn them either.
...


That's because I'm not a leftist and my default action isn't to automatically take the anti-American position.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement about every U.S military action. Some I've agreed with, some I didn't.

[thaskalos]

:17:


That's because I'm not a leftist and my default action isn't to automatically take the anti-American position.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement about every U.S military action. Some I've agreed with, some I didn't.

I am still waiting to see what U.S. military action some of you "non-leftists" disagree with...

I apologize in advance if I've missed it...

[TJDave]

Both sides hate us.

I applaud sending lethal aid to the opposition...As long as it's just enough. ;)

[classhandicapper]

How about this for a start?

The default value should be to not get involved in the affairs of other countries unless certain conditions are met.

1. You shouldn't get involved for economic or political advantage (actual or even perceived).

2. You should get involved when you have been attacked (self defense)

3. You should get involved in situations where virtually all other countries are calling for you to get involved and you also believe it's the moral thing to do.

By those standards some of what we've done historically has been justified, but a lot of it (especially recently) has not.

[badcompany]

I am still waiting to see what U.S. military action some of you "non-leftists" disagree with...

I apologize in advance if I've missed it...

Yes, and I missed the part of the PA Terms of Service that's says I'm required to list every U.S military action and whether or not I agreed with it.

[elysiantraveller]

I am still waiting to see what U.S. military action some of you "non-leftists" disagree with...

I apologize in advance if I've missed it...

Iraqi Invasion.

I get why it happened, understand we had a legal right to act, but didn't like it then.

I don't go into some whole Bush lied conspiracy about it though...

[TJDave]

understand we had a legal right to act

When you make the rules you are always in the right.

[elysiantraveller]

When you make the rules you are always in the right.

UN Resolution 1441.

When you are the French you like to make rules and then change them mid-game.

The Bush Administration was pretty painstakingly following the proper course to war... the first time the US has since Korea.

Like I said I disagreed with it but... we certainly had attempted to dot the I's and cross the T's before going in.

[MPRanger]

This is bs. It's factually wrong on many points including the title.
There's nothing new here. BLAME AMERICA. Murderous blood thirsty
muslims are just victims lashing back at be wronged.

What an idiot!

[badcompany]

This is bs. It's factually wrong on many points including the title.
There's nothing new here. BLAME AMERICA. Murderous blood thirsty
muslims are just victims lashing back at be wronged.

What an idiot!

Radical Islam encompasses the entire laundry list of everything the left is against: lethal oppression of opposing views, virtual enslavement of women, violent hatred of gays; yet the the left continually makes excuses for the behavior of Islamists. Wonder why?

[NJ Stinks]

Radical Islam encompasses the entire laundry list of everything the left is against: lethal oppression of opposing views, virtual enslavement of women, violent hatred of gays; yet the the left continually makes excuses for the behavior of Islamists. Wonder why?

What exactly is hard to understand? They don't want us in their countries. That's not an excuse. That's a very easy to understand fact.

[Robert Goren]

Radical Islam encompasses the entire laundry list of everything the left is against: lethal oppression of opposing views, virtual enslavement of women, violent hatred of gays; yet the the left continually makes excuses for the behavior of Islamists. Wonder why? I am considered a liberal. I don't defend the Ialamic extremists. I am also smart enough to know that in the Middle East, both sides are Islamic extremists. There no point in getting involved over there because even when we "win", the new guys incharge are just as bad as the old guys. We got rid of Saddam Hussian and we got a pro Iran government in Iraq. Tell me again how that was worth it again. And the laundry list of liberal ideals still exist there. Nothing changed except the names of the people in charge there. People like McCain didn't learn one thing from the Iraqi War. Neither have some of the posters here. If we the backed the rebels in Syria, none that laundry list would change there either.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What exactly is hard to understand? They don't want us in their countries. That's not an excuse. That's a very easy to understand fact.

Stinks, do you honestly believe if we removed all of our troops and citizens from every "aggrieved" Middle Eastern country terrorist acts against our country and our citizens would cease or even diminish? I highly doubt.

