Destroying both the Iraqi gov't and the civil infighting were necessary and that's what we're doing. Unforeseen.. maybe. Impossible and unhelpful to our cause.. not at all.
Not helpful at all. Facts are terrorism increased and we've been close to over extending ourselves. The invasion was poorly planned and thought out also. At the time Saddam was the best person to be in Iraq because he was willing to do what we are not willing to do to keep us from having any reason to invade him which would be his support of AQ.
You're telling me his immigration standards didn't let AQ into the country? You're telling me he made every effort to go after and deal with even the threat of Islamic terrorism? You're telling me that he DID enough with his response to terrorist acts?
So far Bush's record on those subjects is far better.
You don't even have a good argument here. You just call it an "untruth" and go on your merry way. Classic liberal.
A. the threat of Islamic terrorism was not the near the same in anyway prior to 9/11. there is no way anyone could have known that, even taking into account the intelligence BUSH received prior to 9/11
B. Are you suggesting BUSH has made every effort to combat terrorism?
C. Bush's record only look better in your eyes becuase you confuse pre-9/11 with post 9/11 and apply the same standards. That's called self-brainwashing...lol
...While Iraq is improving. The surge is working. The efforts are paying off. If we have to expand our efforts in Afghanistan we will. I know someone who recently returned from there and he says we've made progress in leaps and bounds.
Still no lack of truth to any of that.
When have we talked about the surge? Great idea, 4 years too late, 400 billion too late, thousands of lives too late, hundreds of suicide bombers too late, all from the guys you say have the wisdom to make the hard decisions.
And now you have attempted 2 times to run away from your original statement:
AQ could have been dessimated years ago.
This is the untruth I'm talking about since you conveniently forgot.
Yeah.. like they've used ONE IED. More liberal spin.
What are you talking about. Re-read what i wrote. You say we are keeping them there. You said becuase we are there (iraq) instead of attacking the USA they attack us there. That's dumb, if they had choice attacking in iraq with IED's or attacking us on our soild which do you think is more effect and impacting for them?
Common sense here.
You said earlier how easy it would be to attack us again and now you're saying it's oh so difficult. It's BS and you know it. We're fighting the enemy where it has a stronghold and it's paying off.
You really cannot grasp this can you?
first off:
We created the strong hold for them in Iraq with our irresponsible handing of the invasion.
Next:
- Our borders are wide open. At some point, they will be crossed if they haven't already.
- We dealt them a good blow to their capabilities in Afghanistan
- Since then, the threat is not as great as the gov is making you believe otherwise we'd been attacked by now
- But, we are still vulnerable, very
- The people fighting in Iraq are not of the same ilk of the same skill sets, training etc... as those who have the ability to come to the USA.
- Conducting terrorist operation in Iraq require bodies, operations in the US require skill form a few people.
So that brings us to 2 conclusions:
1. The threat isn't as great
2. We did good job in kicking the crap out of them in Afghanistan but did not complete it, nor could we stamp them out 100% anyway.
therefore:
No reason to be in Iraq in the first place, but it's too late for that, because we cannot leave now, because we created a new place for AQ to grow.
that's why i don't like BUSH.
It has nothing to do with voting for or against him.
I didn't buy it.. I watched it.. I know it.. and I know just how justified we are for having done it. In the coming years more information will be declassified showing just how wrong you and the left is about our reasoning for going.
It should have been finished the first time but Bush 1 was too soft and didn't finish the job. Going back when we did is far better than if we had not gone at all.
I agree with your statement about the first time. But i think you are unable to understand the dynamics of the situation and opportunities we had in 2002 and use the 1st war as the basis to justify the second.
Not an untruth.. especially since liberals consistently support D. "All of the above" and aren't shy about it.
The most consistently liberal people i know are on this board. Ask them point blank. This is something, AGAIN! for the X amount times that you are making yourself believe. But be careful, you have to actually read there answers carefully and objectively
Their stance regarding most wars and their records speak for themselves.
Still no "untruth," lol.
Really? Dems in office in ww2, Korea, & Vietnam. And are you comparing trying to settle things without going to war with just going to war irresponsibly like in Iraq?
Look Brix, you are young, like i said somewhere else, hopefully you'll wake up from your programming some day and see how brainwashed you've allow yourself to be.
Until then talking with you about this is beyond your understanding or ability to see things for what they are.
