Monday, December 11, 2006
Winger: Preznit Should Bomb Iran While He's Heading Out The Door
Let's see, the Iraq war is a lost cause, the Afghanistan war is fast becoming a lost cause, the New Orleans reconstruction project is in sadder shape than the electricity grid in Baghdad, the budget is a mess, and it's been 58 degrees for most of November and December while the administration still claims there's no such animal as global warming.
Sp what hasn't Bush fucked up yet?
Fred Barnes thinks Iran is in need of a little of that special Bush-fucking - so ole' Foxy Freddy's got a brilliant idea:
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid and short-sighted so many of these wingers are.
Just how many fucking foreign policy disasters do these stupid sons of bitches want the next president to have to clean up?
Or are they really trying to screw things up so badly so that Mr. Jesus finally brings about the Rapture for them?
UPDATE: Gee, all this winger need to bomb the fuck out of people wouldn't have anything to do with having feelings of inadequacy over penis size and/or their own masculinity, would it?
Sp what hasn't Bush fucked up yet?
Fred Barnes thinks Iran is in need of a little of that special Bush-fucking - so ole' Foxy Freddy's got a brilliant idea:
Barnes:…and the day before he leavers office—carry out the military option in Iran. Wipe out their nuclear facilities
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid and short-sighted so many of these wingers are.
Just how many fucking foreign policy disasters do these stupid sons of bitches want the next president to have to clean up?
Or are they really trying to screw things up so badly so that Mr. Jesus finally brings about the Rapture for them?
UPDATE: Gee, all this winger need to bomb the fuck out of people wouldn't have anything to do with having feelings of inadequacy over penis size and/or their own masculinity, would it?
Comments:
<< Home
reality, you wrote:
"…and the day before he leavers office—carry out the military option in Iran. Wipe out their nuclear facilities."
Sounds like a plan. But why wait so long?
Do you think Iran has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program?
What would YOU have the US do if Iran detonates an atomic weapon in Iraq? What WILL the US do following a nuclear strike?
What if Iran nails Israel?
You know Israel will shoot back. Then what? How much mass destruction will you stand for?
What's wrong with the idea of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities?
What sense is there in allowing a country run by uneducated madmen to possess weaponry that can cause massive global problems?
Should we wait until a mushroom cloud rises from a city somewhere on the globe before we drop a few bombs on some largely unoccupied buildings in Iran?
"…and the day before he leavers office—carry out the military option in Iran. Wipe out their nuclear facilities."
Sounds like a plan. But why wait so long?
Do you think Iran has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program?
What would YOU have the US do if Iran detonates an atomic weapon in Iraq? What WILL the US do following a nuclear strike?
What if Iran nails Israel?
You know Israel will shoot back. Then what? How much mass destruction will you stand for?
What's wrong with the idea of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities?
What sense is there in allowing a country run by uneducated madmen to possess weaponry that can cause massive global problems?
Should we wait until a mushroom cloud rises from a city somewhere on the globe before we drop a few bombs on some largely unoccupied buildings in Iran?
reality, your comments just beg for responses. You wrote:
"Let's see, the Iraq war is a lost cause..."
Only if we refuse to kill the handful of muslims who are managing things.
You wrote:
"...the Afghanistan war is fast becoming a lost cause..."
Same as above.
You wrote:
"...the New Orleans reconstruction project is in sadder shape than the electricity grid in Baghdad..."
Do you know anything about flood insurance? I'm sure the answer is no, you don't know a thing about it. Well no bank is going to lend money to anyone building a house in New Orleans that is not protected by flood insurance, but flood insurance is only issued by the federal government. Allstate won't sell you flood insurance. So good luck getting a bank to lend money to build a house below sea level in New Orleans. If you don't have enough money in the bank to fund construction, you've got a problem.
You wrote:
"...the budget is a mess..."
Our debt level is not problematic, employment is near historic highs, home ownership is at an historic high. Tax revenues are flowing into the government at historically high levels.
Which part of the budget is a mess?
You wrote:
"...and it's been 58 degrees for most of November and December while the administration still claims there's no such animal as global warming."
Recent temperatures, and it's obvious you've forgotten about a couple of freezing days last week, aren't predictors of anything.
Meanwhile, some of the pollutants so dear to the hearts of global-warming hysterics actually block sunlight from striking the Earth. In other words, they cause global cooling. That means it's quite likely that if the Earth is actually warming, the warming is being caused by non-human activites.
