|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/13/13, 12:02 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd No one with a working brain really expected Iraq to "turn out ok." The entire exercise was a waste of American and allied lives and money, an albatross that forever will hang around Dubya's neck. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/13/13 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/13/13, 12:59 PM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:21:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/13/13, 12:02 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd No one with a working brain really expected Iraq to "turn out ok." The entire exercise was a waste of American and allied lives and money, an albatross that forever will hang around Dubya's neck. The real mistake was made by GHWB. He should have walked away in 1991. Clinton made the same mistake. GW compounded it by his LBJ type "gotta win" philosophy. Maybe it is a Texas thing. *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. Clinton waged war also. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:03:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/13/13, 12:59 PM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:21:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/13/13, 12:02 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd No one with a working brain really expected Iraq to "turn out ok." The entire exercise was a waste of American and allied lives and money, an albatross that forever will hang around Dubya's neck. The real mistake was made by GHWB. He should have walked away in 1991. Clinton made the same mistake. GW compounded it by his LBJ type "gotta win" philosophy. Maybe it is a Texas thing. *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? |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:02:17 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd And now, your Economy is ****ed. Good luck....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/13, 11:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:53:10 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... Clinton engaged in more military interventions than any other president in history. So? Let's talk about troop amounts and $$..... Fretmore is doing his best to find false equivalencies. Funny to read...he tries so hard. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/13, 12:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:55:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 11:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:53:10 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... Clinton engaged in more military interventions than any other president in history. So? Let's talk about troop amounts and $$..... Fretmore. Really? you too? Are you all 13? In these discussions, I judge the seriousness of war from the United States perspective of how many troops we have on the ground, how long they are on the ground, where they are on the ground, how many United States casualties there are, how much the war costs the United States in money and materiel, et cetera. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/2013 12:15 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/14/13, 12:08 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:55:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 11:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:53:10 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... Clinton engaged in more military interventions than any other president in history. So? Let's talk about troop amounts and $$..... Fretmore. Really? you too? Are you all 13? In these discussions, I judge the seriousness of war from the United States perspective of how many troops we have on the ground, how long they are on the ground, where they are on the ground, how many United States casualties there are, how much the war costs the United States in money and materiel, et cetera. Are you a paid judge? Didn't think so. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:21:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/13/13, 12:02 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd No one with a working brain really expected Iraq to "turn out ok." The entire exercise was a waste of American and allied lives and money, an albatross that forever will hang around Dubya's neck. We'll be greated with parades of flowers! We'll have access to all their oil, the revenue from which will be used to rebuild their country! It won't cost us a dime. Dick Cheney. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
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? |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
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. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/13, 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:15:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 12:08 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:55:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 11:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:53:10 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... Clinton engaged in more military interventions than any other president in history. So? Let's talk about troop amounts and $$..... Fretmore. Really? you too? Are you all 13? In these discussions, I judge the seriousness of war from the United States perspective of how many troops we have on the ground, how long they are on the ground, where they are on the ground, how many United States casualties there are, how much the war costs the United States in money and materiel, et cetera. The problem with wars is that they are like puddles in the road, You can't tell how deep they are going to be until you get in them. Sure you can. You can tell ahead of time that you'll have a lot less casualties on your side if you *don't* invade another country and then *don't* try to reshape it in some fairytale simple minded image you have of how life should be. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
"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. We were talking about the money Bush spent, not about how many lives it cost. How much money did 8 years of Clinton waging war on Iraq cost. Plus include the Balkans and Somalia disaster. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:02:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd Iraq was not one of Bush's finer moments. You'd think the dumb **** we've got in the White House now would have learned something. But no, he goes for Afjhanistand, Egypt, Libya, and Syria trying to do the same stupid thing. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/2013 4:20 PM, 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. You are being dishonest again, you are the one that was always complaining about foreign lives and collateral damage, until your preferred Murder in Cheif took over, now those Afghanistan and Pakistan etc innocent women and children don't matter to you anymore??? So you lefties don't care about women and children, we get that.... |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
