Kerry: 'Do what we must' to stop Iran on nukes

[jimnyc]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Kerry, President Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of state, said Thursday that the United States will "do what we must" to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon even as he signaled that diplomacy remains a viable option with Tehran.

Testifying at his confirmation hearing, and with Senate approval a foregone conclusion, Kerry addressed a range of concerns raised by members of the Foreign Relations Committee, from his past outreach to Syrian President Bashar Assad to GOP concerns about the nomination of Republican former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary.

"The president has made it definitive — we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Kerry said in his opening statement. "I repeat here today: Our policy is not containment. It is prevention, and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance."

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-must-stop-iran-nukes-171414491--politics.html

[red states rule]

Based on John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign will that include obtaining a permission slip from the UN?

[jafar00]

Do what you must with Iran that doesn't have nukes, nor missiles that can reach the US, nor have they directly threatened the US except for retaliation if attacked, while DPRK has missiles that can reach the US and has successfully tested Nuclear Weapons and has directly threatened the US. And DPRK doesn't garner the same if not more attention? Sometimes US logic escapes me.

[jimnyc]

Do what you must with Iran that doesn't have nukes, nor missiles that can reach the US, nor have they directly threatened the US except for retaliation if attacked, while DPRK has missiles that can reach the US and has successfully tested Nuclear Weapons and has directly threatened the US. And DPRK doesn't garner the same if not more attention? Sometimes US logic escapes me.

At this point, what do you propose the US does with NK? Our stance is no different with them, but they have them already. Preventing Iran from getting that far is a totally different animal.

[aboutime]

Do what you must with Iran that doesn't have nukes, nor missiles that can reach the US, nor have they directly threatened the US except for retaliation if attacked, while DPRK has missiles that can reach the US and has successfully tested Nuclear Weapons and has directly threatened the US. And DPRK doesn't garner the same if not more attention? Sometimes US logic escapes me.


jafar. You tell us you live in Australia? Take a good look at a Globe, or Map that shows the differences in Distance....via a N.K. Missile between the U.S.A. and Australia.

After thinking about how much closer YOU are. Tell us WHO should be paying MORE ATTENTION?

And tell us what LOGIC is involved with North Korea as you denounce, or ask silly questions about US logic???

[red states rule]

Kerry will have the same policy with the Iran as he did with all terrorists in 2004 http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/g/j/kerry_surrender_flag.jpg

[taft2012]

Based on John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign will that include obtaining a permission slip from the UN?

Based on Joe Biden's 2012 Vice Presidential debate, the whole discussion should be dismissed with a loud guffaw and a "Ohhhh, there's nothing to worry about!"

[mundame]

I know what they are going to do: I figured out this whole kind of thing during the European Union crisis.

They will kick the can down the road into the next administration.

Because the rule for all politicians is never be proactive, only react to an actual crisis in the moment.

This is because trying to solve an incipient crisis often brings it on, is unpopular, or causes worse trouble. Like when the Federal Reserve tried to stop the stock market's crazy bubble rise in the summer of 1928. The market reacted so strongly by falling a lot that they backed off and no federal reserve board has ever interfered that way again, including the latest bubble that broke in 2008. Let things happen as they will, THEN react: at least then you can't be blamed.

They will do nothing until war has already started and Israel or the U.S. is bombed, or some other serious move has been made, as when Saddam moved into Kuwait.

Moving to solve a problem in advance often works out poorly, as when Bush Jr. decided taking out Saddam entirely would be a GOOD thing to do. Whoops, that didn't work well. Bogged down for ten years and lost.

And I think that makes a lot of sense, because often things solve themselves, like the collapse of the Soviet Union. So many people wanted to nuke them, but that turned out to be unnecessary. So they wait and wait until Hitler actually does invade Poland. It makes sense, really, because things we fear often don't happen at all, and things we never see coming blow up in a moment.

[taft2012]

Moving to solve a problem in advance often works out poorly, as when Bush Jr. decided taking out Saddam entirely would be a GOOD thing to do. Whoops, that didn't work well. Bogged down for ten years and lost.



Yes, Saddam is still ruling with an iron fist in Baghdad, sneering at us, and doing his victory dance at the end of a rope.

[mundame]

Yes, Saddam is still ruling with an iron fist in Baghdad, sneering at us, and doing his victory dance at the end of a rope.

It wasn't cost effective. And Iraq is a total mess and we didn't really get the bases we wanted, though we have an "embassy" that's a lot more than that.

The idea, I think, was to put the fear of God into the evil dictators who found our sanctions the fountain of youth. What was the phrase? Not decapitate....replace the leadership, anyway. Via, you know, death. Because sanctions were so very not working: see North Korea and Iran.

However, trying to bring down regimes while still fooling the people that they're our newest, bestest wittle friendsies didn't work either. And it's bankrupting our nation, all these many losing forever wars.

Sometimes you just can't solve the problem. So far, they haven't.

[taft2012]

It wasn't cost effective. And Iraq is a total mess and we didn't really get the bases we wanted, though we have an "embassy" that's a lot more than that.

The idea, I think, was to put the fear of God into the evil dictators who found our sanctions the fountain of youth. What was the phrase? Not decapitate....replace the leadership, anyway. Via, you know, death. Because sanctions were so very not working: see North Korea and Iran.

However, trying to bring down regimes while still fooling the people that they're our newest, bestest wittle friendsies didn't work either. And it's bankrupting our nation, all these many losing forever wars.

Sometimes you just can't solve the problem. So far, they haven't.

I wasn't aware that the margin between victory and defeat in a war was found in accountants' ledgers, and that not being "cost effective" was an indicator of defeat.

The idea.... was to carry forth what President Bush said after 9/11, that we were waging a war against terrorism, not necessarily governments. And that leaders who harbored terrorist organizations, but denied any link to them, were liable.

Was it successful? During this period Qadaffi felt the pressure and unilaterally surrendered his WMDS. Probably the oldest terrorist organization in the world, the Irish Republican Army, decommissioned itself. Two significant successes the liberal media was loathe to report and hopes were quickly forgotten.

What is truly bankrupting our country is our socialist programs. Programs that have never won, anywhere they were ever attempted. But that record of eternal failure never seems to sway the liberals in their eternal "war on poverty."

[mundame]

I wasn't aware that the margin between victory and defeat in a war was found in accountants' ledgers, and that not being "cost effective" was an indicator of defeat.

The idea.... was to carry forth what President Bush said after 9/11, that we were waging a war against terrorism, not necessarily governments. And that leaders who harbored terrorist organizations, but denied any link to them, were liable.

Was it successful? During this period Qadaffi felt the pressure and unilaterally surrendered his WMDS. Probably the oldest terrorist organization in the world, the Irish Republican Army, decommissioned itself. Two significant successes the liberal media was loathe to report and hopes were quickly forgotten.

What is truly bankrupting our country is our socialist programs. Programs that have never won, anywhere they were ever attempted. But that record of eternal failure never seems to sway the liberals in their eternal "war on poverty."


