More on BHO & Benghazi

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

*********You did not cite a source for your transcription but I'll accept it as accurate.

Here is the point. BHO and HC lied about the events and deaths at Benghazi to further his re-election. What took place with President Bush had no bearing in this instance.

You are simply making a tangent argument.

You asked me how I felt about invading Iraq. I was OK with it. Prior to 9/11/2001 the only people I knew that had any contact with Islam was a friend who work in Saudi Arabia for one year and hated the "Ragheads." The other was a USF medical student from Lebanon that converted to Christianity and was disowned by his family. When Islamic terrorists declared war on the U.S. I did not care who we retaliated against. I thought Afghanistan was the perfect place to start and wherever else was good as well.

You see, you asked me about feelings.

Don't forget, the Vietnam escalation by LBJ was based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That does not mean that what we did was wrong. The war was mismanaged and misreported by the liberal media but not wrong.

BHO and HC are not good for America. I would like to see them exiled to another country. That of course won't happen but that is how I feel.

Do you get the difference? Feelings, beliefs and fantasies, what does it all mean?

The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.


You can't compare world war victories to these police action wars where you had to fight with your hands tied. Given an open playbook I have no doubt the U.S. could win any war at this point. No saying that we should because an open playbook is a massacre for casualties. Throwing a 1/5 ratio out there is just stupid.

You think we could survive a full on, no holds barred, war with China?

We will eventually fight that fight... and the Chickenhawks will be all for it but again run and hide as they have in all the wars since 1945.

[normiss 801]

Never let facts confuse an internet argument.

[turtlespeed 221]

normiss

Never let facts confuse an internet argument.

Perhaps one should never forget to let feelings color their facts.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,027]

cvfd1399

Quote

You think we could survive a full on, no holds barred, war with China?

If the U.S. military was let loose, and the citizens contributed like they did back in the day to the war effort I believe we could even knowing how much in debt we are. I never underestimate what Americans can do when the shit hits the fan and its really on.

The only thing that would stop us is pussy footing around and hog tying by the left.

Yeah, that leftie Nixon sure messed up.

The USA has a fine record in wars between nation states, but a miserable record when interfering in other people's civil wars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

kallend

The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

airdvr

***
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

[airdvr 210]

SkyDekker

******
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You might prescribe to that notion.

I don't. Bush II may have though.

[Coreeece 2]

airdvr

*********
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption.

For a child back then, the assumption was much much greater than that...

Since then, I've learned not to put my faith in humanity.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,497]

airdvr

*********
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption.

Well... If you believe (and you do) that Saddam had an active and successful WMD program up to the start of Gulf2 and was giving WMD to nearby rogue states then surely the Gulf1 'mission' was fatally flawed from the start?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 210]

jakee

************
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption.

Well... If you believe (and you do) that Saddam had an active and successful WMD program up to the start of Gulf2 and was giving WMD to nearby rogue states then surely the Gulf1 'mission' was fatally flawed from the start?

What do you think the mission was in GW1?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[normiss 801]

Sales and profits?

[jakee 1,497]

airdvr

***************
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption.

Well... If you believe (and you do) that Saddam had an active and successful WMD program up to the start of Gulf2 and was giving WMD to nearby rogue states then surely the Gulf1 'mission' was fatally flawed from the start?

What do you think the mission was in GW1?

What do you think it was? If you think it was successful, and if you think Gulf 2 was justified, then clearly the Gulf 1 mission wasn't to deprive Saddam Hussein of WMD or WMD manufacturing capabilities. Which, again if you think Gulf 2 was justified, would be a rather large error.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 210]

I figured you didn't understand the UN mandate for GW1.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jakee 1,497]

airdvr

I figured you didn't understand the UN mandate for GW1.

Oh, so now UN mandates are important?

How things change in 10 years. First the UN matters and WMD don't, then WMD matter but the UN doesn't... and both make perfect sense and were completely correct.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 210]

jakee

***I figured you didn't understand the UN mandate for GW1.

Oh, so now UN mandates are important?

How things change in 10 years. First the UN matters and WMD don't, then WMD matter but the UN doesn't... and both make perfect sense and were completely correct.

Well the mandate was to get SH out of Kuwait. It had the added benefit of allowing the Bush 42 to take out SH if he used WMDs against us.

The threat posed by SH in 1991 was far different than the post 9/11 WMD threat.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Driver1 0]

airdvr

***************
The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well.

Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.

You might prescribe to that notion. I think it was handled extremely well and accomplished it's goals...right up to the point where we promised to support the Kurds and left them swinging. My only problem with GW1 was the ease with which we were able to complete the mission. I said then that people are going to think it will always be this easy and that would be a dangerous assumption.

Well... If you believe (and you do) that Saddam had an active and successful WMD program up to the start of Gulf2 and was giving WMD to nearby rogue states then surely the Gulf1 'mission' was fatally flawed from the start?

What do you think the mission was in GW1?

IIRC the stated mission of the first Gulf War was to get Iraq out of Kuwait and cut down their military in the process to make a point, I.E. don't do that stupid shit again. Goal accomplished, even though we had the opportunity to destroy the Republican Guard that was entrenched in Baghdad, we stopped short of that.