One article today suggested the gas emitted by billions of cows and other farm animals is more harmful than emissions from any other source.
"Let's see, the Iraq war is a lost cause..."
Only if we refuse to kill the handful of muslims who are managing things.
You wrote:
"...the Afghanistan war is fast becoming a lost cause..."
Same as above.
You wrote:
"...the New Orleans reconstruction project is in sadder shape than the electricity grid in Baghdad..."
Do you know anything about flood insurance? I'm sure the answer is no, you don't know a thing about it. Well no bank is going to lend money to anyone building a house in New Orleans that is not protected by flood insurance, but flood insurance is only issued by the federal government. Allstate won't sell you flood insurance. So good luck getting a bank to lend money to build a house below sea level in New Orleans. If you don't have enough money in the bank to fund construction, you've got a problem.
You wrote:
"...the budget is a mess..."
Our debt level is not problematic, employment is near historic highs, home ownership is at an historic high. Tax revenues are flowing into the government at historically high levels.
Which part of the budget is a mess?
You wrote:
"...and it's been 58 degrees for most of November and December while the administration still claims there's no such animal as global warming."
Recent temperatures, and it's obvious you've forgotten about a couple of freezing days last week, aren't predictors of anything.
Meanwhile, some of the pollutants so dear to the hearts of global-warming hysterics actually block sunlight from striking the Earth. In other words, they cause global cooling. That means it's quite likely that if the Earth is actually warming, the warming is being caused by non-human activites.
One article today suggested the gas emitted by billions of cows and other farm animals is more harmful than emissions from any other source.
Reminds me of the Somalia invation on the eve of Clinton's inaguration.
I'm sure Bush will leave pleanty of problems for the next administration without having to open more Pandora's boxes.
I'm sure Bush will leave pleanty of problems for the next administration without having to open more Pandora's boxes.
Kill them all is your solution to everything, no_slappz.
What happened to you as a child that has made you such a sick, twisted, angry, hateful person? Were you unmercifully teased by the other children? Were you abused by your parents? Did you get enough air at birth or was the umbilical cord tied around your neck for a while? Or was it, as I suspect, a mix of all three.
As for New Orleans, if the preznit didn't think it could be reconstructed, he shouldn't have given a prime time speech to say he was going to make sure it was.
As for the budget, tell that to John McCain and the other conservatives pissed off about it.
As for my global warming comments, yes - it was seasonal for two days last week. For three weeks before that and for the three days since (and the next 10 days according to Weather.com), the high temperatures will be double digits over average. Couple anecdotal evidence like that w/ the scientific evidence to show the globe is warming, the polar ice is melting and species and diseases are migrating from their traditional climes, and MOST people would be concerned enough to say "Hey, maybe we should take a closer look at this." But not Dick Cheney, not George W. Bush, and not No_Slappz.
BTW, watch the Carlin stand-up bit. You'll find it illuminating.
What happened to you as a child that has made you such a sick, twisted, angry, hateful person? Were you unmercifully teased by the other children? Were you abused by your parents? Did you get enough air at birth or was the umbilical cord tied around your neck for a while? Or was it, as I suspect, a mix of all three.
As for New Orleans, if the preznit didn't think it could be reconstructed, he shouldn't have given a prime time speech to say he was going to make sure it was.
As for the budget, tell that to John McCain and the other conservatives pissed off about it.
As for my global warming comments, yes - it was seasonal for two days last week. For three weeks before that and for the three days since (and the next 10 days according to Weather.com), the high temperatures will be double digits over average. Couple anecdotal evidence like that w/ the scientific evidence to show the globe is warming, the polar ice is melting and species and diseases are migrating from their traditional climes, and MOST people would be concerned enough to say "Hey, maybe we should take a closer look at this." But not Dick Cheney, not George W. Bush, and not No_Slappz.
BTW, watch the Carlin stand-up bit. You'll find it illuminating.
I probably shouldn't do this, because it is much like arguing with a 3-year old, but here goes.
No_Slappz, you wrote:
Our debt level is not problematic.
Just like that? No explaination?
Watch the dollar decend and say it again. The Public Debt now stands at over 8.6 Trillion and has gained 150 billion in the last 10 weeks. That is problematic and becoming more problematic all the time as the interest has become a force unto its own.
It is like a freight train now, and it is accelerating.
No_Slappz, you wrote:
Our debt level is not problematic.