It was not cost effective AND we were defeated, twice. Not counting Vietnam, same thing, where we were supposed to have learned not to do this crazy stuff.

Sure, good idea, go after terrorists. So why not leave Afghanistan the moment we lost at Tora Bora? We knew he wasn't there, and he wasn't there. This whole idea of security colonization is a total screw-up. It does not work. Stop it and try something else. I'd be okay with actually going to war, REAL war, but not these half-hearted social work wars. Boy, do they not work. Boy, are they bankrupting us.

The Irish Republican Army deal has nothing whatsoever to do with us. And it will certainly spring up again: it has done so for....let's see, what's 2013 AD minus 800 AD? A long time.

Yes, Qaddafi was much impressed. I can't say that worked out well for him, or us, or anyone --- this week the news was full of France and Britain trying to get their citizens out of Benghazi fast because of the Algerian hostage crisis, which apparently is being run by the Libyan terrorists in Benghazi. I question saying anything whatsoever in that part of the world was "solved" by Bush's stupid Iraq war.

I agree with you about the socialist programs, of course. People here are trying to persuade me that is the whole problem with our deficits, but I don't believe it since historically, it's always the losing wars, wars, wars that collapse a nation's financial system. It's been a remarkably common event. There has only been one time before right now that social programs have collapsed a financial system (Germany, support for the miner strikers in the Ruhr, to avoid giving France coal for reparations. Collapsed the entire monetary system, 1923.) I need numbers, numbers.....you could be right, but I just don't believe all these pointless, off-budget ten-year wars aren't the reason we have overwhelming deficits. That was always what brought down the Henrys and Henris, for centuries.

[fj1200]

...you could be right, but I just don't believe all these pointless, off-budget ten-year wars aren't the reason we have overwhelming deficits. That was always what brought down the Henrys and Henris, for centuries.

:facepalm99:

[mundame]

:facepalm99:


Clicking on an emoticon is sure easier than doing the research to post figures to prove your point, isn't it?

Boy, I definitely sympathize with that.

I need to get me some good smilies so I never have to research any numbers.

http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

[fj1200]

Clicking on an emoticon is sure easier than doing the research to post figures to prove your point, isn't it?

Boy, I definitely sympathize with that.

I need to get me some good smilies so I never have to research any numbers.

http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

I already did the research, I already posted it for you in another thread, and you are already ignoring it when it's inconvenient.

[mundame]

I already did the research, I already posted it for you in another thread, and you are already ignoring it when it's inconvenient.



You know, I missed that. I definitely don't read every thread. I stay out of the ones the mean cretins start, for instance.

Are you going to tell me which thread, and which post? Somehow I doubt that information will be forthcoming....getting information out of you is like pulling out a tapeworm the wrong way. Not that I would know. Just a simile.

[bingster]

Yes, Saddam is still ruling with an iron fist in Baghdad, sneering at us, and doing his victory dance at the end of a rope.

Along with 60,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,400 American troops. None of these 64,400 dead had anything to do with what Saddam was hung for.

[jimnyc]

Along with 60,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,400 American troops. None of these 64,400 dead had anything to do with what Saddam was hung for.

The majority of lives lost were due to the people attacking Americans. We went in to remove Saddam. Their army fought back and was obliterated. The US made it clear we were going to remove Saddam and help the people. Citizens, rebels, freedom fighters, terrorists... call them what you will, they attacked Americans for years. It was a big mistake. Also, the majority of those deaths were from infighting and such. Don't blame the Americans for all of those deaths, it's naive and ignorant, quite frankly.

[LadyGunSlinger]

I know what they are going to do: I figured out this whole kind of thing during the European Union crisis.

They will kick the can down the road into the next administration.

Because the rule for all politicians is never be proactive, only react to an actual crisis in the moment.

This is because trying to solve an incipient crisis often brings it on, is unpopular, or causes worse trouble. Like when the Federal Reserve tried to stop the stock market's crazy bubble rise in the summer of 1928. The market reacted so strongly by falling a lot that they backed off and no federal reserve board has ever interfered that way again, including the latest bubble that broke in 2008. Let things happen as they will, THEN react: at least then you can't be blamed.

They will do nothing until war has already started and Israel or the U.S. is bombed, or some other serious move has been made, as when Saddam moved into Kuwait.

Moving to solve a problem in advance often works out poorly, as when Bush Jr. decided taking out Saddam entirely would be a GOOD thing to do. Whoops, that didn't work well. Bogged down for ten years and lost.

And I think that makes a lot of sense, because often things solve themselves, like the collapse of the Soviet Union. So many people wanted to nuke them, but that turned out to be unnecessary. So they wait and wait until Hitler actually does invade Poland. It makes sense, really, because things we fear often don't happen at all, and things we never see coming blow up in a moment.


Wow, I've been here for all of three posts and your naivity is already flooring me. Do you actually believe Iran will "SOLVE ITSELF?"

[mundame]

Wow, I've been here for all of three posts and your naivity is already flooring me. Do you actually believe Iran will "SOLVE ITSELF?"

It might, it might not. Did you believe we should have nuked Russia? You probably did. If so, you were dead wrong.

Sometimes kicking the can down the street works: the Soviet Union fell on its own.

Sometimes kicking the can down the street does not work: Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is the Twentieth Century's most famous failed policy.

The point is, whether you like it or whether you don't, it's what politicians pretty much ALWAYS do. Obama is doing it with North Korea and with Iran. Bush did exactly the same.

Under instruction from Rumsfeld, Bush decided to go after Saddam WITHOUT a crisis. It was an interesting experiment, removing the problem heads of state instead of giving them "sanctions," which never work, and I was for it at the time, but it failed. We got bogged down.

Probably better to keep kicking the can down the road until a crisis fully develops and has to be dealt with. That's what FDR did, after all, waited till everybody at once was declaring war on us. Clinton, Reagan, everybody did this, waited for the actual crisis. It's what all the pols in Europe are doing right now.

I've decided I'm okay with it. Good process. It results in less war and more obvious solutions. I hope.

[mundame]

Wow, I've been here for all of three posts and your naivity is already flooring me. Do you actually believe Iran will "SOLVE ITSELF?"



You're ConHog signed up again under a different name!! I can tell by the writing style, which is very distinctive. You are certainly no female; feminine writing style is very easy to differentiate from a man.

I love it. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/szemtelen/cheeky-smiley-023.gif Very amusing. But you still don't get to put in some mean whacks and assume I'll talk to you anyway.

[fj1200]

You know, I missed that. I definitely don't read every thread. I stay out of the ones the mean cretins start, for instance.

Are you going to tell me which thread, and which post? Somehow I doubt that information will be forthcoming....getting information out of you is like pulling out a tapeworm the wrong way. Not that I would know. Just a simile.

Yes, yes, my apologies. It is clearly my fault that you didn't follow up in a thread when I responded directly to you.

Right here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38850-Ultimate-power/page4) btw. Plenty of information is forthcoming from me... well it is when you bother to read it.

