Sealed military record?

Loading thread data ...
Is warmonger a good or bad thing if it results in (relative) freedom from rape and exploitation of millions followed by electons?
(Ignoring the cost of 1000 lives and $200b of course)
?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
"starlord" wrote in news:LIednUivqb3LLBTcRVn- snipped-for-privacy@inreach.com:
It's a shame you're so blinded by hatred.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
I rather have them (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, et al) 'there' ruling 'them' than 'here' ruling 'us'.
And they can take Kerry and his buddies Schumer and Lautenberg with them.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
"starlord" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@inreach.com:
And why in the world would you think that Kerry would have done anything different after 9-11? Kerry voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait after his invasion,even WITH approval and contributions from France and Germany. Kerry likely would have done what Clinton did;fire a few cruise missiles and consider the 'nuisance' dealt with.
It remains to be seen whether Saddam had WMDs.I believe he shipped them to Syria. Besides,most every world leader believed that Iraq had WMDs.
Yes,the minute bush got into office,he started a war.Sorry,but that's not the case.He acted where the last President failed to.(WTC *ONE*,Khobar Towers,USS Cole,coupla US embassy bombings)
And you are mistaken on this.
Here I agree with you.
Although DemocRATs have a bad record of not allowing the other side to say their piece. They celebrated F-911,but tried to censor Stolen Honor,attacked Repub HQ's,slashed Bush supporter's tires,other acts of vandalism. Conservative speakers routinely get shouted down at colleges,and the colleges say and do nothing about it.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
He clearly would NOT have invaded Iraq.
BTW that is a bad thing.
Bush was right. Bush very nearly became a 1 term President over that issue.
A price he was willing to pay. He has balls.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Before you go quite that far, even the UN weapons inspectors agreed unanimously he had a nuke program that the only thing he was lacking was fissionable material.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Not invading Iraq would have been a bad thing?
That notion might have had some merit if it weren't for the fact that we seem to have made such a muck-up of the subsequent occupation that any actual reasons ("threat of WMD", "we're all better off without Saddam", "preventing spread of terrorism", or whatever...) why it was supposedly such a good idea to invade in the first place basically don't _count_ anymore.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Personal opinion. I understand in advance you disagree.
Forcing democracy on a (invasion and first strike minded) dictatorship is a good thing. Sorry.
I guess you have to stop wiping your chin :-)
reasons: 1. Regime change
2. UN resolutions
The remainder of excuses were political BS I agree.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Yup... that's why W's Dad didn't go for the kill... no exit strategy.
Dad was wise... even though he caught a lot of flack for not going in.
Reply to
Mark
Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Things were already beginning to fall apart before Bush took office.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Clinton did some sensational things for the market. Welfare to work for one. He did preside over irrational exuberance in the stock markets, which would have been great if his fed appointee didn't intentionally crash it and vaporize some 70% of the nation's accumulated stock wealth in a year or so. I know plenty of retired folks that lost decades of accumulated money from actual, hard, physical labor.
Clinton governed on promises of pension value maintenaince. That was one HUGE promise to break. Unforgiveable.
The good news for Democrats is a whole bunch of folks suddenly became a whole lot more dependent on the government all of a sudden. oops, welfare was inviscerated. darn.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.