Just like that? No explaination?
Watch the dollar decend and say it again. The Public Debt now stands at over 8.6 Trillion and has gained 150 billion in the last 10 weeks. That is problematic and becoming more problematic all the time as the interest has become a force unto its own.
It is like a freight train now, and it is accelerating.
One measure of a relatively healthy economy is air travel.
You can be sure some thoughtful people believe the travel picture is rather bright. Some of them are about to pay $4.5 billion to buy Sabre Holdings, which is the main reservation system used by airlines to book flights.
Dec. 12, 2006
Sabre Holdings agreed to be acquired by private-equity firms Silver Lake Partners and Texas Pacific Group for about $4.5 billion in cash, including $550 million of debt, or $32.75 a share.
The price per share is a 30% premium over Sabre's average closing price over the past 60 days, the companies said.
The travel-booking service and parent of Travelocity.com said it doesn't expect changes to its current management team.
You can be sure some thoughtful people believe the travel picture is rather bright. Some of them are about to pay $4.5 billion to buy Sabre Holdings, which is the main reservation system used by airlines to book flights.
Dec. 12, 2006
Sabre Holdings agreed to be acquired by private-equity firms Silver Lake Partners and Texas Pacific Group for about $4.5 billion in cash, including $550 million of debt, or $32.75 a share.
The price per share is a 30% premium over Sabre's average closing price over the past 60 days, the companies said.
The travel-booking service and parent of Travelocity.com said it doesn't expect changes to its current management team.
reality, you wrote:
"Kill them all is your solution to everything, no_slappz."
Once again your reading comprehension fails.
I write about killing the 500 most problematic muslims, and somehow you convert that into a screed supporting mass extermination.
You wrote:
"Were you unmercifully teased by the other children?"
Nope.
You asked:
"Were you abused by your parents?"
Nope.
You asked:
"Did you get enough air at birth or was the umbilical cord tied around your neck for a while?"
No again. It's unfortunate that you, as a teacher, have so little tolerance and so little understanding of unfettered thinking.
Is there some reason you can reveal that accounts for your total blindness to the long-standing hate for the US, the west, Jews and Israel harbored by muslims?
They aren't cagey about it. They'll tell you what they think. And if you ever visit a muslim country, you'll really hear it.
Meanwhile, despite your isolationist desires, the West, and most specifically the US, cannot leave the middle east untended.
The muslim incompetents who hold power are the same incompetents who would have to move back into tents and traverse the desert if it weren't for oil revenue that western technocrats have delivered to them.
Those boneheads can't run their own oil industry because they are too busy spending what they can on repressive governments that deliver no human services to the citizens but ensure another day in power for the thugs.
You wrote:
"As for New Orleans, if the preznit didn't think it could be reconstructed, he shouldn't have given a prime time speech to say he was going to make sure it was."
Nothing prevents the reconstruction of New Orleans. Again, your poor reading comprehension gets in the way.
I said no bank will finance construction unless the building is fully insured against flooding. Only the federal government underwrites flood insurance and the maximum coverage available is $250,000. The premiums are low -- taxpayer subsidized, of course.
But people in flood plains often make a bet that if their region is flooded, their governor will get the region declared a National Disaster Area, which is code for getting the taxpayers to pick up the bill.
That's happening. Slowly. The first billion sent to Katrina victims was, as you know, spent unwisely by the recipients. Why send more?
Meanwhile, since the federal government is in charge, the process moves ahead slowly. Let's look at it this way. At the site of the Twin Towers there is nothing but a big hole in the ground five years after 9/11.
On the other hand, Larry Silverstein has already rebuilt and reopened Tower 7 on the north edge of the Trade Center site and the World Financial Center across West Street is fully repaired, fully occupied and back in action. That's the difference between private enterprise and government management of relatively unambiguous tasks.
New Orleans is the Twin Towers times a thousand. Frankly, there's no good case for rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward unless every structure is on stilts set above flood levels.
In simple terms, if the levees are strengthened and all the buildings below water level are rebuilt, the devastation occurring when New Orleans itself is struck by a Category 5 storm that rips out the new levees will make last year's mess look like the mess after a frat-house beer party.
You wrote:
"As for the budget, tell that to John McCain and the other conservatives pissed off about it."
There are always better ways to spend money, but McCain isn't one of the best thinkers on this topic. He opposes free speech for politicians by way of prohibiting campaign funding. There's many reasons to like the guy, but his fiscal sense isn't one of them.
