No Reward for Being Right on Iraq

Rana said:
Dixie, more words dont make your opinions more valid. Lol
Click to expand...

I love how Dixie can post the most ridiculous stuff at the most inopportune times. Particulary when, just today, it was announced that the Bush library would have an interactive feature highlighting options regarding his own decisions. Among them:

Invade Iraq or leave Saddam Hussein in power?

 
Dixie said:
Ahh... can't prove it wrong so you claim it's bullshit... you never change! Perhaps you can explain why Iraq, who has every other kind of Muslim, didn't seem to have many 'Arab Spring' type Muslims?
Click to expand...

perhaps you can provide some proof that the Iraqis who were opposed to our invasion and conquest of their country are "mostly dead now"?

we know, of course, that you can't... and that it is another in an endless line of your trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
 
Rana said:
Dixie, more words dont make your opinions more valid. Lol
Click to expand...

Yes, I know... some of us don't have shit that stinks, and can literally proclaim things to be "bullshit" without another word! But most of us who don't have this self-righteous view of ourselves, feel compelled to explain our positions to others.
 
maineman said:
perhaps you can provide some proof that the Iraqis who were opposed to our invasion and conquest of their country are "mostly dead now"?

we know, of course, that you can't... and that it is another in an endless line of your trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
Click to expand...

I was speculating, due to their curious absence in Iraq for Arab Spring. Can you provide any proof that I am incorrect?
 
maineman said:
and as we know... republican support for Bush's war was nearly unanimous. However, a majority of democrats in congress voted against the measure.

That history cannot be unwritten either.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, enough Democrats supported it to make it NOT Bush's War. You see, to be "Bush's War" it needs to be something Bush did all on his own, without the blessing of Congress, and that didn't happen, history is clear on this.
 
maineman said:
democrats were certainly doing more than just TALK about OBL and AQ... Clinton actually was conducting predator drone surveillance of him (Condi stopped that) and Clinton actually launched a missile strike to try and kill him.

Bush? He played golf and worried about star wars and porn.
Click to expand...



Yet all they could talk about was Saddam and WMD....even in 2002, after 9/11......

Maybe Clinton should have been watching our borders for terrorists instead of practicing voyeurism on OBL...
Oh yeah, the missile strike in 98.....yeah, yeah....we certainly do remember the Monica Lewinsky issue....
Clinton didn't miss OBL by a few feet, he missed by a few HOURS....

And Bush missed him at Tora Bora....

Remember this...?
The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to try to get bin Laden, dangling a monetary reward, all of which was approved by Clinton – but there were differing understandings as to whether they were authorized to kill him or had to capture him alive. A new Memorandum of Notification, a document spelling out what the agency was and wasn't allowed to do with respect to bin Laden, was drawn up in late 1998 that contained stronger language than earlier memorandums about when the tribal groups could use lethal force, according to the 9/11 Report. Previously, killing bin Laden was authorized only in self-defense during a capture operation. In the new document, it was permitted if capture wasn't considered feasible. However, subsequent memorandums reverted to earlier language, though the reasons for that are unclear. This helps explain why, according to the Report, "former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill bin Laden." (pgs. 131-133) 9/11 Commission Report


Oh,,,and the golf and porn was a nice touch....lame, irrelevant and childish, but then, thats you.
 
Dixie said:
I was speculating, due to their curious absence in Iraq for Arab Spring. Can you provide any proof that I am incorrect?
Click to expand...

can I disprove a spurious speculation? WHy would I even care to. Can you disprove my speculation that we will be able to turn bullshit into apple pie in the future? Of course you can't....

but just for the record, I happen to believe that Iraqis are divided in their faith, for one thing, and that division has created a simmering climate of violence and distrust that would make an arab spring sort of unified uprising impossible.
 
