Bomb Squad Sent to Rush Limbaugh's House

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
So was it Denny or Minstrel who put the bomb in front of Rush Limbaugh's house?
 
Denny Crane said:
Wrong again. I share the lower taxes, smaller government, economic views of republicans, but social views to the left of even you.

I wouldn't trust in any republican to actually live up to those ideals mentioned. I just happen to find Democrats to be far more authoritarian and statist.
Click to expand...

You back the Iraq/Afghan wars. You parrot the motivational pre-war propaganda about Saddam executing a million people and rape rooms. How does a 15-year war killing a million Iraqis and ruining our economy jive with your humanitarian social views, lower taxes, and less government?
 
jlprk said:
You back the Iraq/Afghan wars. You parrot the motivational pre-war propaganda about Saddam executing a million people and rape rooms. How does a 15-year war killing a million Iraqis and ruining our economy jive with your humanitarian social views, lower taxes, and less government?
Click to expand...

I don't back those wars. I voted for Badnarik in 2004, because he would have brought the troops home. I bet you voted for Kerry, who wanted to add brigades to the military.

I did back taking out Saddam, but not the occupation that followed.
 
After a war you occupy with military (or just CIA, if you want another 1990s Afghanistan creating the Taliban).

Otherwise Iraqis, who liked Saddam, would have replaced him with someone identical. You should know that backing the initial war is the same as backing a long occupation.

So now that you've seen the error of your ways, where are all your posts against these wars? They must have begun about a year after Bush invaded and been anti-Bush. I missed them.
 
jlprk said:
After a war you occupy with military (or just CIA, if you want another 1990s Afghanistan creating the Taliban).

Otherwise Iraqis, who liked Saddam, would have replaced him with someone identical. You should know that backing the initial war is the same as backing a long occupation.

So now that you've seen the error of your ways, where are all your posts against these wars? They must have begun about a year after Bush invaded and been anti-Bush. I missed them.
Click to expand...

You missed them.

I've posted that I understood the occupation, but I did not agree with it. For supporting Saddam, we owed it to the Iraqis to take him out. As to who would be in power after we left, you make an uneducated guess, while I would let the Iraqis sort out their own affairs. I would have been fine with foreign aid type support.

As for Afghanistan, I posted many times that I didn't see any strategic reason to be there, or what "victory" might look like, or what it might mean to reconstruct a dirt poor nation that never had any infrastructure.

I also posted that I wouldn't protest the wars because I'd rather see us get it over with ASAP and bring the troops home.

W was better than Obama. Clinton was MUCH better than W.

Unlike many people, I don't hate any one of them.
 
It's certain, not a guess, that without a long occupation, the Baathists would have remained in power. So an initial invasion required a long war. You can't separate the two. Once you have a baby, you accept a long-term responsibility. If you don't want to kill a million people and ruin our economy, then don't invade. Otherwise it's inevitable.

Similarly, yesterday Obama told Republican candidates that threatening war is not a game. (An Iran war would be much longer and more costly than in Iraq, a smaller nation.)

Many many Americans screamed this during the rush to war but your side was bloodthirsty as usual and said it would be over in a week like in 1990, supposedly. (That one ended fast only because Iraqis had little at stake in Kuwait so they chose not to fight.)

You really think that protestors prolong wars? I've never seen them have any effect, from Vietnam and on.
 
jlprk said:
It's certain, not a guess, that without a long occupation, the Baathists would have remained in power. So an initial invasion required a long war. You can't separate the two. Once you have a baby, you accept a long-term responsibility. If you don't want to kill a million people and ruin our economy, then don't invade. Otherwise it's inevitable.

Similarly, yesterday Obama told Republican candidates that threatening war is not a game. (An Iran war would be much longer and more costly than in Iraq, a smaller nation.)

Many many Americans screamed this during the rush to war but your side was bloodthirsty as usual and said it would be over in a week like in 1990, supposedly. (That one ended fast only because Iraqis had little at stake in Kuwait so they chose not to fight.)

You really think that protestors prolong wars? I've never seen them have any effect, from Vietnam and on.
Click to expand...

You are guessing.

And we lost vietnam. No effect? LOL.
 
jlprk said:
It's certain, not a guess, that without a long occupation, the Baathists would have remained in power. So an initial invasion required a long war. You can't separate the two. Once you have a baby, you accept a long-term responsibility. If you don't want to kill a million people and ruin our economy, then don't invade. Otherwise it's inevitable.

Similarly, yesterday Obama told Republican candidates that threatening war is not a game. (An Iran war would be much longer and more costly than in Iraq, a smaller nation.)