Here's a recent quote from Tom Friedman's column:

Moreover, some 70,000 people, most of them Muslims, have been killed by other Muslims in the Syrian civil war, which the U.S. had nothing to do with -- although many Muslims are now begging us to intervene to stop it. And every week innocent Muslims are blown up by Muslim suicide bombers in Pakistan and Iraq. Thousands of them have been maimed and killed in attacks so nihilistic that the bombers don't even bother to give their names or make demands. Yet this does not appear to have moved the brothers Tsarnaev one iota.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/04/29/3279124/thomas-l-friedman-judgment-is.html#storylink=cpy

[Steve 'StatMan']

I sure as hell don't think Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are eager or want to see more dead americans! There are time, though, when actions are needed that are going to cause that. We can't be afraid to take those actions when they are clearly needed. I'm not saying any specific actions are clearly needed right now - I haven't checked the news today to find out what sparked this latest outcry in off-topic, though it usually doesn't take much.

[NJ Stinks]

Stinks, do you honestly believe if we removed all of our troops and citizens from every "aggrieved" Middle Eastern country terrorist acts against our country and our citizens would cease or even diminish? I highly doubt.

Here's a recent quote from Tom Friedman's column:

Moreover, some 70,000 people, most of them Muslims, have been killed by other Muslims in the Syrian civil war, which the U.S. had nothing to do with -- although many Muslims are now begging us to intervene to stop it. And every week innocent Muslims are blown up by Muslim suicide bombers in Pakistan and Iraq. Thousands of them have been maimed and killed in attacks so nihilistic that the bombers don't even bother to give their names or make demands. Yet this does not appear to have moved the brothers Tsarnaev one iota.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/04/29/3279124/thomas-l-friedman-judgment-is.html#storylink=cpy

Yes, I do believe it. Maybe not right away because people have long memories. But I've never ever believed the argument that "Muslims hate our way of life" and want to destroy us because of our way of life. Hating us for being in their countries makes a whole lot more sense to me.

As for Friedman's quote, Muslim's killing Muslims is one thing. I seriously doubt Tsarnaev would be targeting U.S citizens if we were not interfering in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

[PaceAdvantage]

A liberal blaming America and Israel for the world's problems. How original... :sleeping:

[TJDave]

I seriously doubt Tsarnaev would be targeting U.S citizens if we were not interfering in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

In 2010, before becoming radicalized, Tsarnaev's ambitions were of becoming a citizen and boxing for the U.S. Olympic team.

[badcompany]

Yes, I do believe it. Maybe not right away because people have long memories. But I've never ever believed the argument that "Muslims hate our way of life" and want to destroy us because of our way of life. Hating us for being in their countries makes a whole lot more sense to me.


Jealousy makes a lot of sense, too.

Libs like you and Skalos paint a picture of the middle east being a paradise in the desert that's continually being sullied by the interference of the Great Satan, America.

Here's the reality of that little slice of heaven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Middle_East

GDP Per Capita

Iran $ 12,900
Egypt $ 6,000
Jordan $ 5,300
Syria $ 4,600
Iraq $ 3,600

_________

The typical Egyptian has to get by on 6k a year. American interference is the least of their problems. In fact, most of those countries are in dire need of American foreign investment.

[RunForTheRoses]

[QUOTE=Tom]Lets see....

The Iraqis who had their families gassed by SH, and those who were there to claim remains of their families when we dug up several mass graves?

If you mean the Kurds, not sure if that happened, from the great Jude Wanniski may he R.I.P:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski44.html

[RunForTheRoses]

Never one to shirk from controversy, here's some more to stir the pot. :lol:

http://lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer21.1.html

It is real F'ed up, at one time to be conservative was to take an antiwar stance:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

t is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

[thaskalos]

Jealousy makes a lot of sense, too.

Libs like you and Skalos paint a picture of the middle east being a paradise in the desert that's continually being sullied by the interference of the Great Satan, America.

Here's the reality of that little slice of heaven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Middle_East

GDP Per Capita

Iran $ 12,900
Egypt $ 6,000
Jordan $ 5,300
Syria $ 4,600
Iraq $ 3,600

_________

The typical Egyptian has to get by on 6k a year. American interference is the least of their problems. In fact, most of those countries are in dire need of American foreign investment.

