Hugo Chavez: Glaring example of Socialist FAIL!

[Cancel 2020.1]

Your Koolaid inspired view of history is your view....thats ok with me.....I'll deal with the facts of history and the way I explained events is accurate....even though
I didn't go into the details and finer points......Clinton's words and the words of most high profile Democrats are written in stone for history....nothing will
change those words about Saddam's Iraq, WMD and wanting his removal from power....his lack of backbone can be debated and will be for some time to come.

The mistakes or appearance of mistakes in the conduct of the war will also be debated....as they are in all the wars that were ever fought.....
"Monday morning quarterbacking" is common in this country ..... often done by those that can't and have never played the game, or in the case of war, those
with the least knowledge of what real war entails or how to conduct one that kills and cripples real people....people like you make great "Monday morning quarterbacks"

I have not revised anything about history. You talk about "words" - none of those "words" called for invasion.

I'm talking about actions, and the one Bush & Bush alone decided to take in invading Iraq. And there won't be any debate about that one. As I said, Bush's war was a fiasco; no one disputes that. It was a momentous foreign policy blunder - and it's all on him, and his supporters who cheerleaded it every step of the way.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How much money does Bill Clinton have after only 8 years in the WH?

Not a billion dollars. Nowhere close. But you are comparing an evil greedy "capitalist" system to the glorious Socialist system which promises wealth equality. I imagine the people of Venezuela ARE better off than before Chavez, he was a billionaire, so that means the average Joe in Venezuela must also be a billionaire, right? I mean, I am sure there is no disparity between rich and poor, not under the wonderful Socialist plan, that can't happen. Yeah, those folks must be doing very well.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have not revised anything about history. You talk about "words" - none of those "words" called for invasion.

I'm talking about actions, and the one Bush & Bush alone decided to take in invading Iraq. And there won't be any debate about that one. As I said, Bush's war was a fiasco; no one disputes that. It was a momentous foreign policy blunder - and it's all on him, and his supporters who cheerleaded it every step of the way.

Look retard, we invaded Iraq. We did so after Congress authorized us to use military force. No matter what we do, we can't undo this. The man who was president, isn't going to ever run for office again, so it is pointless to criticize his actions now. We have a new president, he has already served his first term. During this term, he has chosen send drones into three more sovereign nations, but you have't uttered a peep about that. He has chosen to leave Gitmo open, in spite of his promise to close it. He has expanded the Patriot Act and Bush Doctrine, and more soldiers have died in Afghanistan under his watch than Bush.

This thread is not about the Iraq War. We aren't arguing for or against the Iraq war anymore, haven't been for nearly 5 years. Half a decade ago, this was a topic we may have discussed and debated, but we had already done that for the previous 8 years. So what is it you want to do? Spend the rest of your natural life debating Iraq and bashing Bush for it? What is the point? And why can't you start another thread, and leave this one for the topic posted in the OP? Are you so fucking retarded and out of touch with reality that you don't realize what you're doing?

 

[Phantasmal]

Poor Darla.....I'll bet your blond, huh ?....

What the hell? Jeebus, could you be anymore of a stereotype?

 

[NOVA]

I have not revised anything about history. You talk about "words" - none of those "words" called for invasion.

I'm talking about actions, and the one Bush & Bush alone decided to take in invading Iraq. And there won't be any debate about that one. As I said, Bush's war was a fiasco; no one disputes that. It was a momentous foreign policy blunder - and it's all on him, and his supporters who cheerleaded it every step of the way.

You're like little child, all hung up on the word invasion.....invasion is a method, a method of war....Suppose Bush choose carpet bombing instead or tactical nukes or
Bio. or Chem. warfare.....wtf's the problem with you....he choose to invade with troops, a standard method of war.....what the fuck difference does it make

The agreed to WAR RESOLUTION allowed for the use of armed forces against Iraq....what the fuck possible difference does it make what methods
our military agreed to use......or in what order they used them.....are you some kind of fuckin' armchair general too.....