Many many Americans screamed this during the rush to war but your side was bloodthirsty as usual and said it would be over in a week like in 1990, supposedly. (That one ended fast only because Iraqis had little at stake in Kuwait so they chose not to fight.)

You really think that protestors prolong wars? I've never seen them have any effect, from Vietnam and on.
Click to expand...

A longer response.

What I supported was getting rid of Saddam. He was evil. He took oil-for-food money and built palaces the children of his country went without food and medicine. He gassed his own people. We flew no-fly zone missions over his country to keep him from continuing that, but he fired upon our peacekeeping planes regularly. Clinton bombed Iraq on the day Lewinski testified before the grand jury, and republicans noted the coincidence but also said Clinton had to do his job as commander-in-chief.

And more importantly, we helped make Saddam what he was. We gave him the intel to defeat Iran, in spite of those Iran-Contra weapons.

We went into Panama and got Noriega. We didn't stay and occupy. That is the model - kill or capture Saddam and leave.

Neither Iran nor Iraq would be a tough war for us. We won the Iraq war within 2-3 weeks - Mission Accomplished! Occupying Iran (or Iraq) is a very different thing. I don't suggest we attack Iran, nor do I suggest we should have occupied Iraq. If we did attack Iran, it'd be over in 2-3 weeks as well, and we should destroy their nuclear sites and leave.

Let their people sort it out. Iraq was 2/3 Shiite, not Sunni-Baathist. If they ask us for aid, we give it - send them building supplies, food, medicine, portable generators, and so on. The USA is a good country and that kind of charity is hardly unprecedented.

As for Obama, I saw his speech and liked what I heard. However, I saw his speeches last year and did not. I get it that it's an election year, and he's actually trying to do popular things. My beef with the guy is he didn't do these things the first three years.

You say there was a rush to war. 9/11 happened in '01. We invaded Iraq in March of 2003. NINETEEN months passed. That really puts the hurt on your "rush to war" rhetoric. During those 19 months, there was wide open debate in public. Noted Republicans wrote opinion pieces in the NYT opposing military action. Congress VOTED to authorize the action 297-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. 80% of the people thought the war was justified in May, when the war part was over.

And as I posted earlier, we lost the Vietnam war. Not only were the protests a HUGE factor in us losing it, similar but much smaller ones during the Iraq invasion time frame clearly extended that conflict (comforted the enemy). Where were these protests during Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan War? Sure looks like partisan protests to me, rather than principled ones.
 
Denny Crane said:
You say there was a rush to war. 9/11 happened in '01. We invaded Iraq in March of 2003. NINETEEN months passed.
Click to expand...

Hey Denny, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
9/11 happened in '01.

We invaded Iraq in March of 2003. NINETEEN months passed.
Click to expand...

Ben and Jerry's sells ice cream.

The Earth revolves around the sun.

My dog watches Bonanza.

We're listing things that have no relation to each other, right? :dunno:
 
barfo said:
Hey Denny, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

barfo
Click to expand...

Duh. And?

The administration made several cases for invading Iraq, and one of the key ones was to disarm Saddam so another 9/11 wouldn't happen.
 
MARIS61 said:
Ben and Jerry's sells ice cream.

The Earth revolves around the sun.

My dog watches Bonanza.

We're listing things that have no relation to each other, right? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Nope. We're listing the time frame that makes up jlprk's "rush to war" - there was no "rush" but a 19 month deliberation. A very public deliberation. Bush spoke at the UN. Powell presented satellite photos to the UN. Congress debated giving the authority. People on both sides of the issue freely wrote op-ed pieces. And so on.
 
Denny Crane said:
one of the key ones was to disarm Saddam so another 9/11 wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

we went over there to disarm saddam of all his saudi arabians? wait what? wasnt saddam against al queda, as they threatened his power?
 
3RA1N1AC said:
we went over there to disarm saddam of all his saudi arabians? wait what? wasnt saddam against al queda, as they threatened his power?
Click to expand...

Saddam used mustard gas on the Kurds and against Iran. One of the reasons given for invading was to prevent him from getting his WMDs into the hands of terrorists.

There is an Arab saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Saddam was disarmed. For that, the world is a better place.
 
Denny Crane said:
Saddam used mustard gas on the Kurds and against Iran. One of the reasons given for invading was to prevent him from getting his WMDs into the hands of terrorists.
Click to expand...

the us helped them develop that very mustard gas, and please denny, why would he give wmd's to people who wanted to destroy him? this should be good.

There is an Arab saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Click to expand...