You ranted:
"...the polar ice is melting and species and diseases are migrating from their traditional climes, and MOST people would be concerned enough to say "Hey, maybe we should take a closer look at this.""
Galileo was seen as a heretic. MOST people -- "educated" people -- believed the Earth was flat. One of history's most famous economists -- Thomas Malthus -- claimed humans would suffer from massive famine if the world's population got much larger than it was when he was gassing about the topic around 1800.
Meanwhile, the Earth has undergone ice ages and jungle periods without any help from humans.
"Kill them all is your solution to everything, no_slappz."
Once again your reading comprehension fails.
I write about killing the 500 most problematic muslims, and somehow you convert that into a screed supporting mass extermination.
You wrote:
"Were you unmercifully teased by the other children?"
Nope.
You asked:
"Were you abused by your parents?"
Nope.
You asked:
"Did you get enough air at birth or was the umbilical cord tied around your neck for a while?"
No again. It's unfortunate that you, as a teacher, have so little tolerance and so little understanding of unfettered thinking.
Is there some reason you can reveal that accounts for your total blindness to the long-standing hate for the US, the west, Jews and Israel harbored by muslims?
They aren't cagey about it. They'll tell you what they think. And if you ever visit a muslim country, you'll really hear it.
Meanwhile, despite your isolationist desires, the West, and most specifically the US, cannot leave the middle east untended.
The muslim incompetents who hold power are the same incompetents who would have to move back into tents and traverse the desert if it weren't for oil revenue that western technocrats have delivered to them.
Those boneheads can't run their own oil industry because they are too busy spending what they can on repressive governments that deliver no human services to the citizens but ensure another day in power for the thugs.
You wrote:
"As for New Orleans, if the preznit didn't think it could be reconstructed, he shouldn't have given a prime time speech to say he was going to make sure it was."
Nothing prevents the reconstruction of New Orleans. Again, your poor reading comprehension gets in the way.
I said no bank will finance construction unless the building is fully insured against flooding. Only the federal government underwrites flood insurance and the maximum coverage available is $250,000. The premiums are low -- taxpayer subsidized, of course.
But people in flood plains often make a bet that if their region is flooded, their governor will get the region declared a National Disaster Area, which is code for getting the taxpayers to pick up the bill.
That's happening. Slowly. The first billion sent to Katrina victims was, as you know, spent unwisely by the recipients. Why send more?
Meanwhile, since the federal government is in charge, the process moves ahead slowly. Let's look at it this way. At the site of the Twin Towers there is nothing but a big hole in the ground five years after 9/11.
On the other hand, Larry Silverstein has already rebuilt and reopened Tower 7 on the north edge of the Trade Center site and the World Financial Center across West Street is fully repaired, fully occupied and back in action. That's the difference between private enterprise and government management of relatively unambiguous tasks.
New Orleans is the Twin Towers times a thousand. Frankly, there's no good case for rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward unless every structure is on stilts set above flood levels.
In simple terms, if the levees are strengthened and all the buildings below water level are rebuilt, the devastation occurring when New Orleans itself is struck by a Category 5 storm that rips out the new levees will make last year's mess look like the mess after a frat-house beer party.
You wrote:
"As for the budget, tell that to John McCain and the other conservatives pissed off about it."
There are always better ways to spend money, but McCain isn't one of the best thinkers on this topic. He opposes free speech for politicians by way of prohibiting campaign funding. There's many reasons to like the guy, but his fiscal sense isn't one of them.
You ranted:
"...the polar ice is melting and species and diseases are migrating from their traditional climes, and MOST people would be concerned enough to say "Hey, maybe we should take a closer look at this.""
Galileo was seen as a heretic. MOST people -- "educated" people -- believed the Earth was flat. One of history's most famous economists -- Thomas Malthus -- claimed humans would suffer from massive famine if the world's population got much larger than it was when he was gassing about the topic around 1800.
Meanwhile, the Earth has undergone ice ages and jungle periods without any help from humans.
praguetwin, I wrote:
"Our debt level is not problematic."
You wrote:
"Just like that? No explaination?"
In response I give you the a few brief words from an economist:
--Myth No. 4: The U.S. government debt is big. The key measure here is privately held interest-bearing federal government debt, which includes debt held by foreign central banks, and does not include debt held by the Fed or government debt held by the government. So let's turn to the historical data once again.
