Bush/Cheney Created Conditions That Led Directly to ISIL

[UncleBeer 244]

Bush got re-elected after overthrowing Iraq. Obama got re-elected after overthrowing Libya. Congressmen from both parties supporting same were also re-elected.

You have a short (or possibly nonexistent) memory. While Bush asked for Congressional approval and got it, O'bama claimed imperial right to wage war without Congressional approval. There's a difference (that's apparently lost on the likes of you).

Don't you read the papers? Or are you just shilling?

[eieio 1,594]

And if you think Christianity has evolved, check out Michael Pearl's book, a minister who advocates the spanking as a means to 'train' children - in America, in the 21st century..

LOL.

Thats just to funny.

Are you responding to a different thread? maybe different website?

The horrors of spanking.LOL

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Wow some Christian wrote a book advocating spanking your children.

Beheading and Female circumcision or spanking.

Gee which one

Really.. A spanking is all you got

SMH

Spanking is way worse than beheading. Radicals behead, so let's ban spanking. A kid gets attacked by a pit bull, ban poodles. Ban legal guns so just criminals will be armed.

[Rob L 3,811]

You can alays tell when the Preznitz has really FUBARed to the point deniers can't even defend him any longer.

Cause we get

Of course if Clinton had taken OSBL when he had the chance and gone after the terror network, 9-11 never would have happned, so I guess using stupid logic, it's his fault also

A. Bush's fault . can also be "conjure up any conservative in history that even remotely did anything similar to what is going on today. It makes it ok.

6 years in. The world loves us now. Appeasing the Islama fascist worked.

All Hail Obama

Not overjoyed by the outcome of Iraq and I think much of the actions taken were more aligned with poll numbers instead of what was right thing to do..so President Obama gets no bye. I do doubt that he had political support to keep us there another 10 years

Not sure if you can blame prior presidents on the actions of Bush / Cheney who linked Sadam with al Queda on scant evidence and got us into the war on the 9/11 pretense. The war was started by Bush with the support of congress.

The dysfunction of the region lies in part to decisions made prior to WWI on how UK and France would divide the region up. Trying to tie up several religious and ethnic groups into arbitrary nations, and you get a mess.

[eieio 1,594]

Spanking is way worse than beheading. Radicals behead, so let's ban spanking. A kid gets attacked by a pit bull, ban poodles. Ban legal guns so just criminals will be armed.

You know.....you are a disgrace to true liberals everywhere.

Can you live with that?

[Rob L 3,811]

... so let's ban spanking....

this is going to put a kink in some of my extra curricular activities

[Rob L 3,811]

You have a short (or possibly nonexistent) memory. While Bush asked for Congressional approval and got it, O'bama claimed imperial right to wage war without Congressional approval. There's a difference (that's apparently lost on the likes of you).

Don't you read the papers? Or are you just shilling?

I would not debate that congress approved of the military action in Iraq, only in hindsight we were duped and it that war was a brutal waste of life and resources

Regarding Libya

Is imperial right your adjective or is is cited in the Atlantic article?

Do you disagree with the actions take by the UN, NATO and France?

If you were President, what action would you have taken?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Not overjoyed by the outcome of Iraq and I think much of the actions taken were more aligned with poll numbers instead of what was right thing to do..so President Obama gets no bye. I do doubt that he had political support to keep us there another 10 years

Not sure if you can blame prior presidents on the actions of Bush / Cheney who linked Sadam with al Queda on scant evidence and got us into the war on the 9/11 pretense. The war was started by Bush with the support of congress.

The dysfunction of the region lies in part to decisions made prior to WWI on how UK and France would divide the region up. Trying to tie up several religious and ethnic groups into arbitrary nations, and you get a mess.

We can blame the british on the mess we now have...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You know.....you are a disgrace to true liberals everywhere.

Can you live with that?

Spooks is a Liberal ?

We can blame the british on the mess we now have...

It's Roosevelt's fault

this is going to put a kink in some of my extra curricular activities

:devil:

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Spanking is way worse than beheading. Radicals behead, so let's ban spanking. A kid gets attacked by a pit bull, ban poodles. Ban legal guns so just criminals will be armed.

Spanking and the crusades. I am so ashamed.

[rlogan 2,036]

I would not debate that congress approved of the military action in Iraq, only in hindsight we were duped and it that war was a brutal waste of life and resources

I could not disagree more.

Americans were only too happy, filled with blood lust, to destroy Iraq.

