Wow...Cheney explains why invading Iraq is a bad idea. - Page 8

Donkey® · 08-22-2007, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

What's pathetic is the way you relentlessly parrot democrat talking points (especially since you say you're not one), ignore any news that doesn't fit into your opinion, and refuse to apply reasoning to the situation.

I ignore news that's not relevant to the future of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

OH NO, I transposed two letters????? That's much worse than not knowing the difference between "toe" and "tow", which are entirely different words.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

If I had tried to deflect the issue, I wouldn't have addressed it, and you would not have posted this response to me:

You have deflected the question at hand. You refuse to give a straight answer to it. I'll try one more time.

Question: Cheney was well aware that Iraq would be a complete fiasco before the 2nd invasion and attempt to remove Saddam came about. Yet, they went in with NO PLAN...IMPROPER equipment and training...NOT ENOUGH troops... Do you not feel that this is incompetent of your administration...borderline criminal?

Insert your answer here:

****REMEMBER, this has nothing to do with what you think they thought about what was "worth it."***

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I didn't say anything about you. I said that refusing to wallow in bad news made up by Bush's opponents does not constitute "coddling his nut sack".

Made up? Bad news in Iraq is "made up?" Jesus. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of corpses in the country.

P/N · 08-22-2007, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Question: Cheney was well aware that Iraq would be a complete fiasco before the 2nd invasion and attempt to remove Saddam came about. Yet, they went in with NO PLAN...IMPROPER equipment and training...NOT ENOUGH troops... Do you not feel that this is incompetent of your administration...borderline criminal?

You question is an invalid one since you claim that the administration had "NO PLAN". Despite that, I'll answer the question for you. They did have a plan, and it was executed flawlwssly. It has been their inability to adjust to the changing conditions in Iraq that has led to the clusterfuck we now find ourselves in. And to further explain the obvious to you, 9/11 changed EVERYTHING. Saddam was a terrorist. That, coupled with the fact that he violated every UN sanction placed on him, was more than reason enough to go to war with him.

Bush has fucked this thing up, there's no denying that. Had Ronald Reagan been in his shoes, we would have gone in with about 250,000 troops and would have had this cleaned up long ago. Bush is a failure on so many levels as not only a conservative, but as Commander in Chief. But what seperates a realist such as myself from partisan providers of amusement (not that I'm calling you one, because that could lead to an infraction) is the ability to see the truth through something other than blinders. Politics should not be allowed to affect a war, Vietnam should have taught us that lesson. Bush needs to be more like Reagan and tell the naysayers to go fuck themselves. But he isn't like Reagan and he has created chaos where it didn't need to exist.

I'm no Bush or Cheney apologist, but you seem to be forgetting (or ignoring) a lot of facts when you take a side on a specific issue, like the one at hand. We all know how you feel about Bush, but I think you need to be more realistic in your "opinions". When you infer that Bush and/or Cheney have commited some crime ("borderline criminal" was the term you used), you aren't looking at the entire situation with your eyes completely open.

Donkey® · 08-22-2007, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by P/N

You question is an invalid one since you claim that the administration had "NO PLAN". Despite that, I'll answer the question for you. They did have a plan, and it was executed flawlwssly. It has been their inability to adjust to the changing conditions in Iraq that has led to the clusterfuck we now find ourselves in. And to further explain the obvious to you, 9/11 changed EVERYTHING. Saddam was a terrorist. That, coupled with the fact that he violated every UN sanction placed on him, was more than reason enough to go to war with him.

Bush has fucked this thing up, there's no denying that. Had Ronald Reagan been in his shoes, we would have gone in with about 250,000 troops and would have had this cleaned up long ago. Bush is a failure on so many levels as not only a conservative, but as Commander in Chief. But what seperates a realist such as myself from partisan providers of amusement (not that I'm calling you one, because that could lead to an infraction) is the ability to see the truth through something other than blinders. Politics should not be allowed to affect a war, Vietnam should have taught us that lesson. Bush needs to be more like Reagan and tell the naysayers to go fuck themselves. But he isn't like Reagan and he has created chaos where it didn't need to exist.

I'm no Bush or Cheney apologist, but you seem to be forgetting (or ignoring) a lot of facts when you take a side on a specific issue, like the one at hand. We all know how you feel about Bush, but I think you need to be more realistic in your "opinions". When you infer that Bush and/or Cheney have commited some crime ("borderline criminal" was the term you used), you aren't looking at the entire situation with your eyes completely open.