:lol: so, wasnt the usa his friend too then? weak dude

Saddam was disarmed. For that, the world is a better place.
Click to expand...

is it? is the world a better place than it was 8 years ago? are the millions of people killed in the war LESS than the amount saddam would have killed? is their new government going to be better than their old one? wtf man, where are you getting this from
 
The US didn't help them develop mustard gas, sarin, or the VX nerve gas they used. Doctors without borders (or a similar organization) analyzed soil samples and found the chemical process used to make the gases were German or Russian techniques. Google "Riegle Report" and read it. It was a Democrat controlled committee that looked into what kinds of WMDs we might have helped Saddam acquire - and it found ZERO gas type sales to Iraq, but did find biological precursors like anthrax sold to Iraqi universities and medical facilities.

Yes, the world is a better place. Yes, their government, so far, has been a good actor on the world stage.

There were less people killed in the "war" (occupation, civil war) than Saddam killed over the previous four years. Your "millions" figure is grossly exaggerated:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

IRAQ BODY COUNT
Documented civilian deaths from violence 105,530 – 115,259
Full analysis of the WikiLeaks' Iraq War Logs may add 13,750 civilian deaths.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

After the Gulf War, the United Nations imposed strict economic sanctions on Iraq that critics charge have led to the deaths of more than a million people -- the majority of them children. Saddam Hussein claims the deaths are in excess of one and a half million.

Citing information on maternal and child mortality rates collected by UNICEF, Professor Richard Garfield estimates that between 1991 and 2002, the number of excess deaths in Iraq among children under age 5 is 343,900 to 525,400.

---

This is just children under the age of 5. Adding the adults who "disappeared" after being taken away by Saddam's goons is another large number.
 
Denny Crane said:
The US didn't help them develop mustard gas, sarin, or the VX nerve gas they used. Doctors without borders (or a similar organization) analyzed soil samples and found the chemical process used to make the gases were German or Russian techniques. Google "Riegle Report" and read it. It was a Democrat controlled committee that looked into what kinds of WMDs we might have helped Saddam acquire - and it found ZERO gas type sales to Iraq, but did find biological precursors like anthrax sold to Iraqi universities and medical facilities.

Yes, the world is a better place. Yes, their government, so far, has been a good actor on the world stage.

There were less people killed in the "war" (occupation, civil war) than Saddam killed over the previous four years. Your "millions" figure is grossly exaggerated:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

IRAQ BODY COUNT
Documented civilian deaths from violence 105,530 – 115,259
Full analysis of the WikiLeaks' Iraq War Logs may add 13,750 civilian deaths.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

After the Gulf War, the United Nations imposed strict economic sanctions on Iraq that critics charge have led to the deaths of more than a million people -- the majority of them children. Saddam Hussein claims the deaths are in excess of one and a half million.

Citing information on maternal and child mortality rates collected by UNICEF, Professor Richard Garfield estimates that between 1991 and 2002, the number of excess deaths in Iraq among children under age 5 is 343,900 to 525,400.

---

This is just children under the age of 5. Adding the adults who "disappeared" after being taken away by Saddam's goons is another large number.
Click to expand...

this has been hashed and rehashed, i could show you a link that quadruples that number, and i could show you a link that halves it, nothing new there, i would say 130k is on the low side though

you say there were "only" :lol: 130,000 CIVILLIAN deaths (soldiers lives count too do they not?) because we invaded them. like that is something to be proud of...and im pretty sure the us had alot to do with the sanctions in the first place

"hey kiddos! sorry about starving you all to death, now we are going to kill you with bullets! youre welcome"

but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so i guess that means that al queda is our friend :lol:
 
We armed them when the Russians invaded Afghanistan in the '70s. They were the enemy of our enemy. I can think of other examples, like Iran-Contra.

How many soldiers do you think we're killed? Maybe 10,000 with the rest taking off their uniforms and hiding among the civilian population.

Iraq Body Count has one agenda - to document the actual dead bodies.
 
Any delays in Bush's rush to war were forced upon him. He was eager for blood and fought every delay in his rush to war. Meanwhile the controlled mass media intimidated the majority of Americans, who were against starting the war. In my city, people crowded onto freeway overpasses for months, holding signs that I could barely read as I drove underneath.

The rush to war was a relentless push to kill a million Iraqis. Denny, you say you were only for the initial invasion, a mass murder of a hundred thousand, but that you were against the subsequent purge of Baathists and their religious opponents, which killed another million (including non-combat deaths from effects of war). But you should have known that both stages were required to prevent a new anti-American government. You can't honestly say you're for the former stage without the latter.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
wait, so the russians were our friends too right? :lol:
Click to expand...

