Neo-Cons... your leaders are effin morons

[DiggityBiggity]

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=88491

[Unsafe At Any Speed]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

[DiggityBiggity]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

Exactly

[EBSB52]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

Exactly

Isn't that how Saddam was thrust into power.... sorta?

[p8ntman442]

Pay me now.................or pay me later. WE are gonna have to clean the mess up sooner or later, and Id rather fix it right the first time.

[Mach10]

^^^

I think you should let some other contractors bid for this repair job. The current bunch don't have a good track record... :fart:

[V8Mikie]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

Exactly

Isn't that how Saddam was thrust into power.... sorta?

Well it'd be a stretch to compare it. And I would hardly say we thrusted Saddam into power, he was a complete buffoon who could have controlled most of the oil fields in the world had he continued into Iran instead of inexplicably stopping at their door step. Our weapons played a minor role, especially considering Iran had F-14s and other American military equipment as well.

[EBSB52]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

Exactly

Isn't that how Saddam was thrust into power.... sorta?

Well it'd be a stretch to compare it. And I would hardly say we thrusted Saddam into power, he was a complete buffoon who could have controlled most of the oil fields in the world had he continued into Iran instead of inexplicably stopping at their door step. Our weapons played a minor role, especially considering Iran had F-14s and other American military equipment as well.

Ya, kinda an abstract comparison. Saddam was a joke from the start and ended that way..... easy target and a scapegoat in ways too, as he wasn't related to 911, but none the less a bad guy and the world is a better place w/o him...... now let's leave :salute: :thumbleft:

[V8Mikie]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

Exactly

Isn't that how Saddam was thrust into power.... sorta?

Well it'd be a stretch to compare it. And I would hardly say we thrusted Saddam into power, he was a complete buffoon who could have controlled most of the oil fields in the world had he continued into Iran instead of inexplicably stopping at their door step. Our weapons played a minor role, especially considering Iran had F-14s and other American military equipment as well.

Ya, kinda an abstract comparison. Saddam was a joke from the start and ended that way..... easy target and a scapegoat in ways too, as he wasn't related to 911, but none the less a bad guy and the world is a better place w/o him...... now let's leave :salute: :thumbleft:

Yea I always wondered why the administration felt the need to drum up 9/11 when dealing with Saddam. The guy had targeted enough of our jets in the no fly zones for me to want to take his ass out. If those weren't acts of war than I don't know what is.

[EBSB52]

Didn't watch, but I'm assuming its the part from the Daily Show about the US giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to fight al Qaida?

Exactly

Isn't that how Saddam was thrust into power.... sorta?

Well it'd be a stretch to compare it. And I would hardly say we thrusted Saddam into power, he was a complete buffoon who could have controlled most of the oil fields in the world had he continued into Iran instead of inexplicably stopping at their door step. Our weapons played a minor role, especially considering Iran had F-14s and other American military equipment as well.

Ya, kinda an abstract comparison. Saddam was a joke from the start and ended that way..... easy target and a scapegoat in ways too, as he wasn't related to 911, but none the less a bad guy and the world is a better place w/o him...... now let's leave :salute: :thumbleft:

Yea I always wondered why the administration felt the need to drum up 9/11 when dealing with Saddam. The guy had targeted enough of our jets in the no fly zones for me to want to take his ass out. If those weren't acts of war than I don't know what is.

If they attacked our military, we would attack modestly militarily and the public would be satisfied. If a non-gov group attacked, a military solution is less viable, esp a 5-year sustained, intense military solution, so they need to keep the horrible memories of 911 as alive as well to keep any public support.

Firing the occasional missle at a passing jet doesn't warrant a 5-year attack.

As a side-note, a guy at work lost his son during that Memorial Day ambush. Really sad.

[DiggityBiggity]

I met a woman last night who had a son in the war that died almost one year to the day of his enlistment... she told me the letter the family received from Bush was going to be used as toilet paper, and her son died for nothing.

[Wonderfalls]

I met a woman last night who had a son in the war that died almost one year to the day of his enlistment... she told me the letter the family received from Bush was going to be used as toilet paper, and her son died for nothing.

That's sad. Stupid bitch. I'm sure her son does not feel the same way.

[EBSB52]

I met a woman last night who had a son in the war that died almost one year to the day of his enlistment... she told me the letter the family received from Bush was going to be used as toilet paper, and her son died for nothing.

That's sad. Stupid bitch. I'm sure her son does not feel the same way.

We can't speak for the son and we can't measure the mother's loss, so we s/b repsectful of her. She made the biggest sacrifice a parent can make - the loss of a child during a war - how can you call her a stupid bitch? If the guy at work wants to say anything to me as his form of getting thru his pain, floor's all his, all I will say is that his sons are American heros.

[V8Mikie]

Firing the occasional missle at a passing jet doesn't warrant a 5-year attack.

As a side-note, a guy at work lost his son during that Memorial Day ambush. Really sad.

5 year attack? The "attack" only took a few weeks since then we've been trying to maintain some sort of order there.

