Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Easy to say when your infrastructure hasn't been obliterated. It's highly questionable whether Iraqi's are better off now than they were then.

The ones he's not killing(the Sunnis?) with his army are better off.   Can we agree on that?

It probably did help the economy grow. We need more war spending these days.

60,000 american made tanks, ASAP!

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Easy to say when your infrastructure hasn't been obliterated. It's highly questionable whether Iraqi's are better off now than they were then.

The ones he's not killing(the Sunnis?) with his army are better off.   Can we agree on that?

Well no, not the Sunnis. Close though....

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 1/23/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/20/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
1 He is bad for the stock market, he isnt catastrophic. We are just recovering slower than we would.

2 We are still there.

3 We didnt go into Pakistan, we ran a raid into Pakistan. And it makes us feel better that Osama is dead, but it is just cosmetic.

1. Evidence to prove?
3. Huh? Isn't a raid into Pakistan the same as "going into Pakistan"?  Nobody can use the language like you Swamp. 

And you are saying that there was no point in going after Bin Laden.  So that is an admission by you that the  wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes...ergo Bush made a mistake. That is HUGE progress on your coming to grips with reality. I am proud of you Swamp!

3 No. Going into Pakistan meant invasion. A small raid for a specific purpose was not what he was talking aobut. As Rush likes to say...Words have meanings.

By the time we killed Osama the infrastructure of Al Qadea was devestated by the wars and many of their top leaders in the middle east were killed or captured. The orginization was fragmented. His death didnt really make the group less powerful. It was a great victory for moral and may have had some strategic impact but was not the same as a 2003 kill would hav been.

The wars were not mistakes.

There was some tactical flaws in the original "Rumsfeld plan" and so we lost lives and resources we didnt need to lose. The eventual Surge fixed that.

What was the justification for Iraq?

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Easy to say when your infrastructure hasn't been obliterated. It's highly questionable whether Iraqi's are better off now than they were then.

The ones he's not killing(the Sunnis?) with his army are better off.   Can we agree on that?

Well no, not the Sunnis. Close though....

Well, whichever religious group that wasn't his particular group.   Kurds, I think.   Shiite and Sunni were the other two over there.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 1/23/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/20/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
1 He is bad for the stock market, he isnt catastrophic. We are just recovering slower than we would.

2 We are still there.

3 We didnt go into Pakistan, we ran a raid into Pakistan. And it makes us feel better that Osama is dead, but it is just cosmetic.

1. Evidence to prove?
3. Huh? Isn't a raid into Pakistan the same as "going into Pakistan"?  Nobody can use the language like you Swamp. 

And you are saying that there was no point in going after Bin Laden.  So that is an admission by you that the  wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes...ergo Bush made a mistake. That is HUGE progress on your coming to grips with reality. I am proud of you Swamp!

3 No. Going into Pakistan meant invasion. A small raid for a specific purpose was not what he was talking aobut. As Rush likes to say...Words have meanings.

By the time we killed Osama the infrastructure of Al Qadea was devestated by the wars and many of their top leaders in the middle east were killed or captured. The orginization was fragmented. His death didnt really make the group less powerful. It was a great victory for moral and may have had some strategic impact but was not the same as a 2003 kill would hav been.

The wars were not mistakes.

There was some tactical flaws in the original "Rumsfeld plan" and so we lost lives and resources we didnt need to lose. The eventual Surge fixed that.

What was the justification for Iraq?

We were in the midst of a global war agaisnt terror.

A nation in the middle of the area was rumored to have WMDs. They had them in the past and used them.

The leader was an unstable dictator with an erratic history.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Easy to say when your infrastructure hasn't been obliterated. It's highly questionable whether Iraqi's are better off now than they were then.

The ones he's not killing(the Sunnis?) with his army are better off.   Can we agree on that?

Well no, not the Sunnis. Close though....

Well, whichever religious group that wasn't his particular group.   Kurds, I think.   Shiite and Sunni were the other two over there.

So what you are saying is that you have an opinion on something you know jack **** about. You should learn something about what you are writing on, before you actually give an opinion on said subject.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 1/23/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/20/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
1 He is bad for the stock market, he isnt catastrophic. We are just recovering slower than we would.

2 We are still there.

3 We didnt go into Pakistan, we ran a raid into Pakistan. And it makes us feel better that Osama is dead, but it is just cosmetic.

1. Evidence to prove?
3. Huh? Isn't a raid into Pakistan the same as "going into Pakistan"?  Nobody can use the language like you Swamp. 

And you are saying that there was no point in going after Bin Laden.  So that is an admission by you that the  wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes...ergo Bush made a mistake. That is HUGE progress on your coming to grips with reality. I am proud of you Swamp!

3 No. Going into Pakistan meant invasion. A small raid for a specific purpose was not what he was talking aobut. As Rush likes to say...Words have meanings.

By the time we killed Osama the infrastructure of Al Qadea was devestated by the wars and many of their top leaders in the middle east were killed or captured. The orginization was fragmented. His death didnt really make the group less powerful. It was a great victory for moral and may have had some strategic impact but was not the same as a 2003 kill would hav been.

The wars were not mistakes.

There was some tactical flaws in the original "Rumsfeld plan" and so we lost lives and resources we didnt need to lose. The eventual Surge fixed that.