I have never made any such comment...and the GDP of these countries has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

If a country has not harmed us in any way...then its citizens should not have to fear our country's wrath. Does it get any simpler or fairer than that?

We went into Iraq for selfish reasons...not because we wanted to rid the country of "SH" (whom we were responsible for keeping in power to begin with)...or because we wanted to liberate those poor unfortunate Iraqi women -- who were being denied the right to drive. :rolleyes:

If you see a poor, disadvantaged person, and you are incapable or unwilling to help him...then you should at least leave him alone, without causing him any further harm.

The same applies to poor, disadvantaged countries...IMO.

[Tom]

If a country has not harmed us in any way...then its citizens should not have to fear our country's wrath. Does it get any simpler or fairer than that?

Why would they fear our wrath when they were already beign cut down in the streets, gassed, and put into chippers by thier own illegal government?

do you honestly beleive Iraq was better off before we took out SH?
Come on, man.....really?
After we took him out, the problems inIraq came from not us, but from thier fellow muslims - the peace loving bastards they are!


Really?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I have never made any such comment...and the GDP of these countries has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

If a country has not harmed us in any way...then its citizens should not have to fear our country's wrath. Does it get any simpler or fairer than that?

We went into Iraq for selfish reasons...not because we wanted to rid the country of "SH" (whom we were responsible for keeping in power to begin with)...or because we wanted to liberate those poor unfortunate Iraqi women -- who were being denied the right to drive. :rolleyes:

If you see a poor, disadvantaged person, and you are incapable or unwilling to help him...then you should at least leave him alone, without causing him any further harm.

The same applies to poor, disadvantaged countries...IMO.

After Pearl Harbor, did FDR declare war on Peru? That's my position on Iraq. That said, elaborate on the selfish reasons. Are we seizing Iraq's oil production today? Was that our original plan?

It's simple: you had a president with little or no intellectual curiosity (totally clueless about the Middle East) who wanted to display his cowboy bravado.

[badcompany]

I have never made any such comment...and the GDP of these countries has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

If a country has not harmed us in any way...then its citizens should not have to fear our country's wrath. Does it get any simpler or fairer than that?

We went into Iraq for selfish reasons...not because we wanted to rid the country of "SH" (whom we were responsible for keeping in power to begin with)...or because we wanted to liberate those poor unfortunate Iraqi women -- who were being denied the right to drive. :rolleyes:

If you see a poor, disadvantaged person, and you are incapable or unwilling to help him...then you should at least leave him alone, without causing him any further harm.

The same applies to poor, disadvantaged countries...IMO.

What has nothing to do with the discussion is whether or not some people make a lot of money from war, as that's gonna happen whether the war is just or not.

You have a habit of presenting OPINIONS as facts and using those opinions to arrive at your own conclusions.

The FACT is that Saddam was a brutal dictator and the United States was capable of doing something about him (see pic below). Whether taking him out was "helping" is what's debatable.

http://www.sott.net/signs/images/saddam_capture_sm.jpg

[thaskalos]

What has nothing to do with the discussion is whether or not some people make a lot of money from war, as that's gonna happen whether the war is just or not.

You have a habit of presenting OPINIONS as facts and using those opinions to arrive at your own conclusions.

The FACT is that Saddam was a brutal dictator and the United States was capable of doing something about him (see pic below). Whether taking him out was "helping" is what's debatable.

http://www.sott.net/signs/images/saddam_capture_sm.jpg

The fact is that there are -- and have always been -- plenty of "brutal dictators" around...and some have been our "friends". I trust that you remember the Shah of Iran, and Augusto Pinochet. There are more...but I am sure that, with an inquisitive mind like yours, you are more than capable of discovering them yourself...assuming that you are so inclined.

You say that I have a habit of presenting opinions as facts...but you neglect to offer an example of what you mean. I make it a point to always emphasize that I am only stating "opinions". None of us can be sure that we know the "real facts"...especially in the political arena. If you read my posts on this site -- both racing and non-racing oriented -- you will see that no one uses "IMO" in his posts more than I do.

I've even used it in the post that you've quoted in order to make your point that I "have a habit of presenting opinions as facts"(post #29)...