This is exactly the excuse Bush laid out for them: So long as a figure in authority said we could mass murder - no problem. Remember the Milgram experiments? That was just a stupid social psychology experiment where they had volunteers give electric shocks to what were really actors, playing students in a memory improvement experiment. (To see if the negative reinforcement of shocks would improve memory).

People were only too happy to kill the actors with lethal doses of electricity. Sixty-five percent of them. For nothing more than a stupid school experiment, not some dire national defense matter. If sixty five percent of people will kill you for four dollar an hour science experiment then a lot more of them will be just fine with war crimes that kill hundreds of thousands and make millions of refugees.

The proof of this is being seen right now. Americans, with two photos of journalists beheaded, are prepared to wage war across two countries: both Iraq and Syria, with the contradictory objective of overthrowing Syria's government at the same time.

You can make that exact same excuse: that we are being misled now. But we aren't really. We just need an excuse. We like the killing we are doing. As a country. It makes us feel powerful.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not overjoyed by the outcome of Iraq and I think much of the actions taken were more aligned with poll numbers instead of what was right thing to do..so President Obama gets no bye. I do doubt that he had political support to keep us there another 10 years

Not sure if you can blame prior presidents on the actions of Bush / Cheney who linked Sadam with al Queda on scant evidence and got us into the war on the 9/11 pretense. The war was started by Bush with the support of congress.

The dysfunction of the region lies in part to decisions made prior to WWI on how UK and France would divide the region up. Trying to tie up several religious and ethnic groups into arbitrary nations, and you get a mess.

Agreed. That congress supported the president and gave him the power to go to war in Iraq is damning but it shouldn't be forgotten that Bush and Cheney were steering the ship and the iraq was their idea to start with.

The current situation was set in motion by the decision to go to war 11/12 years ago. That's not something that can be denied or played down unless you are being extremely creative with the truth. Bush and Cheney wanted to privatise Iraq's oil and create a US friendly base in the MENA. Their arrogance has backfired in a profound way and it has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

They didn't understand the sectarian makeup of the country and made a boneheaded decision to disband the Iraqi army, putting thousands out of work and ensuring that they would support the next group who came along who would put a gun in their hand. Madness.

Has Obama helped the situation? It's certainly debateable but it cant be forgotten that he has been forced to react to the situations he is presented with, all of which stem from that decision to go to war in 2003. I agree with you that there was/is little political desire to keep US troops in Iraq for decades (because a few thousand aren't enough, you need a standing army) and there isn't now either. If there were then Obama and Cameron wouldn't be ruling out putting boots on the ground.

That's of course why nothing will be achieved by air strikes because we're making the assumption that someone else will do the fighting and there is no single factional group that is powerful enough to combat Isis.

The analogy in the article is apt - if you start a house fire, its a bit strange for you to then criticise the firefighters who turn up to tackle the blaze. Even if someone is pouring petrol on it...

The people in this thread who can't see that, who think this is all about Obama 'denying' are just dishonest. All they are doing is enabling the crooked politicians who hijacked the US to further their own private agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves and would be if their selective blindness didn't reveal hubris of biblical proportions.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[UncleBeer 244]

Regarding Libya

Is imperial right your adjective or is is cited in the Atlantic article?

OK; you didn't read the article, so I'll spoon-feed it to you:

President Obama waged war in Libya for longer than 60 days, despite being told by the top lawyers at the Justice Department and the Pentagon that doing so would be illegal. This is a momentous revelation, but not only because it bolsters the case that Obama violated the War Powers Resolution. Few seem to realize it, but that legislation, acknowledged as legitimate by Obama, says that the president can initiate hostilities without congressional permission only in response to a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." On the day Obama sent troops to bomb Libya, he violated the law, as so many of his predecessors have done, and he wasn't held accountable.

Do you disagree with the actions take by the UN, NATO and France?

I almost always disagree with the UN, so that's nothing new.

If you were President, what action would you have taken?

Mmmm, followed the Constitution and garnered support from the legislature? It's the law. Besides, polling showed the lowest support for a military op in decades. But those are just the peasants who pay the bills, right mr. preznit?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what's your point Uncle Gary - that because Obama did a thing in Libya and Bush did a bigger thing in Iraq that it's all OK?

Just what point are you trying to make here?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Perhaps you're being much too simplistic comparing spanking to beheading, when the former only shows that despite all the alleged evolution in christianity, there are still some christians who advocate the ludicrous notion that god demands or condones violence and pain.

At the end of the day however, neither is directly linked to the topic, which relates to W's regime and ISIS.

LOL.

Thats just to funny.

Are you responding to a different thread? maybe different website?

The horrors of spanking.LOL