DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on December 15, 2008, 01:48:23 AM
-
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=11096194 (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=11096194)
You know, I feel sorry for the guy. He is spent and so very gray after years of hell--8 to be exact.
But, I feel he has to suffer the error of his decision...because he should NEVER have entered Iraq. Never.
Perhaps we would have seen the need to conquer terrorists in the region after a response to the war on terror in Afghanistan...but the way Bush entered the war on Iraq just did not represent the American voice, imo.
Mind you...I am a born Republican and I have to say that we have yet to see terror on our soil....but the waste because of such a call is unconscionable.
God bless those men and women who have fought in this war...no matter the location and the cause. But, Bush has to accept the fact that perhaps he made mistakes. If there's hope for him as a leader in history....I would love to hear of it.
But, George is one to pray for in the end....he didn't make the right call.
Damn it.
-
Juniorbush is to blame for his unpopularity. It would have been better if the shoe had actually hit him something like a glancing blow, because he has caused the death of thousands of Iraqis who had nothing to do with terrorism or Saddam Hussein, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands, not to mention abut 4000 S servicemen and several ties that many wounded . A lemon meringue or banana creme pie would have been better still.
Bush may need our prayers, but the people of Iraq and the US need them even more,
-
>>Juniorbush is to blame for his unpopularity.<<
Not really. The MSM is most responsible for leading the uneducated, uniformed masses along by the nose feeding them lies for the past seven years or so. Questioning Obama voters is air tight evidence of just how uniformed and easily lead Obama voters were, and continue to be.
The MSM reported every setback, and every death on the front pages of American newspapers, and electronic media goose stepped dutifully along behind them. Once the war was being won, the stories disappeared leaving the lasting impression of failure and mistakes. Hollyweird performed as the propaganda arm of the democrat party peddling lies and distortions in movie theaters and television screens across the country.
No, Bush isn't responsible. The traitorous and libelous behavior of the American left is responsible. They did a hell of a job. History will provide a better picture. Even that might not be accurate considering who writes history today. Maybe there will be a change for the better in the future. I hope so.
-
Get real. There was never any reason to invade Iraq. All wars are abominable, but this was was also stupid.
-
No, Bush isn't responsible. The traitorous and libelous behavior of the American left is responsible. They did a hell of a job. History will provide a better picture. Even that might not be accurate considering who writes history today. Maybe there will be a change for the better in the future. I hope so.
This may be true in the West to some extent, but in the Middle East, the MSM has nothing to do with their opinion.
-
No, Bush isn't responsible. The traitorous and libelous behavior of the American left is responsible. They did a hell of a job. History will provide a better picture. Even that might not be accurate considering who writes history today. Maybe there will be a change for the better in the future. I hope so.
This may be true in the West to some extent, but in the Middle East, the MSM has nothing to do with their opinion.
Wait, I have to amend this. It is entirely possible the Iraqi media has been affected by American MSM.
-
>>Get real. There was never any reason to invade Iraq. All wars are abominable, but this was was also stupid.<<
I understand. That's the template. Perhaps at this point we could call it a mantra. It is of course wrong. It's also a lie, but as we have seen lately a lie to a liberal isn't exactly the dictionary definition.
-
>>This may be true in the West to some extent, but in the Middle East, the MSM has nothing to do with their opinion.<<
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing.
Yeah, the good ole Middle East has always been know for it's unbiased reporting. Take Israel for example.
::)
-
The shoe man is supposed to be a journalist.
I suppose he would be toasted in any American press hangout .
-
If this place is any indication, I'm sure of it.
I wonder how funny they'll think it is when somebody tosses something at Barry? They're probably blame talk radio.
-
If this place is any indication, I'm sure of it.
I wonder how funny they'll think it is when somebody tosses something at Barry? They're probably blame talk radio.
Hahahahaha!
The opposite side of the coin , good insight.
-
>>This may be true in the West to some extent, but in the Middle East, the MSM has nothing to do with their opinion.<<
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing.
Yeah, the good ole Middle East has always been know for it's unbiased reporting. Take Israel for example.
::)
Hmmm... not exactly what I meant. They certainly have their own biases, but they have nothing to do with the MSM as you know it there. If there is a bias here about Bush, it has nothing to do with the political bias in the U.S., or even for necessarily the same reasons. Another point would be that most media in the Middle East is controlled by governments, very strictly (Al Jazeera being the exception). The governments allow for some "venting" via the media, but basically rule with an iron grip.