Privately held interest-bearing debt relative to income peaked during World War II, fell through the early 1970s, rose again through the early 1990s, and then fell again until 2003.
Even though that number has been rising in recent years (except for the most recent one), it is still at levels similar to the early 1960s, and lower than levels in most of the 1980s and 1990s. This debt level was not alarming then, and it is not alarming now. From a historical perspective, the current U.S. government debt is not large.
"Our debt level is not problematic."
You wrote:
"Just like that? No explaination?"
In response I give you the a few brief words from an economist:
--Myth No. 4: The U.S. government debt is big. The key measure here is privately held interest-bearing federal government debt, which includes debt held by foreign central banks, and does not include debt held by the Fed or government debt held by the government. So let's turn to the historical data once again.
Privately held interest-bearing debt relative to income peaked during World War II, fell through the early 1970s, rose again through the early 1990s, and then fell again until 2003.
Even though that number has been rising in recent years (except for the most recent one), it is still at levels similar to the early 1960s, and lower than levels in most of the 1980s and 1990s. This debt level was not alarming then, and it is not alarming now. From a historical perspective, the current U.S. government debt is not large.
This highlights the fact that the whole world is being held to ransom by one man, selected under a dubious electoral system. The President of ‘The Great Democracy’ has the sole prerogative to generate global catastrophe at will.
I would be more concerned about the actions of a despotic US ruler than those of various Middle Eastern leaders. The former can draw us into global conflict at the blink of an eye, then retire to his ranch.
I would be more concerned about the actions of a despotic US ruler than those of various Middle Eastern leaders. The former can draw us into global conflict at the blink of an eye, then retire to his ranch.
no_slappz,
An economist? Are you going to name the mystery economist and explain what you mean by income?
Public Debt is about 65% of GDP according the CIA fact book.
That is high, and another economist, Alan Greenspan (you may have hear of him) warns that current deficits are unsustainable and threaten the health of the economy and the strength of the dollar.
An economist? Are you going to name the mystery economist and explain what you mean by income?
Public Debt is about 65% of GDP according the CIA fact book.
That is high, and another economist, Alan Greenspan (you may have hear of him) warns that current deficits are unsustainable and threaten the health of the economy and the strength of the dollar.
Unfettered thinking? Really? I think you're giving yourself airs, n_s. Everything you say comes straight from NRO. If you want to see unfettered thinking, try Andrew Sullivan. There's a man who doesn't allow his ideology or party blind him to realities.
Good point, pt.
Cartledge, email me please. I'm trying to get in contact w/ you, but for some reason my emails are getting bounced back and I tried leaving a comment on your blog just now, but Blogger's not letting me do it.
Good point, pt.
Cartledge, email me please. I'm trying to get in contact w/ you, but for some reason my emails are getting bounced back and I tried leaving a comment on your blog just now, but Blogger's not letting me do it.
Didn't George Carlin do cocaine a few years back?
It appears that he's back on it. He just isn't funny anymore.
Isn't the penis comment going a bit over the edge, though?
It appears that he's back on it. He just isn't funny anymore.
Isn't the penis comment going a bit over the edge, though?
# posted by 
: 10:58 PM
: 10:58 PM
Steve - the penis comment isn't over the top at all. It gets to the exact crux of the issue - that on some level the current Iraq conflict is being fought because of the inadequacies and self-esteem issues of the leaders. Note the Oedipal reasons why George W. Bush decided to take out Saddam while his father did not. Note how the current Bush posits himself as the polar opposite of everything his father stood for. Do you see the conflict the current Bush has w/ the father figure and how that conflict has worked itself out into politics and war?
praguetwin, the economist I cited is:
Edward Prescott, senior monetary adviser at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and professor of economics at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
He is a co-recipient of the 2004 Nobel Prize in economics.
Edward Prescott, senior monetary adviser at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and professor of economics at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
He is a co-recipient of the 2004 Nobel Prize in economics.
reality, you wrote:
"Note the Oedipal reasons why George W. Bush decided to take out Saddam while his father did not."
Are we back to reading comprehension again?
What Oedipal factors are present in your assessment of GWB's desire to remove saddam?
Apparently, after misinterpreting the psychological dynamics of the situation, you've also decided to overlook the history of Bush 41 and the first Gulf War.
He did not include saddam's removal as part of his battle plan. Taking him out wasn't part of the strategy, though it should have been.
I think we can agree that had Bush 41 removed saddam in 1991, things would be much different in the middle east today.