[badcompany]

The fact is that there are -- and have always been -- plenty of "brutal dictators" around...and some have been our "friends". I trust that you remember the Shah of Iran, and Augusto Pinochet. There are more...but I am sure that, with an inquisitive mind like yours, you are more than capable of discovering them yourself...assuming that you are so inclined.

You say that I have a habit of presenting opinions as facts...but you neglect to offer an example of what you mean. I make it a point to always emphasize that I am only stating "opinions". None of us can be sure that we know the "real facts"...especially in the political arena. If you read my posts on this site -- both racing and non-racing oriented -- you will see that no one uses "IMO" in his posts more than I do.

I've even used it in the post that you've quoted in order to make your point that I "have a habit of presenting opinions as facts"(post #29)...

You said we went into Irag for selfish reasons.

The theory behind taking out Saddam was that, if he fell, other dictators in the region would fall like dominos, and Jeffersonian Democracies would sprout up everywhere. This would lead to a more investment friendly environment which would provide greater opportunity for all.

It makes sense, on paper, as the real reason for the anger in the Middle-east is the same as that for Ghettos in this country: poverty and lack of opportunity.

Now, the legit criticism of the this theory was that it was naïve, and ignorant of the culture in that part of the world, but, to say it was selfish implies that there was some nefarious alternative reason for going into Iraq.

That's why Saratoga Mike asked you to explain that comment.

[Tom]

You say that I have a habit of presenting opinions as facts...but you neglect to offer an example of what you mean.

How about this? Tell me, what were the selfish reasons? Did we profit from it?
How much treasure did we take home? We DID rid the country of SH. That is a FACT. the rest is opinion.

We went into Iraq for selfish reasons...not because we wanted to rid the country of "SH"

[hcap]

George Bush wanted to be a "War President", and was heavily influenced by the overwhelming number of neocons in his administration, who really believed in all the oil profits they would acquire by remaking the Mid East

[Robert Goren]

How about this? Tell me, what were the selfish reasons? Did we profit from it?
How much treasure did we take home? We DID rid the country of SH. That is a FACT. the rest is opinion.It is not an opinion that the current government is openly pro Iran. How many killed and how injured were justified to bring about that result. SH was bad a guy, but how much better is al-Maliki ? Over 700 people died in Iraq in the last month in what now can be called a civil war against his regime.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/iraq-violence_n_3208161.html

[PaceAdvantage]

George Bush wanted to be a "War President", and was heavily influenced by the overwhelming number of neocons in his administration, who really believed in all the oil profits they would acquire by remaking the Mid EastReally? And how did they make out?

Where do you get that they really believed in all the oil profits they would acquire through their actions? How exactly would that be accomplished, assuming their vision panned out?

[elysiantraveller]

Really? And how did they make out?

Where do you get that they really believed in all the oil profits they would acquire through their actions? How exactly would that be accomplished, assuming their vision panned out?

This whole argument is idiotic.

If people like Goren, Hcap, and Thask can name one time-period relevant piece from ANY intelligence agency in the world thinking he didn't have WMD I'll shut up... but... they won't find any...

Was America over reactionary at that phase after 9/11? Yes. Did the Democrats also vote for the war overwhelmingly? Yes. Was it Bush's war? No. And... most importantly... did I agree with it? No. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

The funny thing is, Democrats were scaring the American public with dire predictions about Iraq and Saddam WAY BEFORE George W. Bush ever set foot inside the White House.

Cases in point:

RhZ2ZvS2t_E

[cj's dad]

So, when my son went to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq and during desert storm, he should have been murdered. I would love any of you posting here to say that to his face or mine.

[Tom]

It is not an opinion that the current government is openly pro Iran. How many killed and how injured were justified to bring about that result. SH was bad a guy, but how much better is al-Maliki ? Over 700 people died in Iraq in the last month in what now can be called a civil war against his regime.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/iraq-violence_n_3208161.html

What is going on today has zero to do with Thask's OPINION that we went of for selfish reasons. All we heard fro the left was that it was war for oil. Well, where the HELL is the oil?

