Obama has the lowest approval ever

[redandguilty]

If we were in the position too offset the 1.5 million barrels that Libya pumps, yes, it wouldnt be an issue would it

If we could turn piss into oil that would be even better. Let's look into that..

We are, using genetically modified ecoli.

 

[Michchamp]

I know you think I'm missing your point Red, but I don't think you can take the air vs land issue out of it. The majority of people may have thought it would be a good thing if Hussein wasn't in power in 1998, in 2000, in 2002; but the majority may not have been in favor of invading the country until the administration fabricated just how serious the situation was.

Yeah, I don't want to downplay the difference between airstrikes and a land invasion. I'm just saying that our willingness to do the airstrike was based on our understanding of the bad stuff Saddam had done and was willing to do. We didn't learn very much after that to justify our change in position, it was just sold more heavily. There was a decade of cat and mouse stuff with the UN inspectors that was all very similar to the case Bush made.

We didn't go from zero-to-invade all because of Bush hype/lies, we went from airstrikes-to-invade. I'm not saying that step is insignificant, I'm just saying we were already a good part of the way there.

I don't think that is accurate at all.

Falling back on the "BLA BLA BLA well most of the public was okay with it at the time, so to blame Bush in hindsight is BLA BLA BLA..." is pretty disingenuous. The public will go along with the prevailing media narrative because it's all that they know. It's all the information they have, and only a minority of people take the time to research the facts on their own.

And that media narrative that was forced upon the American people did not exist prior to 2002. The Bush Administration wasn't FORCED into the invasion by public opinion. We already had and actively maintained no-fly zones over most of Iraq, as well as a massive embargo on the country. it was contained. the case to invade and occupy was a completely different story, one entirely dreamed up and pushed by the Bush admin.

Also: and the opposition to the Iraq War was WAY downplayed by the media at the time, and in hindsight we tend to forget it. I read the wiki article about all the people, including military officers - brass too, who opposed it, and had their careers ruined.

This wasn't just something that happened to Bush. They actively propagandized the casus belli, and destroyed everyone who stood in their path and opposed it, notably Wilson, and Scott Ritter.

 

[deathroh]

If we could turn piss into oil that would be even better. Let's look into that..

We are, using genetically modified ecoli.

Good to know!

 

[redandguilty]

Yeah, I don't want to downplay the difference between airstrikes and a land invasion. I'm just saying that our willingness to do the airstrike was based on our understanding of the bad stuff Saddam had done and was willing to do. We didn't learn very much after that to justify our change in position, it was just sold more heavily. There was a decade of cat and mouse stuff with the UN inspectors that was all very similar to the case Bush made.

We didn't go from zero-to-invade all because of Bush hype/lies, we went from airstrikes-to-invade. I'm not saying that step is insignificant, I'm just saying we were already a good part of the way there.

I don't think that is accurate at all.

Falling back on the "BLA BLA BLA well most of the public was okay with it at the time, so to blame Bush in hindsight is BLA BLA BLA..." is pretty disingenuous. The public will go along with the prevailing media narrative because it's all that they know. It's all the information they have, and only a minority of people take the time to research the facts on their own.

And that media narrative that was forced upon the American people did not exist prior to 2002. The Bush Administration wasn't FORCED into the invasion by public opinion. We already had and actively maintained no-fly zones over most of Iraq, as well as a massive embargo on the country. it was contained. the case to invade and occupy was a completely different story, one entirely dreamed up and pushed by the Bush admin.

Also: and the opposition to the Iraq War was WAY downplayed by the media at the time, and in hindsight we tend to forget it. I read the wiki article about all the people, including military officers - brass too, who opposed it, and had their careers ruined.

This wasn't just something that happened to Bush. They actively propagandized the casus belli, and destroyed everyone who stood in their path and opposed it, notably Wilson, and Scott Ritter.

What do you mean by "that media narrative that was forced upon the American people did not exist prior to 2002"?

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think that is accurate at all.

Falling back on the "BLA BLA BLA well most of the public was okay with it at the time, so to blame Bush in hindsight is BLA BLA BLA..." is pretty disingenuous. The public will go along with the prevailing media narrative because it's all that they know. It's all the information they have, and only a minority of people take the time to research the facts on their own.

And that media narrative that was forced upon the American people did not exist prior to 2002. The Bush Administration wasn't FORCED into the invasion by public opinion. We already had and actively maintained no-fly zones over most of Iraq, as well as a massive embargo on the country. it was contained. the case to invade and occupy was a completely different story, one entirely dreamed up and pushed by the Bush admin.

Also: and the opposition to the Iraq War was WAY downplayed by the media at the time, and in hindsight we tend to forget it. I read the wiki article about all the people, including military officers - brass too, who opposed it, and had their careers ruined.

This wasn't just something that happened to Bush. They actively propagandized the casus belli, and destroyed everyone who stood in their path and opposed it, notably Wilson, and Scott Ritter.