[jimnyc]

You're ConHog signed up again under a different name!! I can tell by the writing style, which is very distinctive. You are certainly no female; feminine writing style is very easy to differentiate from a man.

I love it. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/szemtelen/cheeky-smiley-023.gif Very amusing. But you still don't get to put in some mean whacks and assume I'll talk to you anyway.

Different location, different IP... everything is different. I can only verify that she and CH aren't one and the same, and matches no other account either.

Sometimes some women are a little rougher around the edges, which can be cool. I think one can be sarcastic and "mean" without being abusive.

[LadyGunSlinger]

You're ConHog signed up again under a different name!! I can tell by the writing style, which is very distinctive. You are certainly no female; feminine writing style is very easy to differentiate from a man.

I love it. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/szemtelen/cheeky-smiley-023.gif Very amusing. But you still don't get to put in some mean whacks and assume I'll talk to you anyway.

What??? I've been on two forums for a total of 5 years now. I am most definitely a girl but quite frankly I don't give a shit what you think. I'm not here for your approval. WTF is a ConHog anyway???

Lastly, are you daft?

[jimnyc]

WTF is a ConHog anyway???

Ya just HAD to ask :lol:

[LadyGunSlinger]

Ya just HAD to ask :lol:



Being I've been accused of being one.. yea lol I'd like to know what it is??

[jimnyc]

Being I've been accused of being one.. yea lol I'd like to know what it is??

He's a member here, Conhog. Something to do with the constitution, and him being a pig, and he mixed the 2. He's a charming fella, he'll be along soon. :laugh:

Btw, would you mind sharing a picture of your boobies with me? (unless you're over 80). You can send in private if you don't want to share with others! :beer:

[LadyGunSlinger]

He's a member here, Conhog. Something to do with the constitution, and him being a pig, and he mixed the 2. He's a charming fella, he'll be along soon. :laugh:

Btw, would you mind sharing a picture of your boobies with me? (unless you're over 80). You can send in private if you don't want to share with others! :beer:


Hahahaha! I like you ;-) Someone here with fire, passion, and a totally raunchy sense of humor to match my own!

I'm 27.. Farrrrrrrrrrrrr from 80.. and I believe I knew you once on a forum you may have been an Administrator on?

[LadyGunSlinger]

He's a member here, Conhog. Something to do with the constitution, and him being a pig, and he mixed the 2. He's a charming fella, he'll be along soon. :laugh:

Btw, would you mind sharing a picture of your boobies with me? (unless you're over 80). You can send in private if you don't want to share with others! :beer:


PS- Thanks for the heads up on Cornhole.. Can't wait to meet him!:thumb:

[jimnyc]

Hahahaha! I like you ;-) Someone here with fire, passion, and a totally raunchy sense of humor to match my own!

I'm 27.. Farrrrrrrrrrrrr from 80.. and I believe I knew you once on a forum you may have been an Administrator on?

Oh, I definitely want to see them then! 27 is a great age, and the picture will help me with my studies! ;)

Let me take a guess - how long have you been a member at USMB? I think I might have been there a while back.

[jimnyc]

PS- Thanks for the heads up on Cornhole.. Can't wait to meet him!:thumb:

Oh, that's messed up, only someone who knows him would say that! LOL I've been had! :lol:

[LadyGunSlinger]

Oh, that's messed up, only someone who knows him would say that! LOL I've been had! :lol:

I honest to God don't know who this person is.. I just have a potty mouth and that was the closest word to his name so I chose it.. You can look me up over at another place.. I've posted on two forums..

[jimnyc]

I honest to God don't know who this person is.. I just have a potty mouth and that was the closest word to his name so I chose it.. You can look me up over at another place.. I've posted on two forums..

How long have you been a member over @ USMB?

[LadyGunSlinger]

Oh, I definitely want to see them then! 27 is a great age, and the picture will help me with my studies! ;)

Let me take a guess - how long have you been a member at USMB? I think I might have been there a while back.


Yep.. that's the one! 02/06/2011 and before that Hannity forum but don't hold that against me! LOL Today when I decided to leave USMB, I did a search with Gunny's name and your name came up with another board that has the same USMB name but plural, and this one.. This one said it is owned by Gunny so I chose this one. Anyhow, I have over 8000 posts on USMB and 13,000 on Hannity.

[jimnyc]

Yep.. that's the one! 02/06/2011 and before that Hannity forum but don't hold that against me! LOL Today when I decided to leave USMB, I did a search with Gunny's name and your name came up with another board that has the same USMB name but plural, and this one.. This one said it is owned by Gunny so I chose this one. Anyhow, I have over 8000 posts on USMB and 13,000 on Hannity.

I owned USMB from 2003-2007. Gunny was a moderator for awhile with me there, and for awhile here. The plural name I don't believe Gunny has anything to do with, not at all. This board was started in 2007 and a lot of old time members post here, or at both.

[mundame]

Yes, yes, my apologies. It is clearly my fault that you didn't follow up in a thread when I responded directly to you.

Right here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38850-Ultimate-power/page4) btw. Plenty of information is forthcoming from me... well it is when you bother to read it.

I did miss it. Excellent info, thank you very much!!

Okay, I'm just going to recapitulate by copying over your post.

************************************************** **********************************

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mundame http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610245#post610245)
At this point one of us should probably back up our claims with figures and citations.....

What are you thinking is the biggest contributor to our budget deficit problem?





Total spent to date in Iraq and Afghanistan. $1.4TT (http://costofwar.com/)

Recent budget deficits:



<TBODY>
Obama Deficits
Bush Deficits


FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion


FY 2012: $1,089 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion


FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion


FY 2010: $1,293 billion

</TBODY>




http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html)

My statement was a bit off but the point remains. We spent in one stimulus bill in what we had spent in the wars to that point.
************************************************** **************************************

Okay, if I understand this correctly, the worst Bush deficit was 1.413 trillion, and that was the stimulus money the Treasury Secretary went down on his knees for, literally, to Nancy Pelosi, don't get me started.....

And the war expenses to date are 1.416 trillion. Which is worse than the worst year deficit, barely. Aaarrrrrrrgh.

Then Obama continues large deficits of 1 trillion and more nearly every year. So that is definitely not helping! But the wars wars wars are bankrupting the country just as they have every country that plays adventure wars, forever and ever amen. I did read the famous Reinhart and Rogoff book, "This Time Is Different," in which they say it's never different, across the centuries: deficit spending for wars and whatever always, always end in catastrophe. And here we go again.

[LadyGunSlinger]

I owned USMB from 2003-2007. Gunny was a moderator for awhile with me there, and for awhile here. The plural name I don't believe Gunny has anything to do with, not at all. This board was started in 2007 and a lot of old time members post here, or at both.

Oh wow.. you owned it. I thought perhaps you had posted there and maybe still did? Anyhow, police state over there..Not my thing. I need freedom to speak my mind so I chose this forum after reading you don't squelch free speech.