[PaceAdvantage]

So, when my son went to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq and during desert storm, he should have been murdered. I would love any of you posting here to say that to his face or mine.I don't get that at all from anyone's post here...what did I miss?

[Robert Goren]

There are as many opinions on why we went to war in Iraq as there are Americans. I doubt that even GWB knows for sure anymore. One thing is for sure, it did not go as he planned. The thing now is to learn from it and not make the mistake that we can really change anything over there. We drop a some bombs and send in some soldiers, but only the names change. Unfortunately there still some people who haven't learned that lesson. They are probably the same ones who keep betting the lower odds part of a Linda Rice uncoupled entry.

[JustRalph]

I don't get that at all from anyone's post here...what did I miss?

He's reading between the lines and I get it........

[newtothegame]

There are as many opinions on why we went to war in Iraq as there are Americans. I doubt that even GWB knows for sure anymore. One thing is for sure, it did not go as he planned. The thing now is to learn from it and not make the mistake that we can really change anything over there. We drop a some bombs and send in some soldiers, but only the names change. Unfortunately there still some people who haven't learned that lesson. They are probably the same ones who keep betting the lower odds part of a Linda Rice uncoupled entry.
Or it could be those who said "Afghanistan" was the place we needed to be.....
How is that turning out??? how is Egypt turning out now that BO has said Mubarrak must go.....
How is Libya turning out now that BO has said Khadaffi must go.....
Now Bo is saying Assad must go from Syria, care to guess how that will go???
You're right...some people never learn from mistakes!!!! :bang:

[Tom]

He's reading between the lines and I get it........

Me too.

[Robert Goren]

Or it could be those who said "Afghanistan" was the place we needed to be.....
How is that turning out??? how is Egypt turning out now that BO has said Mubarrak must go.....
How is Libya turning out now that BO has said Khadaffi must go.....
Now Bo is saying Assad must go from Syria, care to guess how that will go???
You're right...some people never learn from mistakes!!!! :bang:My point exactly. At least Obama didn't send a bunch of troops. Mubarrak was gone no matter what we did or didn't do. His health decided that. People seem to for get that. You can't rule from a coma unless you are Woodrow Wilson. There are people demanding that we send troops to Syria to oust Assad. Obama so far has resisted their calls. Everybody I have heard in the the USA is saying Assad must go. Find me one person republican or democrat, conservative or liberal who isn't saying it. It matter whether we use troops to get him out. I hope we don't.
Without a doubt, the Afghanistan war was a mistake too. Again it was a case of the USA not learning from someone else's mistake. The USSR tried to invade them and we are having the same result as they had. Of course it did not help that are our generals there could give the pre-Grant civil war union generals a run for their money when it comes to incompetence.

[Robert Goren]

I forgot to say that that no one is shedding a tears for that "reformed" terrorist that ruled Libya either. Are people running things any better, probably not, but aren't any worse either.

[Tom]

We didn't have any diplomats murdered during the last regime.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...are people demanding that we send troops to Syria to oust Assad. Obama so far has resisted their calls. Everybody I have heard in the the USA is saying Assad must go. Find me one person republican or democrat, conservative or liberal who isn't saying it....

Well, Obama pretty much fueled their calls to do something with his "red line" comment. That remark was as ill-conceived as some of the crap Kim dreams up - don't back yourself in a corner where you have to either have back down from a threatening posture like that or do something you really don't want to do. And for the record, as has been pointed out in the thread several times already, at some point you have to balance your desire for compassion with an ability to not define insanity again and again. This Henry the Eighth second verse same as the first routine in these shithole countries is more than enough for me to feel secure in my default position that this "struggle" does not demand our attention nor our help. Aiding our future enemies over there with treasure we need right here is more than enough for me, thanks.

[newtothegame]

My point exactly. At least Obama didn't send a bunch of troops. Mubarrak was gone no matter what we did or didn't do. His health decided that. People seem to for get that. You can't rule from a coma unless you are Woodrow Wilson. There are people demanding that we send troops to Syria to oust Assad. Obama so far has resisted their calls. Everybody I have heard in the the USA is saying Assad must go. Find me one person republican or democrat, conservative or liberal who isn't saying it. It matter whether we use troops to get him out. I hope we don't.
Without a doubt, the Afghanistan war was a mistake too. Again it was a case of the USA not learning from someone else's mistake. The USSR tried to invade them and we are having the same result as they had. Of course it did not help that are our generals there could give the pre-Grant civil war union generals a run for their money when it comes to incompetence.
What are you talking about??? Obama increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. And Obama has been the "savior" for the arab spring (which is bringing all the terrorist links to power....but yeah, I didn't think you would admit such!

