Another political troll from me

[Plakespear]

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...

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."





If only his Jr.could read.

[AKPogue]

That is also coming from a guy who broke a huge promise to the people.

What happens if we do succeed in Iraq?

[KQ]

Originally posted by AKPogue


What happens if we do succeed in Iraq?

ROFLMAO!

[Mcwop]

50th post!

And Plakespear thought I took the bait.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by KQ
ROFLMAO!

Yeah, I know when we started this country everything was perfect from the get go and all founding fathers were perfect.

[milkman]

Just got that e-mailed to me by a friend. So true.....Not that I like a lot of what Bush Sr. did, but at least he had a brain....

[KQ]

Originally posted by AKPogue
Yeah, I know when we started this country everything was perfect from the get go and all founding fathers were perfect.

Okay - I'll play:

That particular example has no merit or application to this situation. The world was a far far different place.

More importantly, we were the ones who were creating OUR OWN GOVERNMENT that we customized to fit our needs. SOMEONE ELSE was not dictating what our government would be, and wasn't that the point? Self governance? Remember? How does that possibly apply to the current situation?


Given your statement, one would think you believed that King Georgey forced the first continental congress upon us against our will and for their own profit.- or was JUST THE OPPOSITE THE WHOLE POINT??!!

[Viva]

Originally posted by Plakespear

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable... political costs.

As I seem to recall, the polls were starting to turn against the former president as we were on the brink of taking out Hussein during the first Gulf War. Bush Sr. could justify defending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but abandoning the conflict and leaving Hussein in power for personal political gain was simply asinine.

[milkman]

Like the current situation isn't simply asinine? The US will be fighting a guerilla war in Iraq for many years to come.....have fun...

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by KQ
Okay - I'll play:

That particular example has no merit or application to this situation. The world was a far far different place.

More importantly, we were the ones who were creating OUR OWN GOVERNMENT that we customized to fit our needs. SOMEONE ELSE was not dictating what our government would be, and wasn't that the point? Self governance? Remember? How does that possibly apply to the current situation?


Given your statement, one would think you believed that King Georgey forced the first continental congress upon us against our will and for their own profit.- or was JUST THE OPPOSITE THE WHOLE POINT??!!

The more things change the more they stay the same.

So how about the civil war? Seems the US government forced the south into a government they didn't want by a president everybody called a dumb country bumbkin at the time.

There wouldn't have been any founding fathers if they were all murdered by the king?

[The Reverend Floater]

Man, it constantly amazes me to see how far people will stretch just to justify how they voted. It's okay, folks...we all make mistakes! Just don't do it again '04, and we'll all feel better.

Drawing parallels between the American Civil War and the current situation in Iraq is probably the biggest, smelliest heap of poli-deprecating bullshit I've seen yet.

Civil War is not the same as an invasion, mmmmkay?

Say it with me....in--va--sion.

[KQ]

Originally posted by AKPogue
The more things change the more they stay the same.

So how about the civil war? Seems the US government forced the south into a government they didn't want by a president everybody called a dumb country bumbkin at the time.

There wouldn't have been any founding fathers if they were all murdered by the king?

Ohhhh are we still playing? My turn!! my turn!!!!

Sorry - I cannot deal with this revisionist history. You're peeling into the tall grass of obfuscation to confuse the issue ( a common strategy) - The CIVIL WAR?? WTF???!! That has no bearing on ANYTHING related to this topic. The Civil War had more to do with industrialization and taxation than anything else - WTF?? We HAD A FOKKING ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT - it doesn't apply at all. It had nothing to do with corporate imperialism which is what is happening in Iraq.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same??" - That's beautiful... How about...... "Those who forgo the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them".

And, as for THIS statement: "There wouldn't have been any founding fathers if they were all murdered by the king?"

Is that a question? Is it a statement? Either way it really makes little sense.


Batter up!!!

[Buster Highmen]

Let's blow up all the sand niggers. They all have WMD, they all participated in 9/11, they all disrespect Jesus, it's our oil and John Ashcroft is protecting your children from godless heathen.

Now shut up if you disagree.

[KQ]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen


Now shut up if you disagree.

but, but, but...........

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Man, it constantly amazes me to see how far people will stretch just to justify how they voted. It's okay, folks...we all make mistakes! Just don't do it again '04, and we'll all feel better.

Drawing parallels between the American Civil War and the current situation in Iraq is probably the biggest, smelliest heap of poli-deprecating bullshit I've seen yet.