[fj1200]

I did miss it. Excellent info, thank you very much!!

Okay, I'm just going to recapitulate by copying over your post.

...

Okay, if I understand this correctly, the worst Bush deficit was 1.413 trillion, and that was the stimulus money the Treasury Secretary went down on his knees for, literally, to Nancy Pelosi, don't get me started.....

And the war expenses to date are 1.416 trillion. Which is worse than the worst year deficit, barely. Aaarrrrrrrgh.

Then Obama continues large deficits of 1 trillion and more nearly every year. So that is definitely not helping! But the wars wars wars are bankrupting the country just as they have every country that plays adventure wars, forever and ever amen. I did read the famous Reinhart and Rogoff book, "This Time Is Different," in which they say it's never different, across the centuries: deficit spending for wars and whatever always, always end in catastrophe. And here we go again.

Actually the '09 "Bush" deficit was bumped up considerably by the stimuli and other bills passed under BO so that's not entirely accurate. And no, the wars are not bankrupting the country, they are manageable fiscally, the Bush deficits were far below what we have now, the fact that our revenues are FAR underperforming and our spending is FAR above what we should be spending is what is leading to our "bankruptcy." There is no change in either the revenue or spending scenario for the foreseeable future and the entitlement can has again been kicked down the road.

[mundame]

I think one can be sarcastic and "mean" without being abusive.



No, sarcastic and mean IS abusive. I mean, what else defines abuse, you know?



I'm not much of a fan of sock puppetry and never do it myself, so I'll wait till all this gets sorted out. Maybe I'll take out the real ConHog after awhile and dust him off. Nothing like direct communication....is this triangulating?

God knows. Triangulating virtually on the Internet...I am so confused.

[jimnyc]

Oh wow.. you owned it. I thought perhaps you had posted there and maybe still did? Anyhow, police state over there..Not my thing. I need freedom to speak my mind so I chose this forum after reading you don't squelch free speech.

Nah, I don't post there. I'll reserve comment about my opinion of the place now, just simply not my cup of tea.

[jimnyc]

No, sarcastic and mean IS abusive. I mean, what else defines abuse, you know?

I play sarcastic and mean at times for fun, not to be abusive. I even refer to myself as a dirtbag, a bastard and such. I know it's not for everyone to speak certain ways, so I do communicate differently with different people, but I just don't always think the intent is to be abusive - even if the receiver takes it as so.

[LadyGunSlinger]

No, sarcastic and mean IS abusive. I mean, what else defines abuse, you know?



I'm not much of a fan of sock puppetry and never do it myself, so I'll wait till all this gets sorted out. Maybe I'll take out the real ConHog after awhile and dust him off. Nothing like direct communication....is this triangulating?

God knows. Triangulating virtually on the Internet...I am so confused.

You sound paranoid. I've never posted on this forum until today, PERIOD and I am damn tired of being accused of something I haven't done. I didn't come here to get the 3rd fucking degree.. I came to debate the issues which is a great passion of mine. I debate hard and thus it's not for crybaby liberals still stuck on daddy gubmints teat..kindly worry about yourself.

[LadyGunSlinger]

I play sarcastic and mean at times for fun, not to be abusive. I even refer to myself as a dirtbag, a bastard and such. I know it's not for everyone to speak certain ways, so I do communicate differently with different people, but I just don't always think the intent is to be abusive - even if the receiver takes it as so.


I don't think this forum is a good fit for me.. Anyhow, the best to you.

[Drummond]

It wasn't cost effective. And Iraq is a total mess and we didn't really get the bases we wanted, though we have an "embassy" that's a lot more than that.

The idea, I think, was to put the fear of God into the evil dictators who found our sanctions the fountain of youth. What was the phrase? Not decapitate....replace the leadership, anyway. Via, you know, death. Because sanctions were so very not working: see North Korea and Iran.

However, trying to bring down regimes while still fooling the people that they're our newest, bestest wittle friendsies didn't work either. And it's bankrupting our nation, all these many losing forever wars.

Sometimes you just can't solve the problem. So far, they haven't.

A total mess ?

Iraq would've been better off with Saddam still in charge, then ? A Saddam allowed to totally defy the world on WMD's (which, by the way, would've sent a TERRIBLE precedent to any tinpot dictatorship or terrorist-enabling power interested in stockpiling their own WMD's !!!). A Saddam still ruling his Police State, still bankrolling Hamas, still adding mass graves to his systematic carnage ...

Maybe he'd have launched another Kuwait-style aggression by now ?

But military intervention STOPPED ALL OF THAT. And, do you propose to suggest that Iraq should've been denied any chance at democratic accountability, its citizens remain robbed of any chance to have a democratic say in their own affairs ??

On the subject of Iran. I ask .. will America EVER take action to save Israel from what Iran has threatened Israel with ? They continue to work to acquire a nuke capability, while Obama sits on his hands, letting them continue. Sanctions have been ineffective, but Iran faces nothing worse than their continuation.

So, the threat to Israel draws ever-closer.

A former leading British politician, Michael Portillo, who now regularly appears on a BBC late night programme called 'This Week', said just a handful of days ago that, in his opinion, Iran will have managed to arm itself with nukes before the end of this year .. and he expects that America will just, finally, accept that reality.

But ... CAN ISRAEL DO SO ??

Hardly !

I suggest that America's window of opportunity to help safeguard Israel from an Iranian atrocity of mass murder, perhaps approaching genocidal levels, is fast disappearing.

[ConHog]

PS- Thanks for the heads up on Cornhole.. Can't wait to meet him!:thumb:

Hello :dance:


welcome to DP, the rumors you hear about me are true. I'm a dick.

well unless you're actually intelligent.



as to the thread, I still maintain that all you people who don't want Iran to have a nuke are WRONG

I maintain that we should help them.

Let's toss about 20 their way and give them a call and tell 'em they are on the way and they can keep any that they manage to catch :D

[mundame]

I need freedom to speak my mind so I chose this forum after reading you don't squelch free speech.



Jim doesn't squelch free speech, and good for him.

I do, however.

I have found there is a strong correlation between high intelligence and being able to be civil.

That is, the El Stupidos shit where they eat.



As you like, of course. We'll see which you are.

[jimnyc]

I don't think this forum is a good fit for me.. Anyhow, the best to you.

Why is that? I don't think you gave it a fair chance yet! If it's someone that upsets you, place them on your ignore list.

[LadyGunSlinger]

Hello :dance:


welcome to DP, the rumors you hear about me are true. I'm a dick.

well unless you're actually intelligent.

Quite so.. however the whiney posting style here isn't my thing.. It was nice to have met you. ;-)

[LadyGunSlinger]

Jim doesn't squelch free speech, and good for him.

I do, however.

I have found there is a strong correlation between high intelligence and being able to be civil.

That is, the El Stupidos shit where they eat.



As you like, of course. We'll see which you are.

Good.. Then keep your word and put me on ignore. I don't even care to indulge your pathetic diaper rash response---- so get lost.