No, they were our enemy. The enemy of that enemy was Al Qaeda and we helped Al Qaeda. Iran was our enemy, too, after they took our workers at the embassy there hostage. And we helped their enemy, Saddam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

U.S. government financial support for the Afghan Islamic militants was substantial. Aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahideen leader. and founder and leader of the Hezb-e Islami radical Islamic militant faction, alone amounted "by the most conservative estimates" to $600 million. Later, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with bin Laden in the early 1990s, when US support had ceased.[79] In addition to hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid, Hekmatyar also received the lion's share of aid from the Saudis.[80] There is evidence that the CIA supported Hekmatyar's drug trade activities by giving him immunity for his opium trafficking that financed operation of his militant faction.[81]

The MAK and foreign mujahideen volunteers, or "Afghan Arabs," did not play a major role in the war. While over 250,000 Afghan mujahideen fought the Soviets and the communist Afghan government, it is estimated that were never more than 2,000 foreign mujahideen in the field at any one time.[82] Nonetheless, foreign mujahideen volunteers came from 43 countries, and the total number that participated in the Afghan movement between 1982 and 1992 is reported to have been 35,000.[83] Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers.[84][85]

The Soviet Union finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. To the surprise of many, Mohammad Najibullah's communist Afghan government hung on for three more years, before being overrun by elements of the mujahideen. With mujahideen leaders unable to agree on a structure for governance, chaos ensued, with constantly reorganizing alliances fighting for control of ill-defined territories, leaving the country devastated.
 
jlprk said:
Any delays in Bush's rush to war were forced upon him. He was eager for blood and fought every delay in his rush to war. Meanwhile the controlled mass media intimidated the majority of Americans, who were against starting the war. In my city, people crowded onto freeway overpasses for months, holding signs that I could barely read as I drove underneath.

The rush to war was a relentless push to kill a million Iraqis. Denny, you say you were only for the initial invasion, a mass murder of a hundred thousand, but that you were against the subsequent purge of Baathists and their religious opponents, which killed another million (including non-combat deaths from effects of war). But you should have known that both stages were required to prevent a new anti-American government. You can't honestly say you're for the former stage without the latter.
Click to expand...

Why don't you throw out even more ridiculous numbers?

And I don't care who the Iraqis figured out to make their government. We won the war in a few short weeks, and we should have left. End of story.

Bush got re-elected by a wider margin than the first time. LBJ was so disgraced and the anti-war effort so strong, he refused to run again.
 
Denny Crane said:
U.S. government financial support for the Afghan Islamic militants was substantial. Aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahideen leader. and founder and leader of the Hezb-e Islami radical Islamic militant faction, alone amounted "by the most conservative estimates" to $600 million. Later, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with bin Laden in the early 1990s, when US support had ceased.[79] In addition to hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid, Hekmatyar also received the lion's share of aid from the Saudis.[80] There is evidence that the CIA supported Hekmatyar's drug trade activities by giving him immunity for his opium trafficking that financed operation of his militant faction.[81]

The MAK and foreign mujahideen volunteers, or "Afghan Arabs," did not play a major role in the war. While over 250,000 Afghan mujahideen fought the Soviets and the communist Afghan government, it is estimated that were never more than 2,000 foreign mujahideen in the field at any one time.[82] Nonetheless, foreign mujahideen volunteers came from 43 countries, and the total number that participated in the Afghan movement between 1982 and 1992 is reported to have been 35,000.[83] Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers.[84][85]

The Soviet Union finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. To the surprise of many, Mohammad Najibullah's communist Afghan government hung on for three more years, before being overrun by elements of the mujahideen. With mujahideen leaders unable to agree on a structure for governance, chaos ensued, with constantly reorganizing alliances fighting for control of ill-defined territories, leaving the country devastated.
Click to expand...

oh for fucks sake...you dont need to copy and paste wikipedia denny :lol:

the point was, al qaeda was saddams enemy, thus, our friend, no?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Elton John sings at Rush Limbaugh's wedding?!?
Replies
7
Views
777
maxiep
maxiep
Denny Crane
Powell fires back
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
L
Politics no mo' fake news
Replies
10
Views
2K
lawai'a
L
EGame
PSN being DDosed,
Replies
25
Views
1K
bodyman5000 and 1
bodyman5000 and 1
truebluefan
The New Spin: The White House Would Be A Step Down For Sarah Palin
Replies
0
Views
270
truebluefan
truebluefan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top