Calling out Delusional Liberal

[Brixtonbulldog]

I suppose you're another genius posting on getbig right?  Come on, give us that IQ number of yours... I gotta see if you beat Garreth's 2nd grade score

136

[Brixtonbulldog]

All jokes aside any reasonable person can see the similarity in ANY object striking the ground at high velocity and the effect that has on what's gonna be left over.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You think I'm an independent because my principles aren't strong enough to handle criticism? LOL
Come on now, you can do better than that after all you've got access to TOP SECRET armed forces intelligence and your IQ is 136.

If I didn't call you on your little attempt at blaming Desert Storm on the Liberals you never would have changed clarified your point.

Bush Sr. failed in Iraq, why would you attempt to deflect the blame by saying it was the Democrats that made him pull out of Desert Storm too early? Why couldn't you just say Bush failed?

[Brixtonbulldog]

You think I'm an independent because my principles aren't strong enough to handle criticism? LOL
Come on now, you can do better than that after all you've got access to TOP SECRET armed forces intelligence and your IQ is 136.

Yep... and by not choosing sides you can refure to take responsibility for one side being right (or at least MORE right) and one side being wrong (or MORE wrong).  You're don't make a stand for something, you just make judgements and comments.

If I didn't call you on your little attempt at blaming Desert Storm on the Liberals you never would have changed clarified your point.

Bush Sr. failed in Iraq, why would you attempt to deflect the blame by saying it was the Democrats that made him pull out of Desert Storm too early? Why couldn't you just say Bush failed?

This is what I said.

The truth is if Bush 1 had finished this job the first time instead of buckling pressure from the left (people like yourself) to stop the Gulf war after 100 hours then we wouldn't have had to go back.

HE buckled to the pressure.  HE was in charge.  HE made the decision.  Was the pressure there?  Yep.  Nothing about this statement is unclear.  It is accurate and fair to both sides.

[ieffinhatecardio]

This is what I said.

The truth is if Bush 1 had finished this job the first time instead of buckling pressure from the left (people like yourself) to stop the Gulf war after 100 hours then we wouldn't have had to go back.

HE buckled to the pressure.  HE was in charge.  HE made the decision.  Was the pressure there?  Yep.  Nothing about this statement is unclear.  It is accurate and fair to both sides.

The point is you deflected blame. There's always pressure from the other party, no matter what the issue is. The fact that you even brought it up proves that you're not willing to place the blame solely on Bush's soldiers.


I don't believe completely in either parties ideology that's why I'm an independent. If you can't quite understand that and instead think my reasoning is based on "my principles not being strong enough to handle criticism of my chosen party" then, well there's not much I can say other than that 136 IQ test score can't be particularly accurate.

Don't you think the fact that I've actually taken a stand against this ridiculous War kind of turns your point into meaningless blather? After all it does completely refute your point.

[Hugo Chavez]

This is what I said.

The truth is if Bush 1 had finished this job the first time instead of buckling pressure from the left (people like yourself) to stop the Gulf war after 100 hours then we wouldn't have had to go back.

HE buckled to the pressure.  HE was in charge.  HE made the decision.  Was the pressure there?  Yep.  Nothing about this statement is unclear.  It is accurate and fair to both sides.

You are so terribly missinformed blaming it on the left.... This is why Bush said he didn't go into Bagdad to take out Saddam...

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."--George HW Bush

[Dos Equis]

You are so terribly missinformed blaming it on the left.... This is why Bush said he didn't go into Bagdad to take out Saddam...

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."--George HW Bush

Wow.  Source?  What year did he make these comments?

[Brixtonbulldog]

You are so terribly missinformed blaming it on the left.... This is why Bush said he didn't go into Bagdad to take out Saddam...

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."--George HW Bush

Awesome... so he pussed out of doing what was necassary to complete the mission.  Getting and grabbing Saddam and ending his tyranny was job one.  EXACTLY WAS I'VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME..

[Brixtonbulldog]

Don't you think the fact that I've actually taken a stand against this ridiculous War kind of turns your point into meaningless blather? After all it does completely refute your point.

Actually it shows how easily you were disuaded from supporting your country and it's defense and standing on the side of justice and compassion for innocent people worldwide by consipiracy theories and the fact that's it's very trendy to hate bush/war/conservatives nowadays.  People like you think you make yourselves look "objective" and "nonconformers" by doing so even at the cost of actually being a part of a good thing.

[Hugo Chavez]

Awesome... so he pussed out of doing what was necassary to complete the mission.  Getting and grabbing Saddam and ending his tyranny was job one.  EXACTLY WAS I'VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME..

No... You blamed it on the left   It so fucking happens he was following the Powell Doctrine... Something that was respected then.  That would have been the advice he got from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs... Enjoy being WRONG.... and Job ONE was getting Iraq out of Kawait, not "getting" Saddam.

[Hugo Chavez]

Beach, the quote is from A World Transformed by George H W Bush and Brent Scowcroft.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Actually it shows how easily you were disuaded from supporting your country and it's defense and standing on the side of justice and compassion for innocent people worldwide by consipiracy theories and the fact that's it's very trendy to hate bush/war/conservatives nowadays.  People like you think you make yourselves look "objective" and "nonconformers" by doing so even at the cost of actually being a part of a good thing.

Innocent people world wide? That's what you think this war is about? LOL

I have a beautiful piece of ocean front property that you'd love, it's in Kansas but I'll give you a sweet price for it. 

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell your IQ tested at 136 on any legitimate IQ test. Maybe on some test you buy at CVS but nothing legitimate.

[Dos Equis]

Beach, the quote is from A World Transformed by George H W Bush and Brent Scowcroft.