[Robert Goren]

We didn't have any diplomats murdered during the last regime.But we had a passenger plane blown to bits over Scotland by it. How quickly conservatives forget.

[Robert Goren]

What are you talking about??? Obama increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. And Obama has been the "savior" for the arab spring (which is bringing all the terrorist links to power....but yeah, I didn't think you would admit such! That was a mistake. Although you would hard pressed to find anyone who thought the surge was bad idea at the time. Hind sight is 20/20.
Where has the terrorists come to power where they weren't already? Only case can be made for Egypt and even there it was only matter of a couple months before the government fell there anyway. Or maybe you think a Military dictator can rule forever from a coma.

[Robert Goren]

Well, Obama pretty much fueled their calls to do something with his "red line" comment. That remark was as ill-conceived as some of the crap Kim dreams up - don't back yourself in a corner where you have to either have back down from a threatening posture like that or do something you really don't want to do. And for the record, as has been pointed out in the thread several times already, at some point you have to balance your desire for compassion with an ability to not define insanity again and again. This Henry the Eighth second verse same as the first routine in these shithole countries is more than enough for me to feel secure in my default position that this "struggle" does not demand our attention nor our help. Aiding our future enemies over there with treasure we need right here is more than enough for me, thanks. McCain and company were calling for intervention long before the "red line in the sand" comment.
No where have I said Obama ought to aid the rebels. In the end there is not 2 cents worth of difference between them and Assaud. If Obama does send in troops as the right wingers in the Senate suggest, it would be a mistake. Just think for a second how many wars we be in if McCain had won in 2008.

[Tom]

But we had a passenger plane blown to bits over Scotland by it. How quickly conservatives forget.

That happeneda long time ago.
I quote your fearless leader's mouth piece, Jay Carney.
Try coming back to this century - the previous regime had also tuned over it's nuclear program....things change, Bobby.....stay current.

_w2McO3Wk70

[Tom]

We should sent to Syria:

1. no troops
2. no money
3. no nothing

Obama, however is free to go over, on AF1, and lead a freedom march through the streets. I support that. Go organize, baby!

Oh, on second thought, take McCain with you......let them listen to that senile old idiot for a while.

[johnhannibalsmith]

McCain and company were calling for intervention long before the "red line in the sand" comment...

Yeah, great. McCain and Co. prattle on and on regularly and nobody is gauging our strategy based on what they say compared to what Obama says. We had been hearing over and over about the chem weapons being the certain catalyst for intervention and then when it happens, there's suddenly a laundry list of clauses, exceptions, exemptions, and conditions to accompany the very simple statement that he made. I'm not a "war guy", but you don't go running around telling the world that if A happens, we do X, and then when A happens, we respond with a litany of excuses for why we don't do X.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we aren't, but I just hate that approach. It is a game that maybe works when you are talking about the fiscal cliff, sequestration, birth control, whatever stupid political rhetoric that our leader has mastered tap dancing through life with meaningless words. But it sounds really lame when you start employing that strategy to military actions. Like I said, you come across looking like Kim. And frankly, I didn't get it anyway. If the prevailing theory was that as the regime was destabilized it was more likely that chems would be misused, then what would escalating that same destabilization via intervention do to mitigate that problem? It just reeked of an empty threat and now the stench is overpowering. Don't make real military threats as though its the same thing as threatening to shut down tours of the White House. It makes him and us look lame.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just think for a second how many wars we be in if McCain had won in 2008.None...McCain was supposed to be dead of old age before he got the chance? Remember what the left-leaners were telling us during the campaign?

You would have been correct if you had replaced McCain with Palin.