[mundame]

Actually the '09 "Bush" deficit was bumped up considerably by the stimuli and other bills passed under BO so that's not entirely accurate. And no, the wars are not bankrupting the country, they are manageable fiscally, the Bush deficits were far below what we have now, the fact that our revenues are FAR underperforming and our spending is FAR above what we should be spending is what is leading to our "bankruptcy." There is no change in either the revenue or spending scenario for the foreseeable future and the entitlement can has again been kicked down the road.



Yes, well, I don't disagree. Of course the entitlements are ALSO bankrupting the nation. But so are the wars, wars, wars, which ol' whats-his-face could have stopped at once: he was elected to do that, after all. But noooooooooooo, on and on and on they go. And more and more added in Libya, and Mali, and god knows where.

This is not making me happy.

[ConHog]

You sound paranoid. I've never posted on this forum until today, PERIOD and I am damn tired of being accused of something I haven't done. I didn't come here to get the 3rd fucking degree.. I came to debate the issues which is a great passion of mine. I debate hard and thus it's not for crybaby liberals still stuck on daddy gubmints teat..kindly worry about yourself.

Pssst we have more than our fair share of crybaby conservatives to, well not really the merely claim to be conservative.

[LadyGunSlinger]

Why is that? I don't think you gave it a fair chance yet! If it's someone that upsets you, place them on your ignore list.

True enough.. Ok.. I'll give it a chance. One whiney poster does not a forum make! :-)

[LadyGunSlinger]

Pssst we have more than our fair share of crybaby conservatives to, well not really the merely claim to be conservative.

Really? Do tell.. and don't leave out names.. ;-) LOL.. Seriously, I'm certain I'll find out for myself eventually.

[jimnyc]

True enough.. Ok.. I'll give it a chance. One whiney poster does not a forum make! :-)

No it doesn't. Every member will have their share of other members they dislike, but they don't represent the entire community. We have a lot of very intelligent members here. Discard those you don't care for if necessary and enjoy the banter and debate with the others.

[Drummond]

I don't think this forum is a good fit for me.. Anyhow, the best to you.

Well, I've just gone through your posts. Hope you do stick with this forum.

[Drummond]

True enough.. Ok.. I'll give it a chance. One whiney poster does not a forum make! :-):clap::clap::clap:

[ConHog]

Really? Do tell.. and don't leave out names.. ;-) LOL.. Seriously, I'm certain I'll find out for myself eventually.

no, can't do that LOL

Besides in all honesty , we have more good posters here than bad , and mundame isn't one of the bad ones either to be fair. At least she makes some attempt to use some facts behind her posts.

We'll see how you fair in that department.

[jimnyc]

no, can't do that LOL

Besides in all honesty , we have more good posters here than bad , and mundame isn't one of the bad ones either to be fair. At least she makes some attempt to use some facts behind her posts.

We'll see how you fair in that department.

She called you "Cornhole" before she ever even met you. She must be what they call "clairvoyant"? Or maybe ESP? :lol: :coffee:

[LadyGunSlinger]

no, can't do that LOL

Besides in all honesty , we have more good posters here than bad , and mundame isn't one of the bad ones either to be fair. At least she makes some attempt to use some facts behind her posts.

We'll see how you fair in that department.

Oh gee, as if you are the purveyor of character. Spare me.

[ConHog]

Oh gee, as if you are the purveyor of character. Spare me.

Da fuq? I was KIDDING!! Lighten up.

PS intelligence is not a function of character. So , no I don't judge character when I judge intelligence.

[ConHog]

She called you "Cornhole" before she ever even met you. She must be what they call "clairvoyant"? Or maybe ESP? :lol: :coffee:

or maybe she is a sock on USMB of a long time poster who holds a grudge against me LOL


oh did I say that out loud?

[Thunderknuckles]

Da fuq? I was KIDDING!! Lighten up.

PS intelligence is not a function of character. So , no I don't judge character when I judge intelligence.
Making new friends ConHog? :laugh:

[mundame]

A total mess ?

Iraq would've been better off with Saddam still in charge, then ?


Oh, sure. Iraq was the only modern state in that godforsaken sandpit, the Mideast. Many people here now realize Iraq was a lot better off with Saddam than the daily bombings of dozens that go on now, a total mess.


A Saddam allowed to totally defy the world on WMD's (which, by the way, would've sent a TERRIBLE precedent to any tinpot dictatorship or terrorist-enabling power interested in stockpiling their own WMD's !!!).


There were no WMDs. You all may be a little behind on the news, but let me be the first to inform you: it was all a total deception. Rumsfeld and his Office of Strategic Disinformation. Many of us, me included, realized that going in, but it seemed a good idea at the time, reform the government, get rid of one of the bad guy dictators and the rest might fall in line like Gaddafi did...

Ah, well, "the best laid schemes o ' mice and men, Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain." Wasn't a bad idea, it just didn't work.



Maybe he'd have launched another Kuwait-style aggression by now ?

No, the first Bush got him broke of that.


And, do you propose to suggest that Iraq should've been denied any chance at democratic accountability, its citizens remain robbed of any chance to have a democratic say in their own affairs ??


Oh, is that what is going on? I thought it was daily bombings in the marketplaces. Yeah, that's what's going on.


On the subject of Iran. I ask .. will America EVER take action to save Israel from what Iran has threatened Israel with ? They continue to work to acquire a nuke capability, while Obama sits on his hands, letting them continue. Sanctions have been ineffective, but Iran faces nothing worse than their continuation.

So, the threat to Israel draws ever-closer.

It does indeed. On the other hand, Israel has some 30 nukes and a large and very able airforce to deliver them. AND --- note this --- just as Britain is not our 51st state, Israel is by no means our 52nd state. We owe them NOTHING.

The more they are on their own the happier I am and the better off Israel is, because then they'll have a free hand. We do them no favors constantly squelching them. You have noticed that this is what all American "care-taking" of Israel is, right? Constantly trying to squelch them in favor of the evil Muslims? I'm not in favor of any of that. I like Netanyahu. I think they should drive out all, ALL of the Pals into Syria (which deserves them) and rationalize their borders properly. All Muslims OUT, Jerusalem the capital, the borders a nice even lozenge, and things would be a lot better.

I realize this is a little radical, but it is heartfelt.



A former leading British politician, Michael Portillo, who now regularly appears on a BBC late night programme called 'This Week', said just a handful of days ago that, in his opinion, Iran will have managed to arm itself with nukes before the end of this year .. and he expects that America will just, finally, accept that reality.

But ... CAN ISRAEL DO SO ??


Well, Israel never did accept any of it before; they bombed nuke factories in both Iraq and Syria. Looks like a trend to me.



I suggest that America's window of opportunity to help safeguard Israel from an Iranian atrocity of mass murder, perhaps approaching genocidal levels, is fast disappearing.

Israel is substantially tougher than we are. Let them get on with it. They don't need us, except for overfly permissions. And I'm not at all sure they need that......

Plausible deniability.