Thanks.  Now THAT was prophetic.   

[Brixtonbulldog]

No... You blamed it on the left   It so fucking happens he was following the Powell Doctrine... Something that was respected then.  That would have been the advice he got from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs... Enjoy being WRONG.... and Job ONE was getting Iraq out of Kawait, not "getting" Saddam.

And within military circles Powell has been the most reluctant to use military action.  He's actually lost a lot of respect for it.  And you're right about getting Iraq out of Kuwait as job one, I'll take that one back.  I should have said that SHOULD have been job one considering his form of "leadership" and way of doing business.  This was the feeling of many in the military and others looking at the situation from a stability point of view.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Innocent people world wide? That's what you think this war is about? LOL

Definitely, and expecially within that region.

I have a beautiful piece of ocean front property that you'd love, it's in Kansas but I'll give you a sweet price for it. 

You bought ocean front property in Kansas?  What an idiot.

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell your IQ tested at 136 on any legitimate IQ test. Maybe on some test you buy at CVS but nothing legitimate.

OK... whatever YOU say.  Hahaha... you can go ahead and tell me why not.  I dare you.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I want to clarify this and get it on permanent record.

You think the War in Iraq was started to help innocent people? You're saying we went to war to help the Iraqi citizens?


The fact that you believe we went to war with Iraq to help the Iraqi people is all the reason anyone would ever need to know for a fact that your real IQ isn't 136.

[Dos Equis]

And within military circles Powell has been the most reluctant to use military action.  He's actually lost a lot of respect for it.  And you're right about getting Iraq out of Kuwait as job one, I'll take that one back.  I should have said that SHOULD have been job one considering his form of "leadership" and way of doing business.  This was the feeling of many in the military and others looking at the situation from a stability point of view.

Brixton from what I recall I think the initial reason we stopped shooting was the "Highway of Death."  The Iraqis were retreating from Kuwait and we were just slaughtering them.  They were literally sitting ducks.  Both Powell and Cheney advised Bush Sr. to "stop the killing" (or something like that).  It was more of a humanitarian move.  Also, I'm not sure the UN resolutions said anything more than remove Iraq from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia.  I don't recall there being much support for occupying Iraq.     

[Brixtonbulldog]

I want to clarify this and get it on permanent record.

You think the War in Iraq was started to help innocent people? You're saying we went to war to help the Iraqi citizens?


The fact that you believe we went to war with Iraq to help the Iraqi people is all the reason anyone would ever need to know for a fact that your real IQ isn't 136.

I never said that was the ONLY reason. 

But okay buddy!  Whatever YOU say.

Moron.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Brixton from what I recall I think the initial reason we stopped shooting was the "Highway of Death."  The Iraqis were retreating from Kuwait and we were just slaughtering them.  They were literally sitting ducks.  Both Powell and Cheney advised Bush Sr. to "stop the killing" (or something like that).  It was more of a humanitarian move.  Also, I'm not sure the UN resolutions said anything more than remove Iraq from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia.  I don't recall there being much support for occupying Iraq.     

That is certainly why we stopped attacking Iraqi troops leaving Kuwait.  But based on his record of defiance, his blatant disregard for our overwhelming victory in southern Iraq, and his determination to win even at the cost of thousands of his own troops most military strategists at the time agreed it was VERY necessary to go to Baghdad.  And here we are, cleaning up an old mess.

Cheney?  Yeah, he definitely wasn't VP at the time. 

And we didn't go because the UN said so.  We went on our own accord.  And rightfully so.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I never said that was the ONLY reason. 

But okay buddy!  Whatever YOU say.

Moron.

Now isn't that just the most ironic thing I've ever read.

You call me a moron yet you believe the war in Iraq was started to save the innocent people of Iraq. 

[kh300]

well if you go back to the start of the war. bush said we are there to spread democracy. weather you belive him or not is up to you.

[ieffinhatecardio]

well if you go back to the start of the war. bush said we are there to spread democracy. weather you belive him or not is up to you.

Serious question.

Do you really believe he started the war in Iraq to save the innocent people of Iraq?

Do you really believe that?

By the way, spreading democracy and saving innocent people are two separate and distinct things. They're not related, he wanted democracy for his own purposes not for the betterment of the Iraqi people.

[kh300]

i cant tell you what bush was thinking. i do know iraq now has power plants, electricity, schools, and girls can go to school for the first time. less people are starving. Saddam is no longer able to slaughter thousands of people. so ya, the iraqi are being helped.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Serious question.

Do you really believe he started the war in Iraq to save the innocent people of Iraq?

One reason of many.  He certainly claimed it was one reason and considering thier plight and our role as a nation throughout our history, then yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Do you really believe that?

By the way, spreading democracy and saving innocent people are two separate and distinct things. They're not related, he wanted democracy for his own purposes not for the betterment of the Iraqi people.

So then ... please tell us all how that isn't perfectly possible?  I can't wait to hear this.

[ieffinhatecardio]

i cant tell you what bush was thinking. i do know iraq now has power plants, electricity, schools, and girls can go to school for the first time. less people are starving. Saddam is no longer able to slaughter thousands of people. so ya, the iraqi are being helped.

No offense but you didn't answer my question. I asked what you thought not was Bush was thinking.

I agree some good things are happening but many many many questions remain about how and why some of those good things are happening.

For instance, who is doing the building and who is profitting from it? How were the contracts granted? Those questions are just a couple of the many that linger.

The by product of this war might be that some Iraqi's are helped but in no way, shape or form do I believe that was any motivation for Bush in starting this way.

The war in Afghanistan is a different beast entirely and not analogous to Iraq in my opinion. I agreed with that war because of the direct evidence between the Taliban and the terrorists.