But wait, he's still alive and kicking...another left wing false scare tactic... :lol:

[newtothegame]

That was a mistake. Although you would hard pressed to find anyone who thought the surge was bad idea at the time. Hind sight is 20/20.
Where has the terrorists come to power where they weren't already? Only case can be made for Egypt and even there it was only matter of a couple months before the government fell there anyway. Or maybe you think a Military dictator can rule forever from a coma.

Couldn't the same be said for Iraq??? I mean the dems voted unanimously to invade Iraq as well AT THE TIME.

You are so blinded with your one sided politics it isn't funny. You blame Bush for Iraq, when ALL the dems voted for it and you give Obama a pass because AT the time it seemed right in Afghanistan.....

:lol:

[Robert Goren]

That happeneda long time ago.
I quote your fearless leader's mouth piece, Jay Carney.
Try coming back to this century - the previous regime had also tuned over it's nuclear program....things change, Bobby.....stay current.
Are you heading up a "Free Terry Nichols" movement because the OKC bombing took place a long time ago? Or freeing the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman because the 1993 WTC bombing took place a long time ago?

[Robert Goren]

Couldn't the same be said for Iraq??? I mean the dems voted unanimously to invade Iraq as well AT THE TIME.

You are so blinded with your one sided politics it isn't funny. You blame Bush for Iraq, when ALL the dems voted for it and you give Obama a pass because AT the time it seemed right in Afghanistan.....

:lol: The democrats who voted to invade Iraq were wrong. So was Obama to go for the surge. The surge seemed to have worked in Iraq for a while. Of course now we know that victory was temporary and a wasted effort. The surge in Afghanistan was a failure from the start. Sending troops into any Islamic state is/was mistake. Hopefully we have learn from both GWB's and Obama's past mistakes and not repeat them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Are you heading up a "Free Terry Nichols" movement because the OKC bombing took place a long time ago? Or freeing the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman because the 1993 WTC bombing took place a long time ago?

No, he's referencing Carney's absurd claim that Benghazi was "a long time ago"....way back in September.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This whole argument is idiotic.

If people like Goren, Hcap, and Thask can name one time-period relevant piece from ANY intelligence agency in the world thinking he didn't have WMD I'll shut up... but... they won't find any...

Was America over reactionary at that phase after 9/11? Yes. Did the Democrats also vote for the war overwhelmingly? Yes. Was it Bush's war? No. And... most importantly... did I agree with it? No. :)

What were the main pieces of evidence that SH had WMDs?

1) Ahmed Chalabi's sources (members of the INC) said Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs. At the time, Chalabi was wanted for bank fraud in Jordan, not exactly a reliable source. At the time, German intelligence said his sources' claims were wrong.

2) SH possessed nuclear centrifuges. At the time, a CIA analysts who actually had expertise in nuclear centrifuges examined the claim and the evidence and said (paraphrase) "if this is what they're using, we should send them more," meaning they were junk.

3) SH said he had WMDs. Did we ever stop to think he was bluffing the Iranians as much as anyone else? The Saudis did.

[NJ Stinks]

Couldn't the same be said for Iraq??? I mean the dems voted unanimously to invade Iraq as well AT THE TIME.

You are so blinded with your one sided politics it isn't funny. You blame Bush for Iraq, when ALL the dems voted for it and you give Obama a pass because AT the time it seemed right in Afghanistan.....

:lol:

I've got some bad news for you, Newt.

The vote to invade Iraq was anything but an unanimous vote of approval by Dems.

In the Senate 21 Dems, one independent (Jim Jeffords, Vermont) and one Republican (Lincoln Chaffee, RI) voted against the war. 29 Dem senators voted for the war.

In the House 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and one independent voted against going to war with Iraq. 82 Democrats in the House voted for the war.

The joint resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.

Combining Democrat votes in both houses, 147 Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002 while 111 Dems voted to go to war.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

[newtothegame]

I've got some bad news for you, Newt.

The vote to invade Iraq was anything but an unanimous vote of approval by Dems.

In the Senate 21 Dems, one independent (Jim Jeffords, Vermont) and one Republican (Lincoln Chaffee, RI) voted against the war. 29 Dem senators voted for the war.

In the House 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and one independent voted against going to war with Iraq. 82 Democrats in the House voted for the war.