[ConHog]

Making new friends ConHog? :laugh:

I know right. a brand new poster I welcome to the board shits on me, what the fuq?

oh well.

[LadyGunSlinger]

or maybe she is a sock on USMB of a long time poster who holds a grudge against me LOL


oh did I say that out loud?

Who are you on USMB? I don't believe I've ever met you prior to today. It's not something I would soon forget.:rolleyes3:

[LadyGunSlinger]

I know right. a brand new poster I welcome to the board shits on me, what the fuq?

oh well.


You'll get over it. ;-) And if not.. LOL

[Thunderknuckles]

I know right. a brand new poster I welcome to the board shits on me, what the fuq?

oh well.
Well, you did kinda put the whole challenge on her intelligence out there :p

[ConHog]

Well, you did kinda put the whole challenge on her intelligence out there :p

challenge =/= question my friend.

I challenge you on your intelligence every thread we spar in. I don't question that you are intelligent though.

[Drummond]

Who are you on USMB? I don't believe I've ever met you prior to today. It's not something I would soon forget.:rolleyes3:

.. Just to say my piece here and now, then I'll move on ... Lady Gunslinger, I for one suspect we'll probably agree on various issues. But, here's the thing .. if we don't, I will still be happy to debate with you, and without the need for - well, moronic ! - personalisations. It's not really my style.

Just enjoy yourself here. There are some great characters here, as you'll find out for yourself if you stick around.

[LadyGunSlinger]

.. Just to say my piece here and now, then I'll move on ... Lady Gunslinger, I for one suspect we'll probably agree on various issues. But, here's the thing .. if we don't, I will still be happy to debate with you, and without the need for - well, moronic ! - personalisations. It's not really my style.

Just enjoy yourself here. There are some great characters here, as you'll find out for yourself if you stick around.

That's understandable. Everyone is different. I'm very aggressive in my debate style and don't like to lose.. BUT.. I totally respect where you're coming from and will remember to always respect your standards, thus I will be gentle with you. ::::winks:::::

[Abbey Marie]

Yep.. that's the one! 02/06/2011 and before that Hannity forum but don't hold that against me! LOL Today when I decided to leave USMB, I did a search with Gunny's name and your name came up with another board that has the same USMB name but plural, and this one.. This one said it is owned by Gunny so I chose this one. Anyhow, I have over 8000 posts on USMB and 13,000 on Hannity.

What? That's some very wrong information.

[ConHog]

What? That's some very wrong information.

Well, you're speaking about information about a poster who attacked me simply for saying we'll see if you're intelligent or not.

so............

[LadyGunSlinger]

What? That's some very wrong information.

Wrong or not.. When I found the first one, US Message Boards and read a thread in the Flame Zone about Gunny owning a forum D.P... I googled that info, and this came up.. What's the big fucking deal here anyhow??

[LadyGunSlinger]

Well, you're speaking about information about a poster who attacked me simply for saying we'll see if you're intelligent or not.

so............


Attacked you?? LMAO Really, stop whining.. it's totally unbecoming and secondly.. you give me some litmus test to meet and you're crying over being attacked because I had the audacity to respond? Too damn bad. If you can't stand the heat...............

[Drummond]

Oh, sure. Iraq was the only modern state in that godforsaken sandpit, the Mideast. Many people here now realize Iraq was a lot better off with Saddam than the daily bombings of dozens that go on now, a total mess.

Really ... are you joking ???

Saddam was brutal. You think his regime didn't go in for torture ? You've never heard of the mass graves attributable to his regime ? Never heard of the 'rape rooms' ?

A cruel, vicious regime doesn't get to be any the more acceptable just because it could also claim to be 'modern'. By that standard, in his day, Hitler must've had a lot going for him ... !!

And did you not read of the long queues of people who braved DEATH THREATS just to have their chance to vote in Iraq's first election ? Is it your opinion that they should have been denied that freedom ?

Today's Iraq may be far from perfect. But to deny its citizens their chance at self-determination, as Saddam would've done .. NOT acceptable !!


There were no WMDs. You all may be a little behind on the news, but let me be the first to inform you: it was all a total deception. Rumsfeld and his Office of Strategic Disinformation. Many of us, me included, realized that going in, but it seemed a good idea at the time, reform the government, get rid of one of the bad guy dictators and the rest might fall in line like Gaddafi did...

Mundame, all you REALLY know is that the WMD's that were expected to be found and captured, weren't ... and I'm choosing my words carefully, because in fact over 500 old WMD's really WERE found.

Failure to find something doesn't prove its nonexistence. If I lose a ballpoint pen and fail to find it, does that mean the pen never existed, or was snuffed out of existence by my failure to find it ? NO, IT DOESN'T.

And ask yourself, by the way, where Syria's stock of WMD's has come from. Their being shipped from Iraq was long rumoured. Now, we know Syria has some. BUT WHERE FROM ??


On the other hand, Israel has some 30 nukes and a large and very able airforce to deliver them. AND --- note this --- just as Britain is not our 51st state, Israel is by no means our 52nd state. We owe them NOTHING.

Israel is your ally. But, this means nothing ?

Say that Iran gets nukes, then launches a surprise attack. If you switch on your TV one morning to find it showing you a picture of a large crater where Tel Aviv used to be, will your reaction - on considering that maybe the US could've played its part in PREVENTING THAT CARNAGE - be just to say, 'We owed them nothing' ??

Happily, Mundame, there are survivors of Hitler's Holocaust who are grateful to the Americans who helped deliver them from Hitler's nightmare, Americans who'd never have taken that view.


The more they are on their own the happier I am and the better off Israel is, because then they'll have a free hand. We do them no favors constantly squelching them. You have noticed that this is what all American "care-taking" of Israel is, right? Constantly trying to squelch them in favor of the evil Muslims? I'm not in favor of any of that. I like Netanyahu. I think they should drive out all, ALL of the Pals into Syria (which deserves them) and rationalize their borders properly. All Muslims OUT, Jerusalem the capital, the borders a nice even lozenge, and things would be a lot better.

So, Obama is far too pro-Palestinian ? Well, yes. He and his Administration is. But to suppose that Israel should be left to fend for itself, JUST because Obama can't be the decent ally he should be ... that's surely unacceptable.

[Abbey Marie]

Wrong or not.. When I found the first one, US Message Boards and read a thread in the Flame Zone about Gunny owning a forum D.P... I googled that info, and this came up.. What's the big fucking deal here anyhow??

If you can be more specific about your question, I will try to answer it.

[jimnyc]

Wrong or not.. When I found the first one, US Message Boards and read a thread in the Flame Zone about Gunny owning a forum D.P... I googled that info, and this came up.. What's the big fucking deal here anyhow??

No biggie. I'm sure someone with bogus info posted that over there... Gunny left being in charge at USMB, then was a MOD here shortly thereafter. Someone probably assumed it was his place and posted as much.