Did you have a problem with the concrete bombs used instead of the real thing ?
Should we have blown up more bridges, killed more civilians instead of just bombing Saddams palaces....?
You know nothing of how a war is fought, how plans are made, what munitions to use, etc., you only a big mouth know nothing asshole.....

The generals that made the plan, picked the targets, timed the use of ground forces, KNEW what they wanted to accomplish and how to do it and thats what they did

In less than 3 weeks, Saddams Republican Guard, along with his regular army was put out of business with hardly any causalities on the coalition side.....
The invasion was a total success.....total....The "war" lasted 3 weeks and we won without breaking into a sweat.....

You want to bitch about a total blunder and disaster, read up on the Vietnam War.....maybe you can get what occured in Iraq into a more realistic perspective.

 

[Phantasmal]

I can't agree with that BAC.....politics, like everything else, is relative....it all depends on who you're comparing someone to....

In US politics, Clinton is a lefty....that doesn't mean hes like Chairman Mao or bin Laden......the lines separating left and right in the US are driven by issues....the seperation
is not so much on the outcomes but more on the methods used to arrive at those outcomes....

The Iraq WAR is a different issue....Clinton supported ousting Saddam, removing him from power, accused him of possessing WMD stockpiles, supporting anti-American
terrorism, etc.....he just didn't have the balls to do it with US military force.....though I'll bet he could have gotten something like the War Resolution passed in the 90's....

then along came Pres. Bush.....feeling absolutely the same way as Clinton.....and because of the WTC attack and US tempers running high, he thought he could
get the Congress to give him the go ahead to actually do it. They did and he did....it wouldn't have happened without support from the left.

Clinton did use military force in Iraq, he was bombing the no fly zone and anything that looked like mobile missiles. Clinton just didn't occupy Iraq with troops.

 

[Phantasmal]

You know, I'll be honest with you bravo on account of your showing an interest in my looks I'm just set afluttering so I'm gonna tell you something. I been thinking on streaking my hair since spring is a coming and I'm going to be wearing my new Easter dress soon and all, but now that you told me you frown on that, I am not going to do it! I hope you will be posting some more of your tips on how to attract your attention for us ladies. I'm gonna copy and paste this one in case christie or rana miss it!

I sure hope it isn't one of those Sandra Fluke slut dresses. I am going on vacation on the 22nd and I found a very conservative sliver mesh dress that I knew Bravo would approve. It isn't a mini, and it covers all my girl parts.

 

[NOVA]

Clinton did use military force in Iraq, he was bombing the no fly zone and anything that looked like mobile missiles. Clinton just didn't occupy Iraq with troops.

Well, tell it like it is......Clinton was already at war in Iraq, using the methods he and his generals choose to use......WITHOUT any authorization from the US Congress,
just on his orders, his terms, like a dictator, not giving a shit what the country, our citizens, or their elected representatives thought about the situation....

don't beat around the bush ...... tell the hard truth of the matter......the war was limited, but it was nonetheless, WAR.


He was a draft dodger and I don't think he had it in him to put ground troops in harms way for that reason.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Look retard, we invaded Iraq. We did so after Congress authorized us to use military force. No matter what we do, we can't undo this. The man who was president, isn't going to ever run for office again, so it is pointless to criticize his actions now. We have a new president, he has already served his first term. During this term, he has chosen send drones into three more sovereign nations, but you have't uttered a peep about that. He has chosen to leave Gitmo open, in spite of his promise to close it. He has expanded the Patriot Act and Bush Doctrine, and more soldiers have died in Afghanistan under his watch than Bush.

This thread is not about the Iraq War. We aren't arguing for or against the Iraq war anymore, haven't been for nearly 5 years. Half a decade ago, this was a topic we may have discussed and debated, but we had already done that for the previous 8 years. So what is it you want to do? Spend the rest of your natural life debating Iraq and bashing Bush for it? What is the point? And why can't you start another thread, and leave this one for the topic posted in the OP? Are you so fucking retarded and out of touch with reality that you don't realize what you're doing?

I didn't bring up Iraq on this thread, Dix.

But I love how sensitive you are about the topic now. "Greatest military achievement of our generation" - remember that one?