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?? |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:15:08 -0700, jps wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:21:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/13/13, 12:02 PM, iBoaterer wrote: Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd No one with a working brain really expected Iraq to "turn out ok." The entire exercise was a waste of American and allied lives and money, an albatross that forever will hang around Dubya's neck. We'll be greated with parades of flowers! We'll have access to all their oil, the revenue from which will be used to rebuild their country! It won't cost us a dime. Dick Cheney. Seems like you guys were the ones screaming, "It's all for their oil!" Well, where's the oil? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:34:29 -0400, John H wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:02:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Blowing up Iraq and forcing our style of democracy on them!! http://tinyurl.com/n4tblvd Iraq was not one of Bush's finer moments. You'd think the dumb **** we've got in the White House now would have learned something. But no, he goes for Afjhanistand, Egypt, Libya, and Syria trying to do the same stupid thing. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! ....'Afghanistan', for those who care. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/2013 12:15 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/14/13, 12:08 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:55:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 11:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:53:10 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... Clinton engaged in more military interventions than any other president in history. So? Let's talk about troop amounts and $$..... Fretmore. Really? you too? Are you all 13? In these discussions, I judge the seriousness of war from the United States perspective of how many troops we have on the ground, how long they are on the ground, where they are on the ground, how many United States casualties there are, how much the war costs the United States in money and materiel, et cetera. When Bush was president you could care less about the American Soldiers, only the Iraqi and other foreign fighters and their support families... |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/13, 9:09 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 10/14/2013 12:15 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/14/13, 12:08 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:55:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 11:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:53:10 -0400, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/13/2013 8:37 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Doesn't matter, what matters in war, is how many bodies get left in pieces on the ground..... And Clinton left his mark for sure.... Clinton engaged in more military interventions than any other president in history. So? Let's talk about troop amounts and $$..... Fretmore. Really? you too? Are you all 13? In these discussions, I judge the seriousness of war from the United States perspective of how many troops we have on the ground, how long they are on the ground, where they are on the ground, how many United States casualties there are, how much the war costs the United States in money and materiel, et cetera. When Bush was president you could care less about the American Soldiers, only the Iraqi and other foreign fighters and their support families... And you wonder why thinking people call you psychotic... |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
|
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/2013 8:57 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 10/14/2013 4:20 PM, 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. You are being dishonest again, you are the one that was always complaining about foreign lives and collateral damage, until your preferred Murder in Cheif took over, now those Afghanistan and Pakistan etc innocent women and children don't matter to you anymore??? So you lefties don't care about women and children, we get that.... What matters to Harry doesn't matter. He has given nothing in return for the comfort and safety he enjoys as an American. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
On 10/14/2013 11:23 PM, Hank© wrote:
On 10/14/2013 8:57 PM, Charlemagne wrote: On 10/14/2013 4:20 PM, 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. You are being dishonest again, you are the one that was always complaining about foreign lives and collateral damage, until your preferred Murder in Cheif took over, now those Afghanistan and Pakistan etc innocent women and children don't matter to you anymore??? So you lefties don't care about women and children, we get that.... What matters to Harry doesn't matter. He has given nothing in return for the comfort and safety he enjoys as an American. Got that right... |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
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. |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
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 $$$ counts, eh? |
Good thing Bush spent all of that money
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/15/13, 1:15 PM, Califbill wrote: Charlemagne wrote: On 10/14/2013 4:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:48 PM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:20:54 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/14/13, 4:08 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On 14 Oct 2013 00:37:58 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: *The* mistake was made by Dubya, who was talked into invading Iraq and staying there. Bush I got out in a hurry, and Clinton never went in. Bull****, we were bombing them weekly for 10 years. That is war, no matter how you slice it. How many troops did Clinton put on the ground in Iraq and for how long? Are you including the ones in white helmets supporting weapons inspectors looking for those elusive WMD? How much money for bombs, rockets, carrier combat groups for 8 years of Clinton in charge? What difference does that make in regard to Clinton's actions about Iraq? What counts, or what used to count, was the number of American lives lost. Don't you righties care about American lives? I know you are all balled up with fetuses, but the soldiers are here already. Bush was bad but that does not make Clinton's wars good. Clinton's wars in terms of U.S. casualties and involvement were blips on the screen compared to Bush's full-scale warmongering. They are not equivalent, no matter how many times you try to make them seem so. So a few innocent women and children are ok to kill as long as it's a democrat president doing it?? The original title referred to the cost of wars. Goal post movement by Harry to now make war bad only if our soldiers get KIA or WIA. In your mind, Bilious, the deaths of U.S. soldiers are not a cost of war? You're so right-wing...only the $$$ 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 04:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright �2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com