But I disagree, any attack on our military should be met with firm and swift action. Especially considering it was done with such regularity. That was the problem with Clinton and his cronies, we did nothing which gave terrorists and rogue nations a lot of confidence when blowing up our buildings and targeting our jets. Clinton would lob some cruise missiles and call it a day, that worked great.

Besides just targeting our jets the way they treated our POWs during the first Gulf War was enough to push for a regime change. Heck the first Gulf War alone was enough for a regime change, but the UN pussied out.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Bush the Elder recognized that if we invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, we'd have ended up EXACTLY where we are now...

[EBSB52]

Firing the occasional missle at a passing jet doesn't warrant a 5-year attack.

As a side-note, a guy at work lost his son during that Memorial Day ambush. Really sad.

5 year attack? The "attack" only took a few weeks since then we've been trying to maintain some sort of order there.

But I disagree, any attack on our military should be met with firm and swift action. Especially considering it was done with such regularity. That was the problem with Clinton and his cronies, we did nothing which gave terrorists and rogue nations a lot of confidence when blowing up our buildings and targeting our jets. Clinton would lob some cruise missiles and call it a day, that worked great.

Besides just targeting our jets the way they treated our POWs during the first Gulf War was enough to push for a regime change. Heck the first Gulf War alone was enough for a regime change, but the UN pussied out.

It has been 5 years of military engagement, call it an attack or a police action like VN, either way it's a mutual atatcking.

>>>But I disagree, any attack on our military should be met with firm and swift action. Especially considering it was done with such regularity.

Sure, but unless there is an attack such as Pearl Harbor or WTC, the public won't support it for 5 years and I believe that was the point I was making. IOW's, after the Cole hit or the Marine barracks, the public wouldn't be behind what we now have. The public really isn't behind it now, but they are moreso than if it were a military-to-military strike. And yes, I do realize that Pearl Harbor was an attack on teh military, but it was also on a US territory and felt more like a combi hit. Point is, if a US fighter gets shot down, the public won't support a long, sustained military action costing 2B per weeks and thousands of kids. So Bush is posturing 911 at every tun to keep that feeling alive for justification.

>>>That was the problem with Clinton and his cronies, we did nothing which gave terrorists and rogue nations a lot of confidence when blowing up our buildings and targeting our jets. Clinton would lob some cruise missiles and call it a day, that worked great.

The first WTC attack was 5 weeks after Clinton took office, the second, 911, was 8.5 months after Bush took office - I fail to see party-related fear, confidence or anything partisan. It's fun to blame CLinton tho and we can blame him for troop reduction until we realize that GHW Bush can about as many troops in half the time, IOW's twice the rate of troops reduction. Bush has yet to replace more than 10% of what Clinton cut. But we know it's all Clinton's fault.

>>>Besides just targeting our jets the way they treated our POWs during the first Gulf War was enough to push for a regime change. Heck the first Gulf War alone was enough for a regime change, but the UN pussied out.

Let's not loose sight of my assertions, they had to do with why 911 is being dropped at every turn; I simply stated that it was for support for the war from the public. I didn't really go further than that.

We are 4.5% of the world, perhaps we would be wise to pussy out a little more b4 we get stuffed.

[EBSB52]

Bush the Elder recognized that if we invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, we'd have ended up EXACTLY where we are now...

Exactly. Perhaps GHW Bush being the only real military guy for decades made him wiser.

GW Bush = war dodger
Clinton = draft dodger
GWH Bush = war hero
Reagan = USO Bitch
Carter = Navy something or other
Ford = I dunno
Nixon = I dunno
LBJ = War criminal (VN)
Kennedy = Military hero
Eisenhower = Military leader

Of the group, Eisenhower and GWH Bush stand out as the most prolific military guys. I GHW had not been associated with Reagan he would have been reelected and would have been considered a great president.

[Lex]

That's sad. Stupid bitch. I'm sure her son does not feel the same way.

Dead people tend to feel.. Well nothing.

Anyway, the loss of a parent is tough but has to be expected eventually, but the loss of a child has got to be a pretty horrible experience. She has the right to be pissed.

[V8Mikie]

Bush the Elder recognized that if we invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, we'd have ended up EXACTLY where we are now...

I completely disagree. It's all speculation but the global political climate was much different then. Many countries already had troops in the region. The threat of Saddam was fresh on their minds. To me the elder Bush not going into Baghdad was the equivalent of Saddam not going into Tehran.

[EBSB52]

I completely disagree. It's all speculation but the global political climate was much different then. Many countries already had troops in the region. The threat of Saddam was fresh on their minds. To me the elder Bush not going into Baghdad was the equivalent of Saddam not going into Tehran.[/quote]

I disagree. These wars we've had throughout the decades since WWII, mostly proxy wars for the larger ones, have yielded zero except for many dead kids and a massive inflation. We walked out of VN and Korea and look at Korea now. So should we turn up the heat? Why, so we can have another VN, our favorite reference for a meaningless war? Look at the Russians and Afghanstan.

It would be nice to think we could "punk" these countries into submission, but ever since the American Indians there have really been no easy targets. These Muslims will die for their cause, so there is no way to force them into our way of thinking.

As for GHW Bush, he did the right thing by actually having an entrance and an exit strategy.