Fool.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Gradates from higher education under Chavez

Venezuelans Receiving Pensions

Child Malnutrition- Age 5 and Under

Education: Net Enrollment

Aww how sweet. You have gone all Kenny on us with the pretty pictures

still nothing on him amassing a huge fortune?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Clinton did use military force in Iraq, he was bombing the no fly zone and anything that looked like mobile missiles. Clinton just didn't occupy Iraq with troops.

So does that mean Clinton did or didn't lie about Saddams WMD?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

WOW we finally found someone BAC loves and defends like Jarod defends Obama

Look at that. bAC is just as much a boot licking toady as Jarod

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I sure hope it isn't one of those Sandra Fluke slut dresses. I am going on vacation on the 22nd and I found a very conservative sliver mesh dress that I knew Bravo would approve. It isn't a mini, and it covers all my girl parts.

Rana this is hilarious - a Sandra Fluke slut dress! Sounds like it came straight out of Bravo's Beauty Report!

Edit to say; upon reflection, just how conservative can a silver mesh dress be? This does not sound entirely on the up and up Rana! I think you are trying to sneak a fluke by us!

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I didn't bring up Iraq on this thread, Dix.

But I love how sensitive you are about the topic now. "Greatest military achievement of our generation" - remember that one?

Fool.

Did Dixie say that? LOL Well it kind of makes me wonder - what is the greatest military achievement of our generation? And which generation? You could cut out the Boomers because they are still busy arguing over Vietnam...or not. I wonder what people believe the greatest military achievement of our generation is?

 

[Airstrip One]

Probably the Persian Gulf War. Desert Storm was executed successfully, we achieved all of the objectives, and we didn't have to worry about a successful occupation, because we chose not to oust Saddam and occupy the country. All other military campaigns have either been too small (Granada, Panama, etc.) or they were not done well as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

I love how Bush Sr. had an awesome record on military actions and Bush Jr. an abysmal record. Apparently, father didn't teach son much about tactics and strategy (or speech patterns, for that matter).

 

[Lowaicue]

WOW we finally found someone BAC loves and defends like Jarod defends Obama

Look at that. bAC is just as much a boot licking toady as Jarod

Just as a matter of interest, the Koch Brothers net worth is approx 31 billion dollars. The Chavez family are accused of having 2 billion.
How have the Koch Brothers improved the lot of poor Americans? How much of their fortune is being invested in the education of young Americans, in the pensions of aging Americans. How much tax are they paying to support the infrastructure that there companies take advantage of? How about Bush baby? What good did he ever do for the poor and disadvantaged? Did he never lie?
Glass houses, methinks.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't bring up Iraq on this thread, Dix.

But I love how sensitive you are about the topic now. "Greatest military achievement of our generation" - remember that one?

Fool.

That's not what I said, but I love how you need to throw out red herrings to divert the thread topic. To watch a barking seal throw red herrings, is funny. What I said, for the record, is that Iraq will one day be viewed as the most important military accomplishment of our time. I said it would be 50 years or so, before this is acknowledged. Has it been 50 years? So why don't you go and find something else I've said in the past, which is totally unrelated to the threat topic, and present it out of context, so you can keep diverting the thread and avoiding the topic?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just as a matter of interest, the Koch Brothers net worth is approx 31 billion dollars. The Chavez family are accused of having 2 billion.
How have the Koch Brothers improved the lot of poor Americans? How much of their fortune is being invested in the education of young Americans, in the pensions of aging Americans. How much tax are they paying to support the infrastructure that there companies take advantage of? How about Bush baby? What good did he ever do for the poor and disadvantaged? Did he never lie?
Glass houses, methinks.

Again, you are comparing evil greedy capitalists with fair-minded, caring and loving socialists. The capitalists are supposed to have money, that's what capitalists do. The socialist should have been 'spreading his wealth' and sharing equally among all citizens, but obviously wasn't doing that, because he died with a billion dollars. You see, a capitalist goes out there and finds a way to make money in the capitalist free market. That's where consumers willingly pay for products and services and supply/demand determines cost. Socialists like Chavez, earn a billion dollars, even though they never sold a product or met a demand for supply, and we really don't know where the wealth came from, but it certainly wasn't being shared equally with everyone.