Civil War is not the same as an invasion, mmmmkay?

Say it with me....in--va--sion.

Didn't the north INVADE the south?

[Buster Highmen]

Wasn't Iraq part of Our Oil Corporations?

[Viva]

Originally posted by milkman
Like the current situation isn't simply asinine? The US will be fighting a guerilla war in Iraq for many years to come.....have fun...

Hussein was a blight on humanity as much then as he is now and should have been destroyed the first time around; then we had the backing on the UN as well as many Arab nations. The current situation is begotten by that outcome. Who is to say how the present would have unfolded had the regime been toppled.

My earlier post was soley to state that the former president abandoned the fight to save an elevate public approval rating, which he hoped would carry him in the election of 1992- of course, this is merely conjecture on my part...

[KQ]

Originally posted by AKPogue
Didn't the north INVADE the south?

Know your history:


On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 pm, April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely while firing a salute during the evacuation on April 14.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by KQ
Ohhhh are we still playing? My turn!! my turn!!!!

Sorry - I cannot deal with this revisionist history. You're peeling into the tall grass of obfuscation to confuse the issue ( a common strategy) - The CIVIL WAR?? WTF???!! That has no bearing on ANYTHING related to this topic. The Civil War had more to do with industrialization and taxation than anything else - WTF?? We HAD A FOKKING ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT - it doesn't apply at all. It had nothing to do with corporate imperialism which is what is happening in Iraq.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same??" - That's beautiful... How about...... "Those who forgo the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them".

And, as for THIS statement: "There wouldn't have been any founding fathers if they were all murdered by the king?"

Is that a question? Is it a statement? Either way it really makes little sense.


Batter up!!!

So say Iraqi's want a democracy, with Hussein in power how are they suppose to go about doing it when Hussein kills anyone who disagrees with them?

Coporate imeperialism? Ya think the same things happened when we rebuilt the South? So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

The revolutionary war and the civil war are completely relevant. They are stepping stones that we have slowly been building up on. If we can help Iraq establish a democracy than we can go one more step in building a world order rather than the chaos we currently have. There is no way to avoid the corporations sticking there greedy fingers to get some of those billions. I have been in the military too long to know about that. It is a fact of life no matter who is in charge. It goes beyond both parties.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by KQ
Know your history:


On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 pm, April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely while firing a salute during the evacuation on April 14.

Uhhhhhhhhh yeah, didn't the north invade the south after that? Or maybe I have the wrong war?

[Viva]

Originally posted by AKPogue
Uhhhhhhhhh yeah, didn't the north invade the south after that? Or maybe I have the wrong war?

Do you understand what you're saying here?! Can you not see the impossibility of what you propose? Building a new world order or building a powder keg...same difference.

Why is Cuba still an issue with our government?

On the bright side, we are in agreement on one thing; ultimately the North did, indeed, invade the South.

[The Reverend Floater]

Originally posted by AKPogue
Uhhhhhhhhh yeah, didn't the north invade the south after that? Or maybe I have the wrong war?

Okay, okay...I think we may have overestimated the status quo on knowledge of US History.


The Northern United States invading the Southern United States

Vs.

The United States of America/Great Britain invading Iraq.



1. With adherence to the definition of "invasion", how does a country invade itself?

2. What could the civil war possibly have to do with our current situation. Yes, they were both wars. But after that, I'm not sure where you're going. Cola wars of the 80's?

[The Reverend Floater]

Originally posted by Viva
Do you understand what you're saying here?! Can you not see the impossibility of what you propose? Building a new world order or building a powder keg...same difference.

While I still hate USC....I can't think of a better way to put it.

AK, when this mo'fo blows up in our faces....

[fiddler]

Originally posted by AKPogue


So what you are saying is George Jr. is a complete moron and that he is not really president but the corporations are in charge and if he had to make a nation saving decision in a few seconds he would be not be capable of doing that. All these smart people that have made a few dollars have put a complete idiot in charge?

That about sums it up, good job.

[AKPogue]

Originally posted by Viva
Do you understand what you're saying here?! Can you not see the impossibility of what you propose? Building a new world order or building a powder keg...same difference.

Why is Cuba still an issue with our government?

On the bright side, we are in agreement on one thing; ultimately the North did, indeed, invade the South.

We already have a powder keg and probably always will? Hell this country is still a powder keg? If you look at this country from the world's perspective we are fighting a guerilla war within our own borders.