There still needed to be some kind of law and order and minimized chaos for Iraq, and unfortunately that meant leaving Saddam in charge.

If we'd overthrown him in the first war, the same shit that happened to Iraq after GW2 would have happened then too.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[billvon 2,995]

>That wasn't a two step, the WMD were there in 98 said Clinton, so answer me this
>where did they go.

They weren't there. And we could have verified that if we had finished the inspections; we were a few weeks away from verifying that. But Bush really, really wanted a war to fulfill the goals of the PNAC, and thus pushed up the schedule to ensure that inspections could not complete before the invasion.

(Now let's see if you can reply without using "but . . . but . . . a democrat said . . .")

[cvfd1399 0]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The fifth president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein,[1] was internationally condemned for his use of chemical weapons during the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. In the 1980s, Saddam pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.

After the Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[2] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003,[3] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4]

During the lead-up to war in 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take "but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[5] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[6][7][8]

Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[9] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War. Later U.S.-led inspections found out that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. The report also found that Iraq had worked to covertly maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted.[10]

[winsor 236]

billvon

>That wasn't a two step, the WMD were there in 98 said Clinton, so answer me this
>where did they go.

They weren't there. And we could have verified that if we had finished the inspections; we were a few weeks away from verifying that. But Bush really, really wanted a war to fulfill the goals of the PNAC, and thus pushed up the schedule to ensure that inspections could not complete before the invasion.

(Now let's see if you can reply without using "but . . . but . . . a democrat said . . .")

The issue that appeared to seal Iraq's fate, from an article I read before we decided that invasion was necessary, was that Iraq was floating the possibility of using Euros instead of U.S. Dollars to trade oil.

The U.S. Dollar has been the only currency with sufficient economic mass to accommodate the worldwide trade in oil, which allowed us to live the high life on credit for a generation.

If there was no longer a compelling reason for the world to shore up the value of the greenback, we might be forced to live within our means for once - which is entirely unacceptable.

That sonofabitch Saddam Hussein had the temerity to threaten us with the prospect of paying our debts. For that, he had to die. The fact that thousands of other people also had to die, and many countries were destabilized, was totally justifiable collateral damage. It wasn't our fault, he made us do it.

The fact that Bush the Younger got to finish what his dad started made it just that much better.

Why they wasted the breath with the WMD nonsense escapes me. We invaded Iraq for the same reason a dog licks his balls - because we could.


BSBD,

Winsor

[cvfd1399 0]

I don't buy the US invaded Iraq, or protected Kuwait over oil story Mr. Winsor. The U.S. only imports about 7% of our total 3.3 million barrel annual imports into US from IRAQ, and Kuwait combined.

[winsor 236]

cvfd1399

I don't buy the US invaded Iraq, or protected Kuwait over oil story Mr. Winsor. The U.S. only imports about 7% of our total 3.3 million barrel annual imports into US from IRAQ, and Kuwait combined.

Pay attention - I did not say it was about oil, I said the claim was that it was about the value of the dollar.

The dollar is fiat currency - it is backed by nothing. In fact, every dollar in the treasury is borrowed from private banks that create it out of thin air. The gov't 'borrows' money from the Federal Reserve, which is a consortium of private banks, and issues currency based on the 'loan.' It's kind of like Schroedinger's cat in that the banks loan money simply by making an entry in a ledger, and there is no money in the first place.

If oil was no longer traded in dollars, there would be a tendency for the dollar to revert to its inherent value - which is zero. That would be bad, m'kay?


BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,497]

airdvr

The threat posed by SH in 1991 was far different than the post 9/11 WMD threat.

Exactly. In 1991 he had chemical weapons, the ability to use them, and an aggressive foreign policy. He was a threat.

In '03... nah.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Exactly. In 1991 he had chemical weapons, the ability to use them, and an aggressive foreign policy. He was a threat.

In '03... nah.

Where did they go, and who got VERIFIED evidence they were all destroyed?

[cvfd1399 0]

winsor

***I don't buy the US invaded Iraq, or protected Kuwait over oil story Mr. Winsor. The U.S. only imports about 7% of our total 3.3 million barrel annual imports into US from IRAQ, and Kuwait combined.

Pay attention - I did not say it was about oil, I said the claim was that it was about the value of the dollar.

The dollar is fiat currency - it is backed by nothing. In fact, every dollar in the treasury is borrowed from private banks that create it out of thin air. The gov't 'borrows' money from the Federal Reserve, which is a consortium of private banks, and issues currency based on the 'loan.' It's kind of like Schroedinger's cat in that the banks loan money simply by making an entry in a ledger, and there is no money in the first place.

If oil was no longer traded in dollars, there would be a tendency for the dollar to revert to its inherent value - which is zero. That would be bad, m'kay?


BSBD,

Winsor

My apologies I did not phrase my reply right. I was not replying to that particular subject but was soliciting your thoughts on the often used phrase "bush(s) went to war for oil" when in fact only ~3.5% annual imported oil comes to the US from Iraq, and about 3.5% comes from Kuwait.