The Capitalist system allows ANY person to be as wealthy as the Koch Brothers. The Socialist system prohibits it, UNLESS you belong to the Ruling Class, then you can amass as much fortune as your greedy fingers can pilfer from your subjects. Then when you die, your buttmunch Socialist cheerleaders can go out there and compare the wealth you stole from your people with a capitalist who earned his wealth participating in free market capitalism.

 

[Lowaicue]

Again, you are comparing evil greedy capitalists with fair-minded, caring and loving socialists. The capitalists are supposed to have money, that's what capitalists do. The socialist should have been 'spreading his wealth' and sharing equally among all citizens, but obviously wasn't doing that, because he died with a billion dollars. You see, a capitalist goes out there and finds a way to make money in the capitalist free market. That's where consumers willingly pay for products and services and supply/demand determines cost. Socialists like Chavez, earn a billion dollars, even though they never sold a product or met a demand for supply, and we really don't know where the wealth came from, but it certainly wasn't being shared equally with everyone.

The Capitalist system allows ANY person to be as wealthy as the Koch Brothers. The Socialist system prohibits it, UNLESS you belong to the Ruling Class, then you can amass as much fortune as your greedy fingers can pilfer from your subjects. Then when you die, your buttmunch Socialist cheerleaders can go out there and compare the wealth you stole from your people with a capitalist who earned his wealth participating in free market capitalism.

Well, that is one view point.
There is no law stating that socialists should not improve their lot. The rule is that those on the bottom of the heap be given a fair crack. To me that is human decency which, indeed, seldom works. That doesn't prevent it from being an aim.
What capitalists do and why is well understood by both socialists and capitalists. What socialists do is understood by socialists and usually willfully misunderstood by capitalists who are frightened to death that people will one day come to their senses and demand the answers that capitalists work so hard to keep hidden.
Imagine if the Koch brothers took just one lousy billion dollars and donated it to a state government for the sole purpose of creating jobs. Jobs that the Koch-ups had no control nor interest in. They would still have 30 billion! Suppose they took a leaf out of Gates' book and set up apolitical trusts for the betterment of humanity. They could give 30Billion and still have $1,000,000,000 left. Surely enough for any brothers?
Of course they would have to have their revolting greed and political views surgically removed, but there would be a queue of volunteers with scalpels at the ready.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, that is one view point.
There is no law stating that socialists should not improve their lot. The rule is that those on the bottom of the heap be given a fair crack. To me that is human decency which, indeed, seldom works. That doesn't prevent it from being an aim.
What capitalists do and why is well understood by both socialists and capitalists. What socialists do is understood by socialists and usually willfully misunderstood by capitalists who are frightened to death that people will one day come to their senses and demand the answers that capitalists work so hard to keep hidden.
Imagine if the Koch brothers took just one lousy billion dollars and donated it to a state government for the sole purpose of creating jobs. Jobs that the Koch-ups had no control nor interest in. They would still have 30 billion! Suppose they took a leaf out of Gates' book and set up apolitical trusts for the betterment of humanity. They could give 30Billion and still have $1,000,000,000 left. Surely enough for any brothers?
Of course they would have to have their revolting greed and political views surgically removed, but there would be a queue of volunteers with scalpels at the ready.

What prevented Chavez from giving his billion dollars to the state government? Aren't Socialist supposed to believe in wealth redistribution and everyone shares an equal piece of the pie? Isn't that the big selling point over Capitalism? We know Chavez didn't earn his wealth through capitalism, he never had a real job. So where did this wealth come from, in a system which promises fairness and equality of wealth?

The point here, is to illustrate how your viewpoint on Utopianism is a foolish fantasy and a dream mankind will never realize. Socialist systems FAIL, every single time they are tried. Inevitably, you have graft and corruption from the Ruling Class, who control ALL the wealth and power. This is why Chavez died with a billion dollars, after a life of never working to earn a dime in a capitalist enterprise. As much as you love trying to make this about the Koch brothers, they didn't earn their wealth by stealing it from people.