-
"There was never any reason to invade Iraq"
And then there is reality....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4m1QB_6gQg[/youtube]
-
You know, I feel sorry for the guy. He is spent and so very gray after years of hell--8 to be exact. But, I feel he has to suffer the error of his decision...because he should NEVER have entered Iraq. Never.
With of course, the other opinion being that given what Bush knew at the time, and the events of 911, it would have been grossly irresponsible had he NOT entered both Afghanistan & Iraq. And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
Dammit
-
Excellent post CU4
Excellent.
Isn't amazing how these people can turn on a dime when they feel it will get them power? To hell with America, to hell with Americans, just give us control of all the committees, the best offices, and our own private jets.
-
More reality
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]
-
But......but....Rich, EVERYONE else was duped by Bush. Clinton administration as well. Only Bush alone knew there were no WMD, based on......well based on the left's say so. And we all know how truthful and accurate they are when it comes to Bush now
-
You know, I feel sorry for the guy. He is spent and so very gray after years of hell--8 to be exact. But, I feel he has to suffer the error of his decision...because he should NEVER have entered Iraq. Never.
With of course, the other opinion being that given what Bush knew at the time, and the events of 911, it would have been grossly irresponsible had he NOT entered both Afghanistan & Iraq. And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
Dammit
Well, perhaps, but Iraqis will probably consider anything the West has to offer as an insult, as well.
Bush had a choice to get Bin Laden first and foremost. He could have taken down Saddam in time. I am saying that Bush's choices were not wise options in terms of fighting against the terrorism responsible for destroying so much on our soil.
But he chose to jump in with all feet and no arms....or at least fewer "arms". Lincoln can't be compared to Bush in this scenario. Lincoln made a tough stand for this country. Bush made an impulsive push ...biting off more than he could chew.
-
And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
===========================================================================
This is totally bogus .
The slaves were people living in America. The South was a part of America.
Since f*cking when is it the province of the government of this country to "free" the citizens in a country with an utterly alien culture half a world away?
Juniorbush will go down in history as the worst president ever, who wrecked the economy of his own country to monger a war through lies and deceit and in an incompetent manner.
And you ratwing morons voted for him TWICE.
-
>>But......but....Rich, EVERYONE else was duped by Bush. Clinton administration as well. Only Bush alone knew there were no WMD, based on......well based on the left's say so. And we all know how truthful and accurate they are when it comes to Bush now.<<
ATTENTION READERS! The above comments are SARCASM.
:D
-
You know, I feel sorry for the guy. He is spent and so very gray after years of hell--8 to be exact. But, I feel he has to suffer the error of his decision...because he should NEVER have entered Iraq. Never.
With of course, the other opinion being that given what Bush knew at the time, and the events of 911, it would have been grossly irresponsible had he NOT entered both Afghanistan & Iraq. And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
Well, perhaps, but Iraqis will probably consider anything the West has to offer as an insult, as well.
Maybe........and maybe there are far more Iraqis than you can possibly imagine, grateful that they no longer live under a ruthless dictator, where a shoe thrown at Saddam or even a guest of Saddam's, would have him AND his entire family killed....................or worse
And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
===========================================================================
This is totally bogus .
And your opinion is duely noted, as this has nothing to do with geography, but the effects upon the populace
-
>>And you ratwing morons voted for him TWICE.<<
Notice how angry the libtard gets when presented with indisputable proof his side are lying traitorous power hungry scum.
Then there's the fact that he voted for the least qualified candidate EVER. Someone he knows virtually NOTHING about.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk[/youtube]
-
I do not care what sort of crap Hannity cobbles together. I do not care what Democratic senators said about Saddam's alleged and bogus WMD's. I was against this stiupis war from the start, becauee it was a terrible idea.
And I was right.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs[/youtube]
-
We understand. Facts don't matter to people like you. Now you claim it's the idea of war, not Bush that you oppose.
You are so full of shit I can smell you from here.
-
I do not care what sort of crap Hannity cobbles together. I do not care what Democratic senators said about Saddam's alleged and bogus WMD's. I was against this stiupis war from the start, becauee it was a terrible idea. And I was right.
Yea, that explains the mass demonstration of Iraqis who want oppression and dictator rule brought back, not to mention the continued terrorist attacks on U.S. soil
oh wait
-
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.
This is about a trillion dollars and so far it has not benefited anyone in this country with a trillion dollars of anything of value.