[ConHog]

Wrong or not.. When I found the first one, US Message Boards and read a thread in the Flame Zone about Gunny owning a forum D.P... I googled that info, and this came up.. What's the big fucking deal here anyhow??

she didn't say it was a big deal, she said it was wrong information. Just as I didn't question your intelligence, I merely stated that we will see.

As I tell others on here. Words have meanings. Try interpreting them correctly.

[LadyGunSlinger]

she didn't say it was a big deal, she said it was wrong information. Just as I didn't question your intelligence, I merely stated that we will see.

As I tell others on here. Words have meanings. Try interpreting them correctly.


I wasn't talking to you.. Mind your own business. I came to a new forum today making a HUGE change and I get the third fucking degree over here. I'm finished answering your questions and anyone else's about this stupidass subject. Go look me up over there.. I'm much tougher..

[jimnyc]

I wasn't talking to you.. Mind your own business. I came to a new forum today making a HUGE change and I get the third fucking degree over here. I'm finished answering your questions and anyone else's about this stupidass subject. Go look me up over there.. I'm much tougher..

Damn! LOL You're an aggressive one, huh? :lol:

Abbey meant no harm. She was just ensuring that you were aware that Gunny didn't own this place. She's an administrator here and I'm sure you'll come to like her. As for Conhog, have at him!! :lol: :thumb:

[Thunderknuckles]

Attacked you?? LMAO Really, stop whining.. it's totally unbecoming and secondly.. you give me some litmus test to meet and you're crying over being attacked because I had the audacity to respond? Too damn bad. If you can't stand the heat...............
:lol:
I like her ConHog.
She's like you but with boobs ( or maybe man-boobs :p)

[Drummond]

That's understandable. Everyone is different. I'm very aggressive in my debate style and don't like to lose.. BUT.. I totally respect where you're coming from and will remember to always respect your standards, thus I will be gentle with you. ::::winks:::::

I think I will enjoy your posts ! And don't worry about being gentle. Honest debate is a great thing. Could be a lot of fun ... ;)

[jimnyc]

:lol:
I like her ConHog.
She's like you but with boobs ( or maybe man-boobs :p)

Someone say boobies? Where? Where?

[ConHog]

I wasn't talking to you.. Mind your own business. I came to a new forum today making a HUGE change and I get the third fucking degree over here. I'm finished answering your questions and anyone else's about this stupidass subject. Go look me up over there.. I'm much tougher..

This may surprise you but the board has a system of private communication if you wish to communicate with just one person. Otherwise , well your posts are open for anyone to respond to.

You're right , YOU came to the board, not the other way around. I welcomed you, you in return slurred my name and responded negatively .

I don't care to look at anything at that cesspool, and even if I did, it wouldn't be about you , I don't fucking care what you did or who you were over there, I only care how you behave over here.

So far my impressions are not favorable.

[ConHog]

Damn! LOL You're an aggressive one, huh? :lol:

Abbey meant no harm. She was just ensuring that you were aware that Gunny didn't own this place. She's an administrator here and I'm sure you'll come to like her. As for Conhog, have at him!! :lol: :thumb:

I would tell you to suck a dick, but I'm skeered you would take that as an invitation.

:laugh:

[LadyGunSlinger]

This may surprise you but the board has a system of private communication if you wish to communicate with just one person. Otherwise , well your posts are open for anyone to respond to.

You're right , YOU came to the board, not the other way around. I welcomed you, you in return slurred my name and responded negatively .

I don't care to look at anything at that cesspool, and even if I did, it wouldn't be about you , I don't fucking care what you did or who you were over there, I only care how you behave over here.

So far my impressions are not favorable.

Ask me if I give the first good damn about your impression? As far as your welcome, that's a joke but even more amusing is your incessant whining. One would think you need diapered on the hour here.. Now if you will excuse me, I have to meet my daughter's bus..

[LadyGunSlinger]

Damn! LOL You're an aggressive one, huh? :lol:

Abbey meant no harm. She was just ensuring that you were aware that Gunny didn't own this place. She's an administrator here and I'm sure you'll come to like her. As for Conhog, have at him!! :lol: :thumb:

I'm truly sorry about that.. I'm most likely overly sensitive right now due to that jackazz Cornholio. I sincerely apologize to Abby for my rude response.. As for Cornie, not a chance in hell.

[ConHog]

Ask me if I give the first good damn about your impression? As far as your welcome, that's a joke but even more amusing is your incessant whining. One would think you need diapered on the hour here.. Now if you will excuse me, I have to meet my daughter's bus..


I'm truly sorry about that.. I'm most likely overly sensitive right now due to that jackazz Cornholio. I sincerely apologize to Abby for my rude response.. As for Cornie, not a chance in hell.

Someone, anyone, please tell me what I said or did to bring on such angry responses?

[Drummond]

This may surprise you but the board has a system of private communication if you wish to communicate with just one person. Otherwise , well your posts are open for anyone to respond to.

You're right , YOU came to the board, not the other way around. I welcomed you, you in return slurred my name and responded negatively .

I don't care to look at anything at that cesspool, and even if I did, it wouldn't be about you , I don't fucking care what you did or who you were over there, I only care how you behave over here.

So far my impressions are not favorable.

Good God. I think you are the one who needs to lighten up.

Who knows what the future will bring. But for right now, this lady is a breath of fresh air here !! Cut her some slack. Besides, who are you - or who am I ? - to start rushing to judgments. We all need to contribute to forums like this one as it best suits us to do.

[ConHog]

Good God. I think you are the one who needs to lighten up.

Who knows what the future will bring. But for right now, this lady is a breath of fresh air here !! Cut her some slack. Besides, who are you - or who am I ? - to start rushing to judgments. We all need to contribute to forums like this one as it best suits us to do.

cut her some slack? All I did was say welcome we'll so how intelligent you are and she exploded at me.

[Thunderknuckles]

Someone, anyone, please tell me what I said or did to bring on such angry responses?
Now you're whining ConHog. Sack-up and go grab a beer
:beer:

[ConHog]

Now you're whining ConHog. Sack-up and go grab a beer
:beer:

Can't drink today, I'm on call. Letting the wife sleep all day.

[Thunderknuckles]

Can't drink today, I'm on call. Letting the wife sleep all day.
Bummer. The wife has a cooler full of them for me when I get home.
I'll be sure to take up your slack!

[ConHog]

Bummer. The wife has a cooler full of them for me when I get home.
I'll be sure to take up your slack!

Eh, not so much of a bummer. Tomorrow I'm playing 36 with the boys in trade for today and tonight.

[red states rule]

WTF is a ConHog anyway???

Lastly, are you daft?

Trust me you do not want to know what a ConHag is - unless you have a barf bag handy. As far as Mundame being daft - her posst should answer that question for you

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think I will enjoy your posts ! And don't worry about being gentle. Honest debate is a great thing. Could be a lot of fun ... ;)

I predict that this lady will fit in here very well. We have some really smart women posting here and so far they all give as good as they get and often times give even better!
Sure looks like some people are finding that out quick.-:laugh2:-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.. Just to say my piece here and now, then I'll move on ... Lady Gunslinger, I for one suspect we'll probably agree on various issues. But, here's the thing .. if we don't, I will still be happy to debate with you, and without the need for - well, moronic ! - personalisations. It's not really my style.

