Obama says 'authorized' targeted US strikes on Iraq

[Denny Crane]

So, the fact that this whole thing was caused by Bush (I know, I know.."Blame Bush") kind of actually puts the blame on him instead of the Obama.

Not saying he is blameless, but it's like saying someone with an already existing case of Aids moves into a hospice house, and then all the sudden gets really sick (say, pneumonia) because of a mistake made by the hospice. And then the person dies. Sure, it's not like the new hospice is completely blame free..but seriously, the person was already at deaths door.

Blame... For...

The surge Obama said wouldn't work that did work?
Cutting the level of violence to something similar to what goes on in California?
The policy to put sanctions on Iraq for a decade that was in place for a decade before W was elected?
The Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change, signed by Clinton?

What are you blaming Bush for exactly?

I figure Saddam had to go and it is a shame it had to be W that did it.

 

[julius]

Blame... For...

The surge Obama said wouldn't work that did work?
Cutting the level of violence to something similar to what goes on in California?
The policy to put sanctions on Iraq for a decade that was in place for a decade before W was elected?
The Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change, signed by Clinton?

What are you blaming Bush for exactly?

I figure Saddam had to go and it is a shame it had to be W that did it.

Going there in the first place and trying to pin it on 9/11, WMD and that Saddam was a "evil man".

We had no business going there, especially when you take into account the countless other nations we don't go in under similar circumstances.

So yeah, everything that happened is a direct result of his choice to invade.

 

[Denny Crane]

Going there in the first place and trying to pin it on 9/11, WMD and that Saddam was a "evil man".

We had no business going there, especially when you take into account the countless other nations we don't go in under similar circumstances.

So yeah, everything that happened is a direct result of his choice to invade.

We were already there. The Iraqis were shooting at our airplanes regularly. Clinton bombed them in 1998.

Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds. How could he if he never had them?

The choice is a miserable one, but if you had to choose between 500,000 children killed or 105,000 killed in a civil war, pick one.

 

[oldguy]

Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...494df2-3e85-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

Happy to see that Congress is involved. Not so happy with the direction it went.

As others have pointed out, this is a no-win situation for the US. No matter who we help, they will still hate us.

If we are going to help, I want the helpees to pick up the tab. We need to pump oil until we are reimbursed for the cost of our participation. I'm tired to paying to protect people that hate us. If they don't want to pay for our support, then let them work out their own problems.

Go Blazers

 

[barfo]

We were already there. The Iraqis were shooting at our airplanes regularly. Clinton bombed them in 1998.

That's no excuse.

Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds. How could he if he never had them?

If Johnny has 10 tons of mustard gas, and uses it all on the Kurds, how many tons of mustard gas does Johnny have left?

The choice is a miserable one, but if you had to choose between 500,000 children killed or 105,000 killed in a civil war, pick one.

I think your numbers are cherry-picked, estimates are all over the place for both. But in any case, your argument amounts to "Well, if Iraqi's are going to get killed, we should be the ones killing them."

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again.

Happy to see that Congress is involved. Not so happy with the direction it went.

As others have pointed out, this is a no-win situation for the US. No matter who we help, they will still hate us.

If we are going to help, I want the helpees to pick up the tab. We need to pump oil until we are reimbursed for the cost of our participation. I'm tired to paying to protect people that hate us. If they don't want to pay for our support, then let them work out their own problems.

Go Blazers

We're never going to get paid directly. Just like nobody paid us for WW2 in Europe. Our best hope is a stable trading partner in the region.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's no excuse.



If Johnny has 10 tons of mustard gas, and uses it all on the Kurds, how many tons of mustard gas does Johnny have left?



I think your numbers are cherry-picked, estimates are all over the place for both. But in any case, your argument amounts to "Well, if Iraqi's are going to get killed, we should be the ones killing them."

barfo

You can't put forth a solid argument, so you make jokes.

I accept your surrender.

 

[barfo]

You can't put forth a solid argument, so you make jokes.

