Posted by stinenavy on 11/19/2014 11:55:00 PM (view original):
Anything less than having our troops spreading democracy all around the world, by way of bullets, is tantamount to isolationism to the moy, miket, tec, of the world. There aren't enough Americans coming home in body bags for them.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2014 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.

People forget suddam killed millions of civilians, invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his own people, and spent 15 years denying the UN investigators access to identify WMDs. So Bush drew a line in the sand and suddam did not comply. Unlike Obama, Bush actually says what he means and does what he says. By the time bush left office iraqi civilian deaths were at 4000/yr for almost a half decade and they were coming out and voting for the first time ever. Now that death count is over 16,000 in 2014.

Don't you think that the problems the Iraqis are having now is somewhat tied to our decision to invade their country?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2014 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2014 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.

People forget suddam killed millions of civilians, invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his own people, and spent 15 years denying the UN investigators access to identify WMDs. So Bush drew a line in the sand and suddam did not comply. Unlike Obama, Bush actually says what he means and does what he says. By the time bush left office iraqi civilian deaths were at 4000/yr for almost a half decade and they were coming out and voting for the first time ever. Now that death count is over 16,000 in 2014.

Don't you think that the problems the Iraqis are having now is somewhat tied to our decision to invade their country?

Partly.  It's also somewhat tied to the decision of the Worst President Ever to leave their country in an unstable state.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2014 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2014 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.

People forget suddam killed millions of civilians, invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his own people, and spent 15 years denying the UN investigators access to identify WMDs. So Bush drew a line in the sand and suddam did not comply. Unlike Obama, Bush actually says what he means and does what he says. By the time bush left office iraqi civilian deaths were at 4000/yr for almost a half decade and they were coming out and voting for the first time ever. Now that death count is over 16,000 in 2014.

Don't you think that the problems the Iraqis are having now is somewhat tied to our decision to invade their country?

Partly.  It's also somewhat tied to the decision of the Worst President Ever to leave their country in an unstable state.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2014 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Sure, there's always some level of violence in those countries.  But I don't think American civilians would be getting their heads chopped off on YouTube.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2014 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Sure, there's always some level of violence in those countries.  But I don't think American civilians would be getting their heads chopped off on YouTube.

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/20/2014 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2014 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2014 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.

People forget suddam killed millions of civilians, invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his own people, and spent 15 years denying the UN investigators access to identify WMDs. So Bush drew a line in the sand and suddam did not comply. Unlike Obama, Bush actually says what he means and does what he says. By the time bush left office iraqi civilian deaths were at 4000/yr for almost a half decade and they were coming out and voting for the first time ever. Now that death count is over 16,000 in 2014.

Don't you think that the problems the Iraqis are having now is somewhat tied to our decision to invade their country?

Partly.  It's also somewhat tied to the decision of the Worst President Ever to leave their country in an unstable state.

You mean it's 100 percent tied to Bush and partly tied to Obama. I believe that would be the proper blame percentages.


If we were still there, do you think there would still be violence?

Liberal Math. 100% tied to Bush and partly tied to Obama. Facepalm.