What do you mean by "that media narrative that was forced upon the American people did not exist prior to 2002"?

well, it did, I suppose but it was a product of the neo-con think tanks... the PNAC, Brookings, etc. were pushing for an invasion of Iraq during clinton's term.

These people all got jobs in the Bush Jr. administration, and only then did it become the government's position on the matter, and hence the prevailing media narrative..

do you think Clinton would've invaded Iraq, but-for a lack of public urging... that "extra step" from bombing to invasion? that was not happening.

the Bush Administration wanted war with Iraq pre-9/11, even pre-2000. They pushed it.

 

[redandguilty]

What do you mean by "that media narrative that was forced upon the American people did not exist prior to 2002"?

well, it did, I suppose but it was a product of the neo-con think tanks... the PNAC, Brookings, etc. were pushing for an invasion of Iraq during clinton's term.

These people all got jobs in the Bush Jr. administration, and only then did it become the government's position on the matter, and hence the prevailing media narrative..

do you think Clinton would've invaded Iraq, but-for a lack of public urging... that "extra step" from bombing to invasion? that was not happening.

the Bush Administration wanted war with Iraq pre-9/11, even pre-2000. They pushed it.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm saying the Bush push shouldn't have worked on us and our media. You know what they say, "fool me once, shame on

 

[Michchamp]

[quote="Red and Guilty":nvutvnf6]

well, it did, I suppose but it was a product of the neo-con think tanks... the PNAC, Brookings, etc. were pushing for an invasion of Iraq during clinton's term.

These people all got jobs in the Bush Jr. administration, and only then did it become the government's position on the matter, and hence the prevailing media narrative..

do you think Clinton would've invaded Iraq, but-for a lack of public urging... that "extra step" from bombing to invasion? that was not happening.

the Bush Administration wanted war with Iraq pre-9/11, even pre-2000. They pushed it.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm saying the Bush push shouldn't have worked on us and our media. You know what they say, "fool me once, shame on

 

[redandguilty]

[quote="MichChamp02":jmftq8l1]
[quote="Red and Guilty":jmftq8l1]

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm saying the Bush push shouldn't have worked on us and our media. You know what they say, "fool me once, shame on

 

[Michchamp]

well, it did. so what? we were fooled once, shame on him (them).

the scary thing is those polling numbers of people who think we should attack Iran...

Also, for the record, I thought the intervention in Libya was an awful idea, and I think the record since then corroborates it*. I'm not attacking the Iraq & Afghanistan invasions just because Bush presided over them.

*the US media stopped covering Libya after Qaddafi died, so we didn't get to hear what a cluster that country turned into on a daily basis...

What exactly were we fooled by? Clinton says "Saddam is up to A, B, and C." So we think bombing is a good idea and go ahead with no fly zones and sanctions. Bush says "OMG! OMG! Saddam is up to A, B, and C!" and we go to war.

I actually want to know from someone whose thinks it all happened because Bush lied, what did he actually say that wasn't said before, that convinced you that we should go to war?

If we'll go to war behind Bush with so little info, and then in the aftermath we blame him for the war, what's to stop this from happening again?

with this post, your argument has collapsed in on itself, into a festering pile of dung.

you are awarded no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

 

[redandguilty]

Holy Yellowcake! Someone downvoted me over this stuff!

Got me right in the karma!

 

[redandguilty]

What exactly were we fooled by? Clinton says "Saddam is up to A, B, and C." So we think bombing is a good idea and go ahead with no fly zones and sanctions. Bush says "OMG! OMG! Saddam is up to A, B, and C!" and we go to war.

I actually want to know from someone whose thinks it all happened because Bush lied, what did he actually say that wasn't said before, that convinced you that we should go to war?

If we'll go to war behind Bush with so little info, and then in the aftermath we blame him for the war, what's to stop this from happening again?

with this post, your argument has collapsed in on itself, into a festering pile of dung.

you are awarded no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Pah! Like you have the reading comprehension to evaluate my posts! You still can't tell if I'm for or against the war.

 

[Michchamp]

whoa dude. now you're losing it. take a chill pill, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_iraq_war, and maybe come back a little later, when you start making sense.

 

[Thumb]

Well as long as you're glad they went for whatever reason, I'm sure a bunch of Mothers and Wives feel much better now.

I can say with assurance that my first-born Marine son, who served two Iraqi tours, who was twice-wounded and still battling with PTSD, but is making a life for himself anyway, who witnessed the ultimate sacrifice of too many of his friends, has absolutely no regrets about his service ... and he would take a highly personal interest in your presumption of even attempting to speculate the feelings of those solders' mothers and wives (not to mention children and fathers) on this matter.

More succinctly, he would advise you to not make such an attempt, because you can not possibly have the slightest inkling of how they feel.

Apples and Oranges, Byco.

Sacrifice or service for ones country are one thing, someone saying who cares what they died for is another.