I accept your surrender.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

barfo

The barfo plan:

[video=youtube;VL5iTpn6Gp4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL5iTpn6Gp4[/video]
sorry barfo, but they can't eat cake because they're dead.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

anyone against the iraq war is for the mass killing of civilians

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

anyone agaisnt the miqriaqw war is for the saddaminator and hillary nd oblmam in threesome

 

[Cryptkeeper]

anyone against the iraq war is for the mass killing of civilians

Erm, sorry, but im not sure how you've come to that conclusion...

I for one am against the mass-killing of civilians and hate what has been happening in the Mid-East, but war doesn't solve everything.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

ANYONE WHO ***** LIKE A &7***** IS A FUYC***** COMNUT*****

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Erm, sorry, but im not sure how you've come to that conclusion...

I for one am against the mass-killing of civilians and hate what has been happening in the Mid-East, but war doesn't solve everything.

shhhh I'm being very quiet and channeling Denny's thoughts and reasons like an AM radio

 

[Cryptkeeper]

ANYONE WHO ***** LIKE A &7***** IS A FUYC***** COMNUT*****

okay

 

[Cryptkeeper]

shhhh I'm being very quiet and channeling Denny's thoughts and reasons like an AM radio

Lol, alright.

 

[julius]

We were already there. The Iraqis were shooting at our airplanes regularly. Clinton bombed them in 1998.

Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds. How could he if he never had them?

The choice is a miserable one, but if you had to choose between 500,000 children killed or 105,000 killed in a civil war, pick one.

I chose us helping ourselves first. Because why do we not then invade Korea? Or North Vietnam (again)? Or Somalia? Or Darfur/Sudan?

Why did we pick Iraq?

 

[julius]

shhhh I'm being very quiet and channeling Denny's thoughts and reasons like an AM radio

BENGHAZI!

 

[Cryptkeeper]

BENGHAZI!

 

[Denny Crane]

I chose us helping ourselves first. Because why do we not then invade Korea? Or North Vietnam (again)? Or Somalia? Or Darfur/Sudan?

Why did we pick Iraq?

Because we helped Saddam gain and stay in power. We didn't do anything like that in those other places. If the UN or NATO voted to go into those places, we'd be obligated by treaty. Maybe UN and/or NATO should have gotten involved.

I wonder how hoojacks would sweet talk a vicious mass murderer into stopping or changing his ways.

 

[Denny Crane]

These sorts of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq

 

[Minstrel]

I remember when Denny said that Democrats arguing against the war in Iraq were traitors for opposing Bush the War-Time President.

It was a very Libertarian moment, labeling dissent against the President as treachery. He has, ever since Obama was elected, realized that dissent is a very healthy and important thing and exercises his non-traitorous right to dissent at every opportunity.

 

[Denny Crane]

I remember when Denny said that Democrats arguing against the war in Iraq were traitors for opposing Bush the War-Time President.

It was a very Libertarian moment, labeling dissent against the President as treachery. He has, ever since Obama was elected, realized that dissent is a very healthy and important thing and exercises his non-traitorous right to dissent at every opportunity.

That wasn't the case I was making. If you wanted the war over fast, protesting it was the worst thing to do. The PR from that side egged on the insurgents.

I've been opposed to the war in Afghanistan all along. I've posted I don't know what a victory would look like and asked people like you to explain that outcome to me. Yet, here we are, still there, and I'm not posting daily about my opposition to the war there. I do oppose it. I don't want to see us get involved anywhere. Not syria, not libya, not afghanistan, not iraq, not anywhere.

Is that plain enough for you?

 

[Minstrel]

That wasn't the case I was making. If you wanted the war over fast, protesting it was the worst thing to do. The PR from that side egged on the insurgents.

I've been opposed to the war in Afghanistan all along. I've posted I don't know what a victory would look like and asked people like you to explain that outcome to me. Yet, here we are, still there, and I'm not posting daily about my opposition to the war there. I do oppose it. I don't want to see us get involved anywhere. Not syria, not libya, not afghanistan, not iraq, not anywhere.

Is that plain enough for you?

You very specifically used the term "traitors" and linked it to opposing a President in wartime, in addition to claiming that it gave confidence to the enemy. Many references to "Hanoi Jane" and many pictures of Jane Fonda linked.

So, were you a traitor for opposing the war in Afghanistan?