What was the justification for Iraq?

We were in the midst of a global war agaisnt terror.

A nation in the middle of the area was rumored to have WMDs. They had them in the past and used them.

The leader was an unstable dictator with an erratic history.

Trillions of dollars spent on a rumor....and you think Obama sucks. You sir, are a dumbass.

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/25/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Easy to say when your infrastructure hasn't been obliterated. It's highly questionable whether Iraqi's are better off now than they were then.

The ones he's not killing(the Sunnis?) with his army are better off.   Can we agree on that?

Well no, not the Sunnis. Close though....

Well, whichever religious group that wasn't his particular group.   Kurds, I think.   Shiite and Sunni were the other two over there.

So what you are saying is that you have an opinion on something you know jack **** about. You should learn something about what you are writing on, before you actually give an opinion on said subject.

Would "**** you, *******" be appropriate?

I think it would.

**** you, *******.

Well at least I know you are qualified to post about ********. Stick to what you know buddy.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 1/23/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/20/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
1 He is bad for the stock market, he isnt catastrophic. We are just recovering slower than we would.

2 We are still there.

3 We didnt go into Pakistan, we ran a raid into Pakistan. And it makes us feel better that Osama is dead, but it is just cosmetic.

1. Evidence to prove?
3. Huh? Isn't a raid into Pakistan the same as "going into Pakistan"?  Nobody can use the language like you Swamp. 

And you are saying that there was no point in going after Bin Laden.  So that is an admission by you that the  wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes...ergo Bush made a mistake. That is HUGE progress on your coming to grips with reality. I am proud of you Swamp!

3 No. Going into Pakistan meant invasion. A small raid for a specific purpose was not what he was talking aobut. As Rush likes to say...Words have meanings.

By the time we killed Osama the infrastructure of Al Qadea was devestated by the wars and many of their top leaders in the middle east were killed or captured. The orginization was fragmented. His death didnt really make the group less powerful. It was a great victory for moral and may have had some strategic impact but was not the same as a 2003 kill would hav been.

The wars were not mistakes.

There was some tactical flaws in the original "Rumsfeld plan" and so we lost lives and resources we didnt need to lose. The eventual Surge fixed that.

What was the justification for Iraq?

We were in the midst of a global war agaisnt terror.

A nation in the middle of the area was rumored to have WMDs. They had them in the past and used them.

The leader was an unstable dictator with an erratic history.

If there were rumors that the Martians had WMDs, would you have wanted to go to war with Mars?

Iraq was not a threat to the United States,  Even if there was anything behind the fictional WMDs, we had no stake in Iraq, ESPECIALLY when we were already in the middle of a war in Afghanistan.

Iraq was incredibly stupid and unnecessary.

I was a Bush supporter, and even I realized that at the time.

Posted by The Taint on 1/26/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Well at least I know you are qualified to post about ********. Stick to what you know buddy.

Go make me a drink, bartender. 

Whatcha drinking *****?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/26/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/25/2013 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/25/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 1/23/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/20/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
1 He is bad for the stock market, he isnt catastrophic. We are just recovering slower than we would.

2 We are still there.

3 We didnt go into Pakistan, we ran a raid into Pakistan. And it makes us feel better that Osama is dead, but it is just cosmetic.

1. Evidence to prove?
3. Huh? Isn't a raid into Pakistan the same as "going into Pakistan"?  Nobody can use the language like you Swamp. 

And you are saying that there was no point in going after Bin Laden.  So that is an admission by you that the  wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes...ergo Bush made a mistake. That is HUGE progress on your coming to grips with reality. I am proud of you Swamp!

3 No. Going into Pakistan meant invasion. A small raid for a specific purpose was not what he was talking aobut. As Rush likes to say...Words have meanings.

By the time we killed Osama the infrastructure of Al Qadea was devestated by the wars and many of their top leaders in the middle east were killed or captured. The orginization was fragmented. His death didnt really make the group less powerful. It was a great victory for moral and may have had some strategic impact but was not the same as a 2003 kill would hav been.

The wars were not mistakes.

There was some tactical flaws in the original "Rumsfeld plan" and so we lost lives and resources we didnt need to lose. The eventual Surge fixed that.

What was the justification for Iraq?

We were in the midst of a global war agaisnt terror.

A nation in the middle of the area was rumored to have WMDs. They had them in the past and used them.

The leader was an unstable dictator with an erratic history.

If there were rumors that the Martians had WMDs, would you have wanted to go to war with Mars?

Iraq was not a threat to the United States,  Even if there was anything behind the fictional WMDs, we had no stake in Iraq, ESPECIALLY when we were already in the middle of a war in Afghanistan.

Iraq was incredibly stupid and unnecessary.

I was a Bush supporter, and even I realized that at the time.

We were winding down in Afghanistan. I know they popped up later, but that is what Afghanistan is like. Ask the Soviets.

We had a stake in Iraq.
1 Important to flow of oil
2 Oil producer
3 If they gave WMDs to terrorists it would come back to us
4 Terrorists could travel through Iraq. This stopped that

Iraq was poorly ran from the start. Bush allowed Runsfeld to use a flawed strategy.

The Taint seems to have his head on straight, based on his posts here