Dixie said:
Doesn't matter, enough Democrats supported it to make it NOT Bush's War. You see, to be "Bush's War" it needs to be something Bush did all on his own, without the blessing of Congress, and that didn't happen, history is clear on this.
Click to expand...

That's a pathetic rewrite of history.

Nothing about that resolution mandated war. Nothing about it forced Bush to act, or to call for invasion.

All of that was his call. You can stomp your feet about it all you want, but he made the decsion - ergo, it is his war. It was never anything but.

And even Bush himself has acknowledged that, many times. I am always fascinated when his koolaid-drenched apologists make arguments that even he doesn't try.
 
Dixie said:
In other words, he should brainwash himself like you have?

I find this thread hilarious, the left has now determined it FACT that can't be disputed, that Iraq was a mistake and failure of GWB. Apparently, this is centered around Obama winning the election of 2008 over McCain. To the left, this has just become conventional wisdom, Iraq was a mistake, a Bush fuck up, we should have never gone, it should have never happened... like Vietnam.

But the REALITY is... Iraq is a functioning western-style democracy, the first in the Arab world... EVER! A western-style democracy is one in which "the people" control their destiny at the ballot box, as opposed to being subjugated by a tyrant ruler and oppressed. Almost 27 million people in Iraq are now free to govern themselves, and 70% of them routinely participate in this process. Twelve million women in Iraq, are now free to vote and get an education, again... a FIRST in the Arab world. These people have transitioned and embraced freedom resoundingly.

Did anyone notice the Glorious "Arab Spring" never made it's way to Iraq? Isn't that curious? It was all around them, every country experienced the uprising, why was it not in Iraq? Any answers, lefties? Nope... you don't have a clue, as usual!

It's because the ISF nipped that shit in the bud before it got started in Iraq. These people have NO intention of giving up their newfound freedom to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now why is this? Iraqis are pretty Muslim for the most part, so why wasn't the Arab Spring a big deal to them? Well, mostly because the radicalized Muslims who are behind the Arab Spring, are the same Muslims who comprised the "insurgency" in Iraq, and they are mostly dead now. But it's also because Iraq was secular under Saddam, and there wasn't the widespread 'radicalized' teachings happening there, like has happened in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. So the people of Iraq are much more open to western culture and modern worldview.

From a purely philosophical perspective, how do you change the principles and teachings of an ideology? Not at the tip of a bayonet, you've all argued this yourselves, so you know that's not how to do it. The way you defeat an ideology is with a better ideology. This is where the idea comes, that we defeat radical Islamists with western-style democracy and freedom. Now, if you have to pick a place in the middle east, in which to attempt to plant such a seed, it has to be Iraq. After all, it is admittedly a hodgepodge of differing ideology, clashing religious tribes, various ethnic diversity, and this is where western-style democracy works the best. They weren't yet 'radicalized' but they were soon to be, because Osama Bin Laden had told his associates, this was the plan. It's what the insurgency was all about. So without the radicalization, and with the wide range of diversity, the Iraqi people have embraced this system of western-style democracy, and it's working ten years later.

I've made this statement before, and some have even ridiculed me for it, but I will continue to make it: IN 50 YEARS, the Iraq War will be viewed as the most important military accomplishment of our generation. There will always be the mention of how unpopular the war was at the time, how many in this country were completely opposed... (we interestingly find the same thing regarding WWII, go look up what Joseph Kennedy had to say about it.) But the results of having planted the seeds of freedom, which will ultimately prevail over tyranny, will not go unnoticed by future historians, and Bush will be exonerated.
Click to expand...
Dickise, at your convenience do on search on how many bombs have gone off in Iraq since we "freed" them. Between 2003 and 2011 there were 18 bombings alone that have killed more than 100 people each. Those are just the major bombings that killed civilians in Iraq. August 14, 2007, the Yazidi communities bombings took place killing 796 and injuring 1562. I know of NO OTHER functioning western style democracy where almost 5 million people are considered displaces refugees, with 2.7 million refugees still living in the country where they are from. And lets not forget your very own blue jeaned hero who said on January 7, 2007, "80% of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis." That is some thriving democracy they got there Dixie. I would suggest you write an article on how successful it is, submit it for publication in a political science journal that is peer reviewed, and lets us read your correspondence with those journals afterward so we can all have a good laugh.
 