The joint resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.

Combining Democrat votes in both houses, 147 Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002 while 111 Dems voted to go to war.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
You know just as I do that the point Goren was attempting to make was Iraq was Bush's war....facts are facts and Dems were just as ready. If you go back even further, you can pull up the first Iraq war and check the votes too. Dems came out AFTER the fact and bashed bush for the lack of verification on WMD. Hindisght is always 20/20.
Now Obama has taken on Afghanistan....yet Goren says we should of learned from Iraq but fails to bash Obama for the Afghanistan....
Libya,
Egypt,
Now the red line and Assad,
Seems Obama is really bush....say it aint so Joe......(wait, he is busy getting his shotguns ready) lol

[BlueShoe]

What were the main pieces of evidence that SH had WMDs?
Iraqi Air Force general Georges Sada, the #2 man in SH's air force insisted that they existed and were moved to Syria. If that is so, where are they now? With what is happening now in Syria, who has them?

[Tom]

SH violated the cease fire from the Gulf War.
He fired on US Air Force planes.
End of story - anything else is irrelevant. He fired on US troops.

[BlueShoe]

The article in the OP is the usual "Blame America first, it's all our fault" nonsense. The suggestion that if we just be nice to the poor misunderstood Muslim boys then they will be nice to us is pure fantasy. Islam is not a religion, it is a complex social, political, and economic system in which religion plays a major, but not the only, part. The creed of Islam is conquer or die, something that only a few in the Western world seem to grasp. There is no such thing as a "Moderate Muslim", they are all potential terrorists under the skin.

[fast4522]

The democrats who voted to invade Iraq were wrong. So was Obama to go for the surge. The surge seemed to have worked in Iraq for a while. Of course now we know that victory was temporary and a wasted effort. The surge in Afghanistan was a failure from the start. Sending troops into any Islamic state is/was mistake. Hopefully we have learn from both GWB's and Obama's past mistakes and not repeat them.

Exactly where you lefty's fail is in metrics.

Much more was created back in 1948, but if you put a continues timeline with each year having four quarters spanning from 1Q 1948 to today 2Q 2013 and mark everything in the appropriate point in time. Saddam Hussein had to go. Anyone hellbent in having a big gun that could in effect hit anyone will be taken out. Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's program many years before but make no mistake in the fact that he was marked to swing until dead.

No one President can stop the metrics in this timeline, but can shape what occurs that it not be negative to our investment in the region. In the Q2 2013 Israel launches 'airstrikes' in Syria, this is big time so don't open your yap wider than your shoe size.

[hcap]

Iraqi Air Force general Georges Sada, the #2 man in SH's air force insisted that they existed and were moved to Syria. If that is so, where are they now? With what is happening now in Syria, who has them?
They were shipped to New Jersey. Good thing George did not invade the Garden State :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

They were shipped to New Jersey. Good thing George did not invade the Garden State :lol:Good thing you don't hold this administration to the same standards as the prior...you might be even more disappointed in Obama than you already are...

[Robert Goren]

Exactly where you lefty's fail is in metrics.

Much more was created back in 1948, but if you put a continues timeline with each year having four quarters spanning from 1Q 1948 to today 2Q 2013 and mark everything in the appropriate point in time. Saddam Hussein had to go. Anyone hellbent in having a big gun that could in effect hit anyone will be taken out. Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's program many years before but make no mistake in the fact that he was marked to swing until dead.

No one President can stop the metrics in this timeline, but can shape what occurs that it not be negative to our investment in the region. In the Q2 2013 Israel launches 'airstrikes' in Syria, this is big time so don't open your yap wider than your shoe size.What makes you think al-Maliki is any different than Hussein? I would really like to hear your reasoning on that. The only difference I see is that Hussein was not cozy with Iran like al-Maliki is.

[fast4522]

Robert,

As a student of dictators such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein arranged for portraits and statues to be placed all over his country. Behind Saddam Hussein's Smile was a Ruthless Ambition to Forge a New Arab Empire he would lead against the west. The United States has done everything to ensure that Israel can conduct operations on its own as it did the other day in Syria regardless of who might be the current US President.