What a load of shit.

Joe_Cool · 08-23-2007, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What a load of shit.

What an amazing counter-argument. I think I'm going to register as a democrat now. Thanks for opening my eyes!

DosEquis · 08-23-2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by P/N

You question is an invalid one since you claim that the administration had "NO PLAN". They did have a plan, and it was executed flawlwssly. It has been their inability to adjust to the changing conditions in Iraq that has led to the clusterfuck we now find ourselves in. And to further explain the obvious to you, 9/11 changed EVERYTHING. Saddam was a terrorist. That, coupled with the fact that he violated every UN sanction placed on him, was more than reason enough to go to war with him.

Had Ronald Reagan been in his shoes, we would have gone in with about 250,000 troops and would have had this cleaned up long ago. Politics should not be allowed to affect a war, Vietnam should have taught us that lesson. When you infer that Bush and/or Cheney have commited some crime ("borderline criminal" was the term you used), you aren't looking at the entire situation with your eyes completely open.

First of all 9/11 did not change the fact that Iraq would be a clusterfuck after saddam was removed from power. Even if you buy the neoconservative "fact" that Saddam was a terrorist after 9/11 or even after invading Kuwait, it still does not change that Iraq was going to be a major project. The vice president recognized this in 1994 and apparently just forgot. On meet the press in right before we went in Tim Russert asked him about it being a long and bloody battle. Cheney answered it with "i dont think its going to be that way Tim, I believe we will be greated as liberators." It was about the same time we were told oil would pay for reconstruction and that the war would only cost 80 billion dollars.

On saddam, let us not forget that we actually liked the guy for a very, very long time. We provided him billions in aid, weapons, intelligence on Iran, etc.

The only thing that was flawless was the invasion and removal of saddam and his sons. Since then it has been a failure. A failure because of things the vice president said would happen in 1994. He knew about it, they did not plan for it, and more people are dead and will die because of it. That is the reason it is borderline criminal. He knew it, did nothing to plan for it anyway, and sent our military people in to the meat grinder.

Two more things:

Those who are defending this person, including the neoconservatives in office, can no longer even attempt to question my patriotism and support for the soldiers. Sending them in knowing what was going to happen but not focusing the strategy around it is the worst "support" for our military that I could ever think of.

If Ronald Reagan was the leader you try to make him out to be, Ronald Reagan or anyone else would have NOT invaded Iraq to begin with.

P/N · 08-23-2007, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

First of all 9/11 did not change the fact that Iraq would be a clusterfuck after saddam was removed from power. Even if you buy the neoconservative "fact" that Saddam was a terrorist after 9/11 or even after invading Kuwait, it still does not change that Iraq was going to be a major project. The vice president recognized this in 1994 and apparently just forgot. On meet the press in right before we went in Tim Russert asked him about it being a long and bloody battle. Cheney answered it with "i dont think its going to be that way Tim, I believe we will be greated as liberators." It was about the same time we were told oil would pay for reconstruction and that the war would only cost 80 billion dollars.

9/11 changed our stance on terrorists and terrorist states. And if you think Saddam wasn't a terrorist long before 9/11, you'd better work on your history lessons because you are missing out on an awful lot. Cheney didn't "forget", 9/11 changed our stance. No matter how many times you remove the impact 9/11 had on this country and it's future, it doesn't change the fact that it happened. As for Iraq costing more and we would be viewed as liberators, the administration fucked up. But things never go as planned in war, or have you forgotten that piece of history too?

Originally Posted by DosEquis

On saddam, let us not forget that we actually liked the guy for a very, very long time. We provided him billions in aid, weapons, intelligence on Iran, etc.

We got involved with Iraq in the 80's. We stuck our nose where it didn't belong and took the Iraqi side of the Iraq-Iran war. Hindsight proves this to be a major mistake, and if Reagan had known the future (which none of us do), I doubt he would have gone to the lengths he went to with Saddam.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The only thing that was flawless was the invasion and removal of saddam and his sons.

Did I state otherwise?

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Since then it has been a failure. A failure because of things the vice president said would happen in 1994. He knew about it, they did not plan for it, and more people are dead and will die because of it. That is the reason it is borderline criminal. He knew it, did nothing to plan for it anyway, and sent our military people in to the meat grinder.