I suppose it has been a boon for the prosthetics industry, and of course, the weapons industry. But not anywhere near a trillion dollars worth.
-
Same ole libtard claptrap.
They said the same thing after the Civil War, WWI, WWII. Korea. Anything that's hard is just to much for them to bare.
-
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.
And again, this has nothing to do with geography, nor why we went into Iraq in the 1st place
-
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.
And again, this has nothing to do with geography, nor why we went into Iraq in the 1st place
===============================
Of course it has to do with geography. Iraq is too far away to harm the US, and they have no delivery systems, and had none at the time.
"We" went into Iraq supposedly because Iraq had every sort of weapons of Mass Destruction ever made and suppoesdly they were about to drop them all on us, despite the total lack of delivery systems. "We" went into Iraq because a lot of really stupid people in the population thought that conquering Iraq would be a piece of cake, and that if "we" did not invade Iraq, Saddam would de;liver another 9-11 to our doorstep. "we" believed this although there was zero evidence that this was even physically possible (it wasn't).
Once "we invaded Iraq and destroyed their aryt and police and everything and brought chaos to the place, then none of the famous WMD's was found, and the pretext was invented that our mission was to bring democracy to the place. Strangely, the same people who are most in favor of "democracy" in Iraq are the ones always spouting off the rightwing crypto-fascist line that the US is a "republic, not a democracy".
But I knew from the git-go that it was a dumbass idea, as did lots of others. It is my belief that those who thought otherwise are fools, because it was totally obvious to me that Saddam as a threat was a fiction, and that all we were getting was a barrage of propaganda. Perhaps those years in Mexico made me more perceptive to govt. propaganda.
Iraq was totally unrelated to 9-11, but without 9-11, there is no way the Iraq invasion would have been authorized by Congress.
Iraq was a terrible, costly and stupid idea and in addition was stupidly done until the administration finally started listening to the professional military. Juniorbush will go down in history as the worst president ever just for this. It might well be the event that marked the beginning of the end of US world domination, like Trafalgar was for the French Navy, Lepanto was for the Turks, or WWII for the British.
-
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like. And again, this has nothing to do with geography, nor why we went into Iraq in the 1st place
===============================
Of course it has to do with gerography.
No, it doesn't. It has everything to do with the effects upon the populace, be it here in the U.S., or in Iraq
Iraq is too far away to harm the US, and they have no delivery systems, and had none at the time. "We" went into Iraq supposedly because Iraq had every sort of weapons of Mass Destruction ever made and suppoesdly they were about to drop them all on us.
That would be a lie, or at the bare minimum a gross distortion, since it was never about what Iraq was about to unleash on America. So best, nip that in the bud, right now. So, that'd be 0 for 2, with this at bat
Once "we invaded Iraq and destroyed their aryt and police and everything and brought chaos to the place, then none of the faous WMD's was found, and the pretext was invented that our mission was to bring democracy to the place.
Strike 3, since again it was never a pretext, simply a consequence of our actions. You may return to sitting on the bench, as your flailing continues to generate nothing but hot air vs any substantive dialog
-
That is the way it was. I am right, you are the rest of you clowns are dead wrong.
Accept it or don't.
If you don't allow me to point out that you don't know sh*t.
-
That is the way it was.
No, it wasn't
I am right, you are the rest of you clowns are dead wrong.
No, you're not. You will not find 1 quote or 1 executive order that EVER referenced some impending attack on U.S. soil by the nation of Iraq, or that we went to Iraq primarily to bring democracy to the people. All you have is the gross out-of-context misrepresentation of a "mushroom cloud" quote. And that's it
Accept it or don't.
I accept your use of the standard BDS playbook of distortion, if not outright lying, as it relates to the left's hatred of anything & everything Bush
If you don't allow me to poinht out that you don;pt know sh*t.
LOL....don't "allow" you to spew your idiocy & incivility?? By all means, lemme move out of your way. Please, continue
-
>>That is the way it was. I am right, you are the rest of you clowns are dead wrong. Accept it or don't.<<
The problem here is in the face of all, or nearly all, your democratic masters assurance that Saddam's Iraq was an immenant threat and needed to be dealt with, you stick your fingers in your ears and hope he'll just go away peacefully despite his past performance. You can certainly be against war everytime if that's your position, but to condemn Bush for doing what he was urged to do by democrats is dishonest and frankly stupid to the extreme.
