|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/15/13, 1:15 PM, Califbill wrote: Charlemagne wrote: On 10/14/2013 4:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:48 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:20:54 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:08 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On 14 Oct 2013 00:37:58 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: *The* mistake was made by Dubya, who was talked into invading Iraq and staying there. Bush I got out in a hurry, and Clinton never went in. Bull****, we were bombing them weekly for 10 years. That is war, no matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Are you including the ones in white helmets supporting weapons inspectors looking for those elusive WMD? How much money for bombs, rockets, carrier combat groups for 8 years of Clinton in charge? What difference does that make in regard to Clinton's actions about Iraq? What counts, or what used to count, was the number of American lives lost. Don't you righties care about American lives? I know you are all balled up with fetuses, but the soldiers are here already. Bush was bad but that does not make Clinton's wars good. Clinton's wars in terms of U.S. casualties and involvement were blips on the screen compared to Bush's full-scale warmongering. They are not equivalent, no matter how many times you try to make them seem so. So a few innocent women and children are ok to kill as long as it's a democrat president doing it?? The original title referred to the cost of wars. Goal post movement by Harry to now make war bad only if our soldiers get KIA or WIA. In your mind, Bilious, the deaths of U.S. soldiers are not a cost of war? You're so right-wing...only the $$$ counts, eh? What was the title of this thread? |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
In article 1025217370403562763.590508bmckeenospam-
, says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/15/13, 1:15 PM, Califbill wrote: Charlemagne wrote: On 10/14/2013 4:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:48 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:20:54 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:08 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On 14 Oct 2013 00:37:58 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: *The* mistake was made by Dubya, who was talked into invading Iraq and staying there. Bush I got out in a hurry, and Clinton never went in. Bull****, we were bombing them weekly for 10 years. That is war, no matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Are you including the ones in white helmets supporting weapons inspectors looking for those elusive WMD? How much money for bombs, rockets, carrier combat groups for 8 years of Clinton in charge? What difference does that make in regard to Clinton's actions about Iraq? What counts, or what used to count, was the number of American lives lost. Don't you righties care about American lives? I know you are all balled up with fetuses, but the soldiers are here already. Bush was bad but that does not make Clinton's wars good. Clinton's wars in terms of U.S. casualties and involvement were blips on the screen compared to Bush's full-scale warmongering. They are not equivalent, no matter how many times you try to make them seem so. So a few innocent women and children are ok to kill as long as it's a democrat president doing it?? The original title referred to the cost of wars. Goal post movement by Harry to now make war bad only if our soldiers get KIA or WIA. In your mind, Bilious, the deaths of U.S. soldiers are not a cost of war? You're so right-wing...only the $$$ counts, eh? What was the title of this thread? The title of this thread and the posit therein was about Iraq, and the money, time and lives that Bush spent, claiming he was going to "give" them U.S. style democracy. Failure. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1025217370403562763.590508bmckeenospam- , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/15/13, 1:15 PM, Califbill wrote: Charlemagne wrote: On 10/14/2013 4:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:48 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:20:54 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:08 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On 14 Oct 2013 00:37:58 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: *The* mistake was made by Dubya, who was talked into invading Iraq and staying there. Bush I got out in a hurry, and Clinton never went in. Bull****, we were bombing them weekly for 10 years. That is war, no matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Are you including the ones in white helmets supporting weapons inspectors looking for those elusive WMD? How much money for bombs, rockets, carrier combat groups for 8 years of Clinton in charge? What difference does that make in regard to Clinton's actions about Iraq? What counts, or what used to count, was the number of American lives lost. Don't you righties care about American lives? I know you are all balled up with fetuses, but the soldiers are here already. Bush was bad but that does not make Clinton's wars good. Clinton's wars in terms of U.S. casualties and involvement were blips on the screen compared to Bush's full-scale warmongering. They are not equivalent, no matter how many times you try to make them seem so. So a few innocent women and children are ok to kill as long as it's a democrat president doing it?? The original title referred to the cost of wars. Goal post movement by Harry to now make war bad only if our soldiers get KIA or WIA. In your mind, Bilious, the deaths of U.S. soldiers are not a cost of war? You're so right-wing...only the $$$ counts, eh? What was the title of this thread? The title of this thread and the posit therein was about Iraq, and the money, time and lives that Bush spent, claiming he was going to "give" them U.S. style democracy. Failure. The title only concerned $$$$$$! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com