Socrtease said:
Dickise, at your convenience do on search on how many bombs have gone off in Iraq since we "freed" them. Between 2003 and 2011 there were 18 bombings alone that have killed more than 100 people each. Those are just the major bombings that killed civilians in Iraq. August 14, 2007, the Yazidi communities bombings took place killing 796 and injuring 1562. I know of NO OTHER functioning western style democracy where almost 5 million people are considered displaces refugees, with 2.7 million refugees still living in the country where they are from. And lets not forget your very own blue jeaned hero who said on January 7, 2007, "80% of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis." That is some thriving democracy they got there Dixie. I would suggest you write an article on how successful it is, submit it for publication in a political science journal that is peer reviewed, and lets us read your correspondence with those journals afterward so we can all have a good laugh.
Click to expand...

Excellent idea!
 
maineman said:
can I disprove a spurious speculation? WHy would I even care to. Can you disprove my speculation that we will be able to turn bullshit into apple pie in the future? Of course you can't....

but just for the record, I happen to believe that Iraqis are divided in their faith, for one thing, and that division has created a simmering climate of violence and distrust that would make an arab spring sort of unified uprising impossible.
Click to expand...

Well when you post 5-6 paragraphs explaining why you believe we will be able to turn bullshit into apple pie in 50 years, I will be glad to take apart your arguments one by one, but as of yet, you haven't presented an argument.

I happen to believe AMERICANS are divided in their faith as well, and we have simmering climates of violence in almost every major city, and distrust in government is at a record high. Still... we embrace freedom and democracy for all. In fact, it is our DIVERSITY that is our biggest strength, and so shall be the case for Iraq. Thanks for pointing out that important detail!!
 
maineman said:
can I disprove a spurious speculation? WHy would I even care to. Can you disprove my speculation that we will be able to turn bullshit into apple pie in the future? Of course you can't....

but just for the record, I happen to believe that Iraqis are divided in their faith, for one thing, and that division has created a simmering climate of violence and distrust that would make an arab spring sort of unified uprising impossible.
Click to expand...

By the way you parrot DNC talking points, I 'd guess the bullshit/apple pie thing is a given...for you anyway.
 
Thing1 said:
That's a pathetic rewrite of history.

Nothing about that resolution mandated war. Nothing about it forced Bush to act, or to call for invasion.

All of that was his call. You can stomp your feet about it all you want, but he made the decsion - ergo, it is his war. It was never anything but.

And even Bush himself has acknowledged that, many times. I am always fascinated when his koolaid-drenched apologists make arguments that even he doesn't try.
Click to expand...


Yet its called a WAR RESOLUTION....Authorization to use US military force....

Of course the decision was made....why else ask congress for the authorization....thats the whole fucking point a moron like you can't grasp....
NO authorization.....NO WAR....it IS that simple.....
 
Socrtease said:
Dickise, at your convenience do on search on how many bombs have gone off in Iraq since we "freed" them.
Click to expand...

There is no need to put "freed" in quotes, we literally freed them from tyranny and helped them establish the first democracy in the Arab world. It does not matter how many bombs went off... does the bombing in Boston have anything to do with Americans embracing freedom? Does it have anything to do with Americans being dissatisfied with the system of government? How about the bombings that rock Israel each day, are these because the Israelis don't want to be free?

This is just an absurd emotive standard you've set, because you are a liberal.... must attack Bush... must attack Iraq....

You know... here's the thing, the Iraqis have been battling people now for 10 years, who are FAR more committed to wrecking their freedom and liberty than liberals, and they have managed to prevail. If the Right had been as successful against the Left over the past 10 years, you would be looking for a hole to hide in.
 