 

[Denny Crane]

You very specifically used the term "traitors" and linked it to opposing a President in wartime, in addition to claiming that it gave confidence to the enemy. Many references to "Hanoi Jane" and many pictures of Jane Fonda linked.

So, were you a traitor for opposing the war in Afghanistan?

Right.

I do think it's treasonous to put party politics (e.g. republicans out to stop all Obama's agenda!) over our troops that are on the battlefield. Treason is aiding and abetting the enemy, and the extreme levels of protest did aid and abet.

No, I am not a traitor because I am not calling Obama a war criminal, saying the troops are evil, rooting for us to loose so Obama looks bad, etc.

 

[Minstrel]

Right.

I do think it's treasonous to put party politics (e.g. republicans out to stop all Obama's agenda!) over our troops that are on the battlefield. Treason is aiding and abetting the enemy, and the extreme levels of protest did aid and abet.

No, I am not a traitor because I am not calling Obama a war criminal, saying the troops are evil, rooting for us to loose so Obama looks bad, etc.

Of course, you realize that you are far more likely to see what Democrats do as "partisan" and therefore treasonous than what you or Republicans do, right? We always see the side we sympathize more with as reasonable (or, at least, not malicious).

There was plenty of Democratic opposition to the war based on the flimsy merits or principles over whether war is a good road to go down...were those people (whomever they were; we don't have to debate specific individuals) okay in your book?

Also, why is it only in war time? Is putting party politics ahead of the country and, say, economic recovery okay? Rooting for economic catastrophe so Obama looks bad? Calling Obama a double-agent who's trying to destroy America? Do those rate on your treason-meter?

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course, you realize that you are far more likely to see what Democrats do as "partisan" and therefore treasonous than what you or Republicans do, right? We always see the side we sympathize more with as reasonable (or, at least, not malicious).

There was plenty of Democratic opposition to the war based on the flimsy merits or principles over whether war is a good road to go down...were those people (whomever they were; we don't have to debate specific individuals) okay in your book?

Also, why is it only in war time? Is putting party politics ahead of the country and, say, economic recovery okay? Rooting for economic catastrophe so Obama looks bad? Calling Obama a double-agent who's trying to destroy America? Do those rate on your treason-meter?

So the "republicans out to stop all Obama's agenda" doesn't ring true to you? Or do you not agree with me that they are to a large degree (as democrats did to Bush)? It isn't about opposition to war, it's about rooting for the enemy to win, to gloat when we lose a battle, etc.

But get this. I think republicans or conservatives would be treasonous to root against the troops because it makes Obama look bad. On the other hand, republicans voted for Obama 2-1 in the Senate vote to fund his ambitions, which makes it a bipartisan effort.

It is only in war time that you can aid the enemy to defeat our military. Is that a sort of "duh" question and answer? All the anti Bush or Obama rhetoric is fine and part of the way we do things.

 

[barfo]

I don't want to see us get involved anywhere. Not syria, not libya, not afghanistan, not iraq, not anywhere.

Is that plain enough for you?

So, Saddam is the only dictator in the entire world that we helped in the past, and therefore Iraq was the only country we needed to wreck, according to the Denny Doctrine?

Are you sure of that? Because we've helped a lot of dictators over the years.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

So the "republicans out to stop all Obama's agenda" doesn't ring true to you? Or do you not agree with me that they are to a large degree (as democrats did to Bush)? It isn't about opposition to war, it's about rooting for the enemy to win, to gloat when we lose a battle, etc.

So you don't feel that Democrats who opposed the war based on the merits of the case for war (or lack thereof, in their opinion), or due to principles like non-intervention or pacifism, were traitorous?

I agree that some Democrats played politics with the war, for partisan gain. But what about those against the war who weren't doing that?

 

[Denny Crane]

So, Saddam is the only dictator in the entire world that we helped in the past, and therefore Iraq was the only country we needed to wreck, according to the Denny Doctrine?

Are you sure of that? Because we've helped a lot of dictators over the years.

barfo

I think reparations are due in a lot of places. It doesn't make sense to go into Iran to overthrow the Shah. The Iranians did that on their own.

I'm not talking about trading with or even arming these dictators. I'm talking about the CIA giving them Intel to defeat an enemy in a war. Or the dictator using those weapons outside of the war and against his own people.