Just enjoy yourself here. There are some great characters here, as you'll find out for yourself if you stick around.

I second that advice given to the new member. That lady surely has fire in her soul and lightning in her brains.
A true breath of fresh air here for sho'...-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh gee, as if you are the purveyor of character. Spare me.

A keen eye you have..:beer:

[red states rule]

http://www.elephantclub.us/Fun2_files/image040.jpg

[taft2012]

It was not cost effective AND we were defeated, twice. Not counting Vietnam, same thing, where we were supposed to have learned not to do this crazy stuff.

Sure, good idea, go after terrorists. So why not leave Afghanistan the moment we lost at Tora Bora? We knew he wasn't there, and he wasn't there. This whole idea of security colonization is a total screw-up. It does not work. Stop it and try something else. I'd be okay with actually going to war, REAL war, but not these half-hearted social work wars. Boy, do they not work. Boy, are they bankrupting us.

The Irish Republican Army deal has nothing whatsoever to do with us. And it will certainly spring up again: it has done so for....let's see, what's 2013 AD minus 800 AD? A long time.

Yes, Qaddafi was much impressed. I can't say that worked out well for him, or us, or anyone --- this week the news was full of France and Britain trying to get their citizens out of Benghazi fast because of the Algerian hostage crisis, which apparently is being run by the Libyan terrorists in Benghazi. I question saying anything whatsoever in that part of the world was "solved" by Bush's stupid Iraq war.

I agree with you about the socialist programs, of course. People here are trying to persuade me that is the whole problem with our deficits, but I don't believe it since historically, it's always the losing wars, wars, wars that collapse a nation's financial system. It's been a remarkably common event. There has only been one time before right now that social programs have collapsed a financial system (Germany, support for the miner strikers in the Ruhr, to avoid giving France coal for reparations. Collapsed the entire monetary system, 1923.) I need numbers, numbers.....you could be right, but I just don't believe all these pointless, off-budget ten-year wars aren't the reason we have overwhelming deficits. That was always what brought down the Henrys and Henris, for centuries.

I'm sure Saddam's elite Republican Guard and Baghdad Bob himself would disagree we were defeated in Iraq. If two or more Taliban show their faces with guns they get vaporized, so they're underground, not even daring to wear military uniforms, and utilizing terrorist tactics. We weren't even involved in the fighting in South Vietnam when Saigon fell, so I can't see how that was a loss for us either.

It's a fanciful notion that the IRA decommissioning itself had nothing to do with us. That was it was completely coincidental that after 400 years they dropped their weapons at the very time the USA declared a war on all international terrorism. The coincidence and the timing are just too much to ignore. Yes, they will probably return. Obama wants them to. He loves revolution and despises our allies.

The Qaddafi problem was solved in large degree by Bush. Like the expected return of the IRA, Obama sided with the revolutionaries and undid whatever progress Bush made.

I can't see how any of this is a loss because it is playing out precisely like President Bush told us it would in his post-911 speech to the joint House and Senate. He said this effort would take years, decades. It would take us to many countries. Some battles we would hear about, some we would not. The cheering he received that evening was bi-partisan. If anyone had any problems with it, *THEN* was the time to say it, not in the middle of the war effort.

We're not fighting armies in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We're fighting terrorists. We can fight them on their home turf, or we can bring the war's front back to Liberty Street in lower Manhattan. Personally, I like having the front where it is.


Now, if you want to talk about losing a half-hearted social work war, then we're talking about Bill Clinton in Somalia .... why doesn't anyone every talk about that one anymore? Erased from the history books?

[red states rule]

and as Saddam dropped thru the trap door and was swinging from the end of a rope - he would say we were not defeated.

[mundame]

Now, if you want to talk about losing a half-hearted social work war, then we're talking about Bill Clinton in Somalia .... why doesn't anyone every talk about that one anymore? Erased from the history books?


Wasn't that actually George H.W. Bush that got into Mogadishu? Black Hawk Down.....I don't know which one got us out, but that was sure the right thing to do.

My favorite with Clinton and war was his big crocodile tears AFTER the Rwanda genocide was all over about how verwy, verwy sad and sorry he was that we didn't go in there and stop the massacre......

Yeah, sure, like we need to be helling around the Dark Continent. He would never have put troops in there!! And didn't, though they say 4-5 million have died in the Congo and all the wars around there. Nobody cares, of course. And Clinton sure didn't.

But Clinton smashed Serbia and won a war the RIGHT way in 10 1/2 weeks! Stealth planes, bombs, glitter bombs inactivating the power plants, wonderful Cruise missiles going in all four sides of a building at once, a missile accurately blowing up a moving train --- boy, that was a showcase of modern military weapons!

Europe never forgave us, and it turned out we were on the wrong side, but what the hey, that's how to run a war, WINning it.

I'm conflicted about Clinton. There was a lot I didn't like, but that guy sure understood about war, and Bush II sure didn't.

[taft2012]

Wasn't that actually George H.W. Bush that got into Mogadishu? Black Hawk Down.....I don't know which one got us out, but that was sure the right thing to do.

Yes, President GHW Bush initiated it as a humanitarian mission to feed starving people. Bill Clinton employed what later came to be known as "mission creep", rewriting the mission into one which involved replacing the Somalian government. That's when shit started going bad.


Clinton smashed Serbia and won a war the RIGHT way in 10 1/2 weeks! Stealth planes, bombs, glitter bombs inactivating the power plants, wonderful Cruise missiles going in all four sides of a building at once, a missile accurately blowing up a moving train --- boy, that was a showcase of modern military weapons!

Yes, which included bombing the Chinese Embassy, which Clinton said our intelligence didn't detect that it was located there, yet the Chinese Embassy was listed in the frigging Serbian phone book. Yeah, that intelligence SNAFU made us look awesome on the international stage.

And only liberals are allowed to blindly drop bombs from miles high into civilian populations, inflicting collateral damage onto innocent civilian populations. Republican presidents are not allowed that latitude.

Plus, when a country has no urban centers, it's kind of senseless to carpet bomb large expanses of empty desert.

[taft2012]

And getting back to your standard of "cost effective".... was the Serbian mission truly cost effective in terms of its mission?

Both sides in that battle were waging campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing. White Christian Europeans were ethnically cleansing Muslims, and Muslims were ethnically cleansing white European Christians.

So which side to take in this battle between two skunks?

We sided with the Muslims in a politically correct endeavor to win some good will amongst the world's Muslim population.

Now in terms of cost effectiveness; how much good will from the world's Muslims did that costly little mission generate for us?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.elephantclub.us/Fun2_files/image040.jpg

Bravo!! So much truth and bozo is in on it too.-Tyr

[red states rule]

http://diversitylane.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/for-dummies-series_for-web.jpg