What Obama Said About Taking Vacations in 2008!

[Xavier_Onassis]

It cost a fortune, and it resulted in the deaths of 400 Americans, a bloody civil war in Iraq and ttens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed.
It was CLEARLY not worth the expense or the effort, and the intel was bogus and looked bogus at the time.

[sirs]

It's cost was a mere fraction of both $'s and lives, compared to nearly every other war. It was just as clearly worth the expense in both the security it HAD produced (completely lost now by the current bone headed foreign policy decisions, by this administration), and opportunity it provided to the peoples of the region in joining a democratic 21st century, (which has also been lost now thanks to our apparent need to hurry all our troops out of the countries, without even trying to maintain a status forces agreement, that we have in so many other parts of the globe.  An action that by itself could have helped prevent this current collapse of the middle east.  At least in Iraq)

But this is good debate, as this is a philosophical debate, specific to should we or should we have not gone into Iraq.  There's really no right or wrong answer, because we both have set up our own parameters as to what is "right".

I'm still just waiting for even 1 of these supposed plethora of examples of an actual proven fact that I've rejected.  Going into war was not one, since a majority of the country supported that act, including congress...including many Democrats.  The lack of WMD wasn't one, since a preponderance of folks believed he had them, based on the intel that was provided, including a MAJORITY of political Democrats

Can you cite even one of these supposed examples of my rejecting some proven fact?  I did it for you, surely you can do one for me...........right?

[sirs]

When he is given proof, he rejects is=t and asks dumb questions and demands that they be answered.

Even 1 example??

[Plane]

    Saddam had me tricked, after decades of intensely cultivating WMD technology with his own scientists and every one that he could hire, he came to battle with empty threats.


     I am trying to come up with metaphor.

     Imagine a gunslinger with deadly reputation, who is robbed of his weapon, fills his holster with a banana, painted gun  metal blue, just to hide his embarrassment and enhance his safety with illusion. As he crosses the street at high noon he sees Batt Masterson and Wild Bill Hickok.

      Unfortunately they see him too.


       Now things look bad for this banana slinger  , but if he manages to survive this encounter, I see him replacing his fruit with some real metal at soonest opportunity and any cost.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Saddam was no threat to Americans living in the USA.The War was a colossal waste of men and money.

[sirs]

Well. ... that's one opinon

[Plane]

Saddam was no threat to Americans living in the USA.The War was a colossal waste of men and money.

   You have to ignore a lot about him to think this.

     When he was unencumbered he spent a lot of time building WMD and consolidating power, there was no expectation of peace.

[sirs]

Precisely.  Not to mention that the issue with Saddam NEVER was about Iraq directly attacking the continental U.S.  The left loves to push that bogus theory, in order to then debunk it.  Too bad that was never at issue to begin with. 

The concern was the connections Saddam & his party had, both directly & indirectly with Islamic terrorist organizations, including, and in particular, with AlQeada.  With the events that occcured on 911 with mere box cutters, the notion of what an AlQeada-like cell could do with just one of Saddam's WMD's, be it mustard gas or tabun liquid, was a nightmare scenario that Bush decided was too great not to address.

The fact that no WMD's were located, after Saddam was deposed. doesn't refute the fact he did have them at one time

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Saddam was no threat to the US, then there was zero reason to invade. It is not a bogus theory.

This country has mongered far too many wars for no reason. It has made u0s a violent society in which killing foreigners for many boys is a rite of paassage" Join the Army, go overseas and kill a Commie, Muslim, terrorist, whatever.  It has cost us tons of money and lives.

The first war in Iraq was caused by the Olebush administration saying that it took no stand on the borders between Kuwait and Iraq. The Second was really fought to punish Saddam for failing to go away as a result of the first Iraq war. Both wars were mistakes caused bu warmongering idiot Republicans, and their allies in the Democratic Party that were influenced by the arms industry.

The motive of the war was not to rid Iraq of gas weapons that were used years before. That is a load of crap. 

[sirs]

If Saddam was no threat to the US, then there was zero reason to invade. It is not a bogus theory.

It is a bogus theory, when that was never the reason we invaded in the 1st place.  I just explained the reason.....by all means, continue to ignore that inconvenient truth

[sirs]

When he is given proof, he rejects is=t and asks dumb questions and demands that they be answered.

Even 1 example??

Didn't think so

[Xavier_Onassis]

And there we have it, yet another dumb sirs request for the answer to an unanswerable sirs question.

That is why I refuse to play your silly games.

They always end with this sort of crap.

[sirs]

There we have....what exactly??  Yet another dodge to backing up a claim you could never prove in the 1st place?  But I do appreciate you validating it yourself as being unanswerable, being it was your claim to begin with.

What's truly "silly" is you believing that anyone is actually taking any of your accusations, with even an ounce of credibility.  Your contributions in this thread being yet again a perfect example.  You make some boneheaded accusation about me, then refuse to provide even 1 credible example.  It's like trying to debate a 1st grader.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

Go fuck yourself, sirs.

It is obvious to many one-celled life forms that the second Iraq war was a terrible idea.

[sirs]

Go fuck yourself, sirs.

I stand corrected...it's like trying to debate a 1st grader with a potty mouth

It is obvious to many one-celled life forms that the second Iraq war was a terrible idea.

Which has absolutely squat to do with your bone-headed claim of some proven fact that I've rejected, as its not a fact that it was a terrible idea.  Merely an opinion by some.  Opinions change, since a majority supported the idea of going into Iraq as a good idea, before we went in. 

Again, the post Saddam planning had a boat load of problems, but the rationale, based on both the intel we all were getting, from sources across the globe, coupled with the events of 911, made the idea of taking him out, pretty logical at the time, and hardly some fact of it being a supposed "terrible" idea.