"Note the Oedipal reasons why George W. Bush decided to take out Saddam while his father did not."
Are we back to reading comprehension again?
What Oedipal factors are present in your assessment of GWB's desire to remove saddam?
Apparently, after misinterpreting the psychological dynamics of the situation, you've also decided to overlook the history of Bush 41 and the first Gulf War.
He did not include saddam's removal as part of his battle plan. Taking him out wasn't part of the strategy, though it should have been.
I think we can agree that had Bush 41 removed saddam in 1991, things would be much different in the middle east today.
reality, you wrote:
"What I wrote speaks for itself, n_s."
I suppose that's your response to my question about your understanding of the Freudian Oedipus Complex.
Okay. It speaks for itself.
In other words, you somehow have contorted the Freudian Oedipal concept of a son symbolically killing his father to have the undivided love of his mother into some new dynamic involving a son who follows in his father's footsteps and goes him one better.
Yeah, that's got Oedipus written all over it.
Not a single sighting of Mom in this father/son dynamic.
As for how saddam's removal has worked out, well, once again your reading and comprehension skills have let you down.
I suggested, and I am sure that had Bush 41 -- he's the father of the current president -- captured or killed saddam in 1991, the middle east would be a different place today.
Though not necessarily a better place. Iran would still have its nuclear program in gear. There's no reason to think Iran would have meddled less in Lebanon. I'm sure Iran would still control the country. But without saddam to intrude on Iranian thinking, Iran might have seized Syria as well.
Meanwhile, Iraq might have moved much farther and faster toward becoming a peaceful democracy, instead of one under attack from freedom-hating jihadists who themselves want to become dictators.
Meanwhile, saddam's actual removal worked out well. He was captured three years ago today, as a matter of fact. Too bad there's so many people in the middle east who oppose freedom, prosperity, plurality, democracy and life in the 21st century.
"What I wrote speaks for itself, n_s."
I suppose that's your response to my question about your understanding of the Freudian Oedipus Complex.
Okay. It speaks for itself.
In other words, you somehow have contorted the Freudian Oedipal concept of a son symbolically killing his father to have the undivided love of his mother into some new dynamic involving a son who follows in his father's footsteps and goes him one better.
Yeah, that's got Oedipus written all over it.
Not a single sighting of Mom in this father/son dynamic.
As for how saddam's removal has worked out, well, once again your reading and comprehension skills have let you down.
I suggested, and I am sure that had Bush 41 -- he's the father of the current president -- captured or killed saddam in 1991, the middle east would be a different place today.
Though not necessarily a better place. Iran would still have its nuclear program in gear. There's no reason to think Iran would have meddled less in Lebanon. I'm sure Iran would still control the country. But without saddam to intrude on Iranian thinking, Iran might have seized Syria as well.
Meanwhile, Iraq might have moved much farther and faster toward becoming a peaceful democracy, instead of one under attack from freedom-hating jihadists who themselves want to become dictators.
Meanwhile, saddam's actual removal worked out well. He was captured three years ago today, as a matter of fact. Too bad there's so many people in the middle east who oppose freedom, prosperity, plurality, democracy and life in the 21st century.
n_s, Bush 1 didn't take Saddam out in 1991 for good reason - he didn't think it would be either an easy or successful venture into an exercise in nation-building in Iraq.
He was right.
If you think Saddam's removal worked out quite well, you are completely deluded. You now have a country in shambles, Shia/Sunni discord and violence worsening by the day and threatening to spread beyond the Iraqi borders, and Al Qaeda NOW in Iraq where they were not before. In addition, the United States has spent $400 billion dollars and counting, nearly 3,000 lives, and much of its reputation to create chaos. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. The war that the preznit declared over in May 2003 is approaching four years in length and shows no signs of abating. if that's your recipe for success, well, I think that speaks for itself too.
Post a Comment
He was right.
If you think Saddam's removal worked out quite well, you are completely deluded. You now have a country in shambles, Shia/Sunni discord and violence worsening by the day and threatening to spread beyond the Iraqi borders, and Al Qaeda NOW in Iraq where they were not before. In addition, the United States has spent $400 billion dollars and counting, nearly 3,000 lives, and much of its reputation to create chaos. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. The war that the preznit declared over in May 2003 is approaching four years in length and shows no signs of abating. if that's your recipe for success, well, I think that speaks for itself too.
<< Home