>>If you don't allow me to poinht out that you don;pt know sh*t.<<
It's debates like this that prove you to be insipid loser who should never be taken seriously when discussion real world problems and solutions. You can't get past your petty hatred of people who disagree with your socialist philosophy to take a realistic view of the world and place your country and your fellow citizens first in order to protect them from enemies anyone with cognitive brain functions can see.
-
And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
===========================================================================
Since f*cking when is it the province of the government of this country to "free" the citizens in a country with an utterly alien culture half a world away?
Since 1918?
-
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.
This seems like a good point , but it can be a good idea to attack the root causes of terrorism, and produceing a government controlled from the peoples vote in the middle of a region ruled by autocrats might really sap the strength of terrorism.
If one accepts the theroy that the people are miserable being poor and under the heal of autocrats is a root cause .
-
If one accepts the theroy that the people are miserable being poor and under the heal of autocrats is a root cause .
===================================================
But this is not true. Not one of the 9-11 hijackers, and not one of the Al Qaeda honchos was poor. All were middle class and fairly well educated. Nearly all revolutionaries, all leaders of coups d'etat thoughout history have been members of the middle class. The only ones that I can think of who were not were Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata and his brother and Antonio Maceo. Come to think of it, the Zapatas owned some land, and it was taken away by some rich hacendado.
Fidel, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, the Ayatollah Kholmeini, Ataturk, Naploeon, Marat, Robespierre--all were middle class and better educatred than the peasantry. If poverty were the cause of armed revolution, then Haiti would be Revolution Central of the Americas.
Iraq was not the cause of 9-11, and posed no threat to anyone in the USA before the invasion.
Of course, Saddam was a hateful wretch, and Iraq is well rid of him.
Juniorbush is an incompetent wretch, and soon we will be rid of him as well, but I do not believe that it is the province of Canada, France, or Togo to remove him. It is the job of Americans to get rid of leaders we dislike, just as it was the job of Iraqis to remove Saddam.
-
It is the job of Americans to get rid of leaders we dislike, just as it was the job of Iraqis to remove Saddam.
Ahhh, so Iraq was just on the verge of removing their "wretched" military dictator, and we just happened to get in the way. Boy, glad you got that cleared up Xo. In fact, that last Iraqi election had Saddam winning by something along the lines of 99.999% of the vote. They were soooooo close at getting rid of him, then we got in the way, dammit
-
Whether the Iraqis were on the verge of removing Saddam or not is immaterial. You seem to believe that God or some other Greater Moral Authority had decreed that Saddam be removed, and being as the Iraqis were not up to the task, it fell to the Americans to do this. I disagree. While perhaps bombing Serbia, which was moderately expensive and only somewhat threatening to human life was perhaps justifiable in removing Milosovic, and the South African embargo was definitely useful in bringing true democracy to the majority of the people of the RSA, and cost the US nothing in weapons or casualties. It is not a case of pure good and evil or black and white. All actions have their costs and benefits, and these need to be weighed carefully. It is my opinion that the costs of invading Iraq were greater than the benefits, certainly to the people of the US.
Removing Saddam by conquering Iraq, I believe, was far too expensive in lives and money. I do not believe that the US should take upon itself the burden of removing evil or incompetent governments unless the security of Americans living in America is threatened and no other means can be used. This was not the case in Iraq.
The dictatorships of North Korea, Burma and Turkmenistan certainly are as bad for their citizens as Saddam was in Iraq. The main difference seeems to be that Iraq has more oil.
-
Whether the Iraqis were on the verge of removing Saddam or not is immaterial. You seem to believe that God or some other Greater Moral Authority had decreed that Saddam be removed
Well, if you want to declare the prior Clinton administration as being God-like, then yea, I guess your right. The official position was regime change, which is largely a decree he be removed. Of course, that's NOT why we went in under Bush, but please, continue the gross misrepresentation
The dictatorships of North Korea, Burma and Turkmenistan certainly are as bad for their citizens as Saddam was in Iraq.
The difference being we never went into Iraq because Saddam was a really bad guy, so why would we in the other scenarios? You have reference of their connections to miltant Islamic radicals, bent on attacking the West?
-
"Iraq....posed no threat to anyone in the USA before the invasion"
and then again....there is reality!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk)
-
Suppose the shoe thrower targeted Saddam
December 18, 2008
The name: Muntadhar al-Zeidi ? a new hero to many in the Muslim world.
