Worst president of all time? Worse than bush the lesser even??

Thing1 said:
For anyone still in doubt, the lesson from Iraq is this: war is a last resort, and only when there is an immediate threat to homeland security.

We don't go to war when there are other options on the table. We don't go to war to try to "reshape a region." We don't go to war when there is no direct threat to our security.

Iraq was a textbook case of why war should ONLY be a last resort. We went from Cheney's "6 months" to 10+ years. When you go to war, you open a Pandora's Box of possibilities.
Click to expand...

let me understand who I may be entering a conversation with here.
So you're saying we didn't exhaust "other options" before going into Iraq to verify the man didn't STILL have his WMD's?

before you answer that you're welcome to google the chronology leading up to.
OR
you can bloviate and we can not discuss
 
Getin the ring said:
let me understand who I may be entering a conversation with here.
So you're saying we didn't exhaust "other options" before going into Iraq to verify the man didn't STILL have his WMD's?

before you answer that you're welcome to google the chronology leading up to.
OR
you can bloviate and we can not discuss
Click to expand...

The best option was to keep Hussain in the box he was in.
 
Althea said:
The rust belt fell for 'much better insurance, at a fraction of the cost'....and 'we're going to bring the jobs back to this country'.

The rust belt isn't going to rebound under this POTUS, who doesn't even use American made steel in his projects. Stupid as they are, they will still realize they've been duped.

Remember...it was Independents who went from Bernie to trump that gave him the rust belt. He's going to lose the corn belt when he undoes NAFTA
Click to expand...

And they are going to leave Trump for what, exactly lol?
 
Thing1 said:
"Hearts & minds."

What a twisted strategy that would have been. Completely counter-productive to any goal we could possibly have, stated or unstated.

You should refrain from discussions on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Really and how has that "hearts and minds" thing worked out?

I give you Exhibit A, Japan. We crushed them with the nuclear bomb. We killed civilians. They have been passive ever since.

Ours is a world governed by the use of force. It has been that way since the dawn of time and will not change.
 
Getin the ring said:
let me understand who I may be entering a conversation with here.
So you're saying we didn't exhaust "other options" before going into Iraq to verify the man didn't STILL have his WMD's?

before you answer that you're welcome to google the chronology leading up to.
OR
you can bloviate and we can not discuss
Click to expand...

Saddam wasn't even a threat to his direct neighbors - there was never a compelling case that he was a direct threat to U.S. security. And yeah - we had other options to verify WMD's. They were called "inspections," and they were working.

Are you trying to argue that invasion was justified - a 10-year war just to "confirm" that there were NO WMD's? That's actually sort of crazy. What a careless attitude toward our military.
 
Thing1 said:
For anyone still in doubt, the lesson from Iraq is this: war is a last resort, and only when there is an immediate threat to homeland security.

We don't go to war when there are other options on the table. We don't go to war to try to "reshape a region." We don't go to war when there is no direct threat to our security.

Iraq was a textbook case of why war should ONLY be a last resort. We went from Cheney's "6 months" to 10+ years. When you go to war, you open a Pandora's Box of possibilities.
Click to expand...

How cute

Define the "immediate threat". Be specific.

Also I love how you claim we don't go to war to reshape a region

Bosnia?
Libya?
Syria?

Should I go on?

You live in a fantasy land. You cry about N Korea getting nukes yet you don't want to do what it takes to rid them.

Me? I don't give a flying fuck if they have them. I just want us to have more and most importantly not be afraid to use them.

I know that offends your delicate sensibilities as you are a wall flower easily frazzled
 
I Love America said:
Really and how has that "hearts and minds" thing worked out?

I give you Exhibit A, Japan. We crushed them with the nuclear bomb. We killed civilians. They have been passive ever since.

Ours is a world governed by the use of force. It has been that way since the dawn of time and will not change.
Click to expand...

None of the losing countries in WWII ever became relevant militarily again. The nuke had nothing to do w/ it.

If you want to keep up an antagonistic relationship w/ that region, we'll get what we've been getting. How is THAT working out for you?

Remember...we were there to "liberate Iraqis." At least I'm sure that's what you were saying in '03. You're whole "it was worth it to take out Saddam" is spoken like someone who didn't know a single soldier who had to put themselves in harm's way for such a folly.
 
I Love America said:
How cute

Define the "immediate threat". Be specific.

Also I love how you claim we don't go to war to reshape a region

Bosnia?
Libya?
Syria?

Should I go on?

You live in a fantasy land. You cry about N Korea getting nukes yet you don't want to do what it takes to rid them.

Me? I don't give a flying fuck if they have them. I just want us to have more and most importantly not be afraid to use them.

I know that offends your delicate sensibilities as you are a wall flower easily frazzled
Click to expand...

I've been against every use of the military in my lifetime, except Afghanistan, which I later regretted.

You're out of your depth here. Your "strategy" has been followed quite often in human history, and we've seen the results. You're really dopey when it comes to foreign policy.
 
Darth Omar said:
And they are going to leave Trump for what, exactly lol?
Click to expand...
Does the Dem. party even have a front runner yet? If trump is still in office in 2020, he won't have accomplished a single piece of major legislation. That's what Dems will run on.
 
Althea said:
Does the Dem. party even have a front runner yet? If trump is still in office in 2020, he won't have accomplished a single piece of major legislation. That's what Dems will run on.
Click to expand...

I expect Dems to have a pretty clear & robust platform in both '18 & '20. If you listen to party leaders, they understand most of the mistakes of '16, and also that they need to get back on track w/ middle class voters & areas like the rust belt.

Hillary had almost no message. "I'm with her" was the most resonant aspect of her campaign, and was basically meaningless. I expect the Dems to run w/ a very clear alternative vision on jobs, healthcare, foreign policy, education, et al. Republicans will have to try to either defend Trump's record, or run as outsiders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top