Dixie said:
There is no need to put "freed" in quotes, we literally freed them from tyranny and helped them establish the first democracy in the Arab world. It does not matter how many bombs went off... does the bombing in Boston have anything to do with Americans embracing freedom? Does it have anything to do with Americans being dissatisfied with the system of government? How about the bombings that rock Israel each day, are these because the Israelis don't want to be free?

This is just an absurd emotive standard you've set, because you are a liberal.... must attack Bush... must attack Iraq....

You know... here's the thing, the Iraqis have been battling people now for 10 years, who are FAR more committed to wrecking their freedom and liberty than liberals, and they have managed to prevail. If the Right had been as successful against the Left over the past 10 years, you would be looking for a hole to hide in.
Click to expand...

The people of Iraq are in no better shape than they were ten years ago. The only difference is there was a different dictator in power and the population of the nation was about 300,000 greater.
 
for Dixie to attempt to equate the naturally occurring religious diversity that exists in America with the forced cohabitation of sunnis and shiites within the borders of the european constructed "nation" of Iraq is pretty lame. For Dixie to suggest that there is simmering "violence" between American religious organizations that, in any way, mirrors the ongoing slaughter that defines everyday Iraq is reprehensible.
 
Thing1 said:
That's a pathetic rewrite of history.

Nothing about that resolution mandated war. Nothing about it forced Bush to act, or to call for invasion.

All of that was his call. You can stomp your feet about it all you want, but he made the decsion - ergo, it is his war. It was never anything but.

And even Bush himself has acknowledged that, many times. I am always fascinated when his koolaid-drenched apologists make arguments that even he doesn't try.
Click to expand...

The idiot's actually proud of his record.

"Former US President George W. Bush still reflects proudly on his presidency and maintains that the choices he made were good political decisions – despite the fact that he led the US into a drawn-out war in Iraq based on false pretenses.

In an exclusive interview with the Dallas Morning News this week, Bush said he is not interested in “finger pointing” or “self-pity” regarding policies and political decisions made during his time in the White House, but also noted that his presidency was largely shaped by unexpected and disastrous events, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

As for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the former president said he is “confident the decisions were made the right way.”

“I’m comfortable with what I did,” Bush said while reflecting on the legacy he left behind as president. “I’m comfortable with who I am.”

http://rt.com/usa/bush-right-iraq-war-905/
 
NOVA said:
Yet its called a WAR RESOLUTION....Authorization to use US military force....

Of course the decision was made....why else ask congress for the authorization....thats the whole fucking point a moron like you can't grasp....
NO authorization.....NO WAR....it IS that simple.....
Click to expand...

I love hearing your idiocy on this.

NOTHING was inevitable after that resolution; it mandated NOTHING.

You've had so much koolaid that you're drunk on it. It's amazing the lengths you will go to in order to avoid giving Bush accountability.

It was Bush's decision. No rational citizen (including Bush himself) denies that. It was HIS WAR.

Deal with it, apologist.
 
christiefan915 said:
The idiot's actually proud of his record.

"Former US President George W. Bush still reflects proudly on his presidency and maintains that the choices he made were good political decisions – despite the fact that he led the US into a drawn-out war in Iraq based on false pretenses.

In an exclusive interview with the Dallas Morning News this week, Bush said he is not interested in “finger pointing” or “self-pity” regarding policies and political decisions made during his time in the White House, but also noted that his presidency was largely shaped by unexpected and disastrous events, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

As for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the former president said he is “confident the decisions were made the right way.”

“I’m comfortable with what I did,” Bush said while reflecting on the legacy he left behind as president. “I’m comfortable with who I am.”

http://rt.com/usa/bush-right-iraq-war-905/
Click to expand...

He's unbelievable.

Can't believe he was a 2-termer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top