President Bush ? in a surprise, end-of-term visit to Iraq ? held a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Zeidi, an Iraqi "reporter," shouted, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog," and threw a shoe at Bush. The reporter quickly threw a second. The shoes missed their target only because an agile President Bush managed to duck. And with his typical self-deprecating humor, he later joked, "It was a size 10."
"(Al-Zeidi's) a rather nervous type," al-Zeidi's brother later said, "and above all hates violence and the bombing." Al-Zeidi's employer, Iraqi-owned but Egypt-based Al-Baghdadia television, refused to apologize for its reporter's behavior, calling him a "proud Arab and an open-minded man."
The violence-hating al-Zeidi, according to reports, displays a picture of the "revolutionary" Che Guevara on his wall. Cuban ?migr? Humberto Fontova, author of "Exposing the Real Che Guevara," credits Guevara with 14,000 executions. Witnesses say this icon for many radicals personally murdered hundreds ? including children and pregnant women. But we digress.
Many Iraqi reporters in the room apologized to the president. One journalist observed, "It was a reporter (emphasis added) who yanked (al-Zeidi) to the ground before Iraqi or American guards could reach him."
Meanwhile, stateside, many in the Bush-hating news media seemed almost giddy ? no doubt considering the shoe throwing a vindication of their own hostility to the war.
Chris Cuomo of ABC's "Good Morning America" said: "Remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein was brought down? When it happened, all the people there started throwing shoes at it. ? Why? Disrespect. It is a high form of insult."
A CBS "Early Show" reporter said: "Mr. Bush's message of progress was eclipsed in Baghdad by a sign of his unpopularity. ? The symbolism wouldn't have been lost on Iraqis, for whom shoes can be used to show extreme contempt, as with the footwear beaten against the statue of Saddam Hussein toppled by Marines five years ago."
The Los Angeles Times wrote: "In the few seconds it took Iraqi journalist (Muntadhar al-Zeidi) to wing a pair of shoes at President Bush, the Middle East got its own version of Joe the Plumber. Just as Joe Wurzelbacher's gripes to Barack Obama ? catapulted him to fame, (al-Zeidi's) burst of rage toward Bush ? has made him a household name across the Middle East."
"Joe the Plumber"?
Would that be the working-class citizen who politely questioned then-candidate Barack Obama about his spread-the-wealth philosophy?
Or was the reference to the lost video of Joe the Plumber hurling a couple of pipe wrenches at Obama's head while calling the now-president-elect a "dog"?
Let us pose a few questions.
Suppose one or both shoes hit their mark. What if President Bush had been struck in the eye and been seriously injured? After all, in the chaos, press secretary Dana Perino was injured when a microphone struck her in the eye. Would some in the media have considered it as comical had the reporter targeted Barack Obama? It is, after all, quite reasonable that the incoming president will be the subject of a greater than usual number of threats.
This raises another question ? how did the Secret Service allow the man to get off not one, but two attacks? "I realized one of the reporters behind me was shouting and, in a way, reloading, with a second shoe," wrote Adam Ashton of California's Modesto Bee, the only American reporter in the room. "Off it went, just as fast as the first. I couldn't believe he had time to get a second one off (emphasis added)."
Suppose the Iraqi reporter had thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein.
During the dictator's 24-year reign, Saddam killed an estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens. Some place the number at more than a million. This means that, on the low end, over the past six years, a still-in-power Saddam would have killed 75,000 people. Since the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq, the Iraq Body Count ? which many consider reliable ? puts the number of violent Iraqi civilian deaths at between 89,000 and 98,000, a number that includes "insurgents" and civilians killed by them. But Iraq now has a fledgling multi-sectarian democratic government, a better economy ? and a free press.
"All over central Iraq," wrote the BBC mere months after Saddam Hussein's fall, "independent radio and television stations are suddenly emerging to fill the void left by the destruction and collapse of the old national broadcaster. ? Iraqis are enthusiastically embracing the possibilities of a free media after years of heavy censorship. Alongside these do-it-yourself radio and TV stations, dozens of newspapers representing every kind of political viewpoint are suddenly available."
What of the fate of the shoe thrower in today's Iraq? Eyewitness and NBC news producer Ghazi Balkiz put it this way: "(Under Saddam) any insult to the president or the president's guests used to be punished by death." So while al-Zeidi remains in custody, he faces no feet-first visit to the wood chipper.