It has been a failure because this administration HAS NOT ADAPTED, period. There were no solid "what if" plans in place and this has led to major chaos in Iraq. We also "knew" that Saddam still had WMD's too, so I guess a person can be wrong can't they? Calling this "criminal" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to make a valid point, which only falls short of it's intended goal.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Two more things:

Those who are defending this person, including the neoconservatives in office, can no longer even attempt to question my patriotism and support for the soldiers. Sending them in knowing what was going to happen but not focusing the strategy around it is the worst "support" for our military that I could ever think of.

I know for a fact that I've never questioned your patriotism, in fact I do believe you are very patriotic, just misguided. Iraq was a great idea that was executed with reckless abandon. The inability to adjust to the changing conditions in Iraq have led to far too many deaths, both Iraqi civilian, coalition military and contractors. But I do believe, having served in the military, that the "cut and run" approach would be nothing more than a tremendous dishonor to those who have fallen thus far. Do you have any real solutions for Iraq or is simply your goal to just point the finger at the administration?

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If Ronald Reagan was the leader you try to make him out to be, Ronald Reagan or anyone else would have NOT invaded Iraq to begin with.

The leader I try to make him out to be? Again with the lack of knowledge in the area of history. Reagan took this country by it's bootstraps and pulled them up. He allowed us to stand on our own two feet again and restored pride in our military, pride in our country and pride in what we stand for. He made a few mistakes, but history only disproves your opinion of Reagan, yet again.

Donkey® · 08-23-2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

What an amazing counter-argument. I think I'm going to register as a democrat now. Thanks for opening my eyes!

Why are you still posting in this thread? You've been deemed inconsequential long ago. Thanks for the negative rep though. Very intuitive of you.

P/N · 08-23-2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Why are you still posting in this thread? You've been deemed inconsequential long ago. Thanks for the negative rep though. Very intuitive of you.

Maybe he's just following the lead set by other far-left "netroots" such as Scrum, SoFlaJDM and Thorgrim? Each of them provided me with negative rep. I doubt I am the lone victim of their attacks.

DosEquis · 08-23-2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by P/N

The leader I try to make him out to be? Again with the lack of knowledge in the area of history. Reagan took this country by it's bootstraps and pulled them up. He allowed us to stand on our own two feet again and restored pride in our military, pride in our country and pride in what we stand for. He made a few mistakes, but history only disproves your opinion of Reagan, yet again.

P/N · 08-23-2007, 11:04 AM

DosEquis thinks it's funny that his knowledge of history is so limited. Now that's funny!!!

Joe_Cool · 08-23-2007, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

On saddam, let us not forget that we actually liked the guy for a very, very long time. We provided him billions in aid,

We didn't LIKE him. He was the enemy of our enemy (Iran).

Donkey® · 08-23-2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by P/N

Maybe he's just following the lead set by other far-left "netroots" such as Scrum, SoFlaJDM and Thorgrim? Each of them provided me with negative rep. I doubt I am the lone victim of their attacks.

They are not me though? I have given rep like twice in my life.

Joe_Cool · 08-23-2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Why are you still posting in this thread? You've been deemed inconsequential long ago. Thanks for the negative rep though. Very intuitive of you.

Sorry, I didn't get the memo. Not that I care that you think I'm inconsequential.

Donkey® · 08-23-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

We didn't LIKE him. He was the enemy of our enemy (Iran).

We were ALLIES with a mass murderer. Way to go.

DosEquis · 08-23-2007, 12:49 PM

History was my best subject son. I think a safe assumption would be that your view of history is about as skewed as the view on the war in Iraq, and how Cheney/administration are complete bastards for sending soldiers in unprepared despite KNOWING what was going to happen. It wasn't about adapting after the invasion and removal of saddam. They/he knew it (civil war, insurgency, influence from Iran, etc) was going to happen, it wasn't something that was a surprise to them.

And FYI, history shows Reagan was over rated.

DosEquis · 08-23-2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We were ALLIES with a mass murderer. Way to go.

We even gave him the weapons to do the mass murdering with.

Joe_Cool · 08-23-2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by P/N

Maybe he's just following the lead set by other far-left "netroots" such as Scrum, SoFlaJDM and Thorgrim? Each of them provided me with negative rep. I doubt I am the lone victim of their attacks.

yeah, that's pretty much it. I've been getting dogpiled. Scrum alone has given me 4. I figure goose->gander.