And as far as your son taking personal interest in my presumption, I'll presume any god damned thing I want, this is America, your son fought to protect the right for people to "presume", you should understand that much at least.

My point was Mitch said who cares why we went to war, he's still glad we did.

I don't think it's a stretch to think a bunch of Wives and Mothers, or Husbands and Fathers, would not find that opinion appealing.

Thank your Son for his service for me, but I need neither his, nor your advice or interest on this matter.


EDIT: Happy Birthday.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I can say with assurance that my first-born Marine son, who served two Iraqi tours, who was twice-wounded and still battling with PTSD, but is making a life for himself anyway, who witnessed the ultimate sacrifice of too many of his friends, has absolutely no regrets about his service ... and he would take a highly personal interest in your presumption of even attempting to speculate the feelings of those solders' mothers and wives (not to mention children and fathers) on this matter.

More succinctly, he would advise you to not make such an attempt, because you can not possibly have the slightest inkling of how they feel.

Apples and Oranges, Byco.

Sacrifice or service for ones country are one thing, someone saying who cares what they died for is another.

And as far as your son taking personal interest in my presumption, I'll presume any god damned thing I want, this is America, your son fought to protect the right for people to "presume", you should understand that much at least.

My point was Mitch said who cares why we went to war, he's still glad we did.

I don't think it's a stretch to think a bunch of Wives and Mothers, or Husbands and Fathers, would not find that opinion appealing.

Thank your Son for his service for me, but I need neither his, nor your advice or interest on this matter.


EDIT: Happy Birthday.

Not sure I said who cares why we went. I think you read a bit too much into that. Just saying whether it WMD or removing Hussein, it was worth it. And that the men and women, and parents don't blame Bush. I'll go with what they think first..

 

[martmay]

We did have an Iraqi War declaration, voted on by both the house and senate.....Safe to say a vast majority of the country were in favor of the decision.

 

[elrod817]

Mitch[/color]]
[quote="MI_Thumb":ep59vgve]


Apples and Oranges, Byco.

Sacrifice or service for ones country are one thing, someone saying who cares what they died for is another.

And as far as your son taking personal interest in my presumption, I'll presume any god damned thing I want, this is America, your son fought to protect the right for people to "presume", you should understand that much at least.

My point was Mitch said who cares why we went to war, he's still glad we did.

I don't think it's a stretch to think a bunch of Wives and Mothers, or Husbands and Fathers, would not find that opinion appealing.

Thank your Son for his service for me, but I need neither his, nor your advice or interest on this matter.


EDIT: Happy Birthday.

Not sure I said who cares why we went. I think you read a bit too much into that. Just saying whether it WMD or removing Hussein, it was worth it. And that the men and women, and parents don't blame Bush. I'll go with what they think first..[/quote:ep59vgve]

So what about the men, women and the parents who do blame Bush? Do you agree with them too since they served or were parents of those who served? I was heavily involved in the anti-war movement locally before the war started and I can assure you that I came across quite a few who were of that ilk.

 

[Thumb]

We did have an Iraqi War declaration, voted on by both the house and senate.....Safe to say a vast majority of the country were in favor of the decision.

So wait, the total of the Congress plus the President = a vast majority of the country?

You have said a lot of stupid things in your 88 post total, but this is right up there with the leaders.

 

[Thumb]

Mitch[/color]]
[quote="MI_Thumb":yu9dhkok]


Apples and Oranges, Byco.

Sacrifice or service for ones country are one thing, someone saying who cares what they died for is another.

And as far as your son taking personal interest in my presumption, I'll presume any god damned thing I want, this is America, your son fought to protect the right for people to "presume", you should understand that much at least.

My point was Mitch said who cares why we went to war, he's still glad we did.

I don't think it's a stretch to think a bunch of Wives and Mothers, or Husbands and Fathers, would not find that opinion appealing.

Thank your Son for his service for me, but I need neither his, nor your advice or interest on this matter.


EDIT: Happy Birthday.

Not sure I said who cares why we went. I think you read a bit too much into that. Just saying whether it WMD or removing Hussein, it was worth it. And that the men and women, and parents don't blame Bush. I'll go with what they think first..[/quote:yu9dhkok]


You know they don't blame Bush? How?

I happen to know several people with sons/daughters in the armed forces who blame the Bush Administration for the War.

Don't confuse supporting troops with supporting a war.

 

[mhughes0021]

So a disruption in the oil supply only has an effect on the US if the oil is headed here? Brilliant.

If we were in the position too offset the 1.5 million barrels that Libya pumps, yes, it wouldnt be an issue would it

weve been in that position for 40 years with natural gas which is cheaper, cleaner and vastly abundant in the us. We just chose not to use it because oil companies rule the world....duh.

 

[mhughes0021]

Not to mention the hydrogen fuel cell that had such a big buzz then went away when rich ppl realized they cant make much money off of selling water.