Who knows? Maybe he'll even get his shoes back. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=83922)
-
While perhaps bombing Serbia, which was moderately expensive and only somewhat threatening to human life .........
somewhat.........
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
-
Compare the number of casualties in Serbia to those in Iraq.
No real comparison.
I don't think there were ANY American casualties in Serbia.
-
Compare the number of casualties in Serbia to those in Iraq.
No real comparison.
I don't think there were ANY American casualties in Serbia.
What , only Americans count?
In Serbia we have no way to suppose that miscreants caught most of the bombs , it isn't knowable really , but it is very likely that innocent bystanders were killed and maimed quite a lot.
If more people died in Iraq , also a greater purportion of the dead were the ones we ment to kill and needed to kill, ground forces are the most selective force we have got , people in crossfire are in mortal peril , but certainoy not less than people in the neighborhood of a massive bombing campaign.
The killing of the fighting force of Saddam Hussein , of the Al Quieda in Iraq and the Muqtader del Sader ran up the totals , but all of those were good news , to kill the same number of fighters in the style of Clinton would require razing citys as we did to Dresden or Toykio in WWII. The number of collateral kills would then be staggering.
I think that will indeed be the style of our next war , a Clinton will be secretary of State , Obama will have someone who remembers how well it can work to bomb heavyly and never bother to take territory. But the downside is the heavyer collateral damage in purportion to the desired target killing.
-
I am pretty sure that Iraq was far more damaged than Serbia than Iraq as well.
Observe that Serbia is now a democratic functioning state, and Iraq is not.
Clinton 1
Juniorbush 0
-
Observe that Serbia is now a democratic functioning state, and Iraq is not.
Observe that Serbia's government has been in place years longer than Iraq's.
-
Serbia did not need to replace its police, its army, it's entire political structure, as the bombing did not destroy any of these as happened in Iraq.
-
Serbia did not need to replace its police, its army, it's entire political structure, as the bombing did not destroy any of these as happened in Iraq.
Regardless, Serbia was bombed in 1997, and didn't have a real government in place until 2006. That's 9 years. Iraq is doing well after only 5 years. I think they'll at least match the 9 year span if not beat it - that would put in at around the year 2012, just in time for Obama to use it as an issue in his re-election campaign.
-
Regardless, Serbia was bombed in 1997, and didn't have a real government in place until 2006.
Serbia had police protection and elections long before 2006.
And the Serbia operation was far, far cheaper in every way from the mess Juniorbush started in Iraq. To compare the two is like comparing a Chevelle and a Range Rover, or a vole and a Brontosaurus, take your pick.
Juniorbush screwed up so bad that it SHOULD take a couple of terms to clean up the mess. Maybe more.
It is highly amusing to imagine the GOP bigwigs begging Bobby Jindal reconsider his refusal to run on their ticket for president and save them from Palin.
-
Serbia had police protection and elections long before 2006.
Serbia's current constitution was approved in 2006. The previous government was mired in scandal, which was why they discarded it and started over.
-
Regardless, Serbia was bombed in 1997, and didn't have a real government in place until 2006.
Serbia had police protection and elections long before 2006.
And the Serbia operation was far, far cheaper in every way from the mess Juniorbush started in Iraq. To compare the two is like comparing a Chevelle and a Range Rover, or a vole and a Brontosaurus, take your pick.
Juniorbush screwed up so bad that it SHOULD take a couple of terms to clean up the mess. Maybe more.
It is highly amusing to imagine the GOP bigwigs begging Bobby Jindal reconsider his refusal to run on their ticket for president and save them from Palin.
Cheaper?
Our actions against despots or in favor of democracys need to be small and cheap?
-
It is better that they are small and cheap than huge and expensive.
-
It is better that they are small and cheap than huge and expensive.
I suppose so , but that can't be an indicator of how just the cause is , perhaps we should not bite off more than we can manage , but Iraq has really been small scale in comparison to several wars we have had before.
-
but Iraq has really been small scale in comparison to several wars we have had before.
In WWI and WWII, there was a draft. The entire nation was mobilized to produce weapons. Taxes were raised.
There were no mercenary outfits like Blackwater, paid huge amounts to do things like feed the troops.
Iraq has been very expensive and it has done a lot of damage here in the US, as well as in Iraq.
There was no reason for invading Iraq, which posed no threat to any American in the USA.
-
There was no reason for invading Iraq, which posed no threat to any American in the USA.
And the implied lie continues to get perpetuated ::)