Big Lies

[Eric the Green]

(02-21-2017, 02:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-20-2017, 11:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-20-2017, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-19-2017, 08:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-19-2017, 08:37 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Who said I'm Primarily against blue boomers only? No I consider the enemy to be Bourgeois Neo-Liberalism and Globalism in general of whom Hillary Clinton and John Mccain are the most prominent representatives of said value system. Trump whether you like him or hate him was right regarding his statement regarding mccains war record.

Examples of strong leadership Throughout History:  (Snip)

You're still going with the Adolph Hitler / Genghis Kahn style of leadership by genocide?  No thank you.  So long as you are promoting genocide, I'm not agreeing with your style of leadership.

Tell me, did any of your strong leaders hold a popular vote on whether they should go to war or not?

Show me a war that didn't have congressional support? Was completely pulling out of Iraq, further assisting with the toppling of long standing military regimes which resulted in the rise of ISIS and the greatest humanitarian crisis that the world has seen since World War II, on the ballot in or openly debated in 08'? Well, we can pretty much guarantee that we'll be killing/bombing/disrupting radical Islamic's for the rest of our lifetime and we can pretty much guarantee that there won't be a blue minded President until we are done with radical Islam.

Blatant nonsense.

Waging the Iraq War in 2003 in the first place was among the greatest blunders our country and its president has ever made; easily. One result of this unnecessary war was the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq, because the chaos and opposition to America provided the opening for this radical Islamic terrorist group. After the "surge" in 2006, Bush made an agreement to pull out, with an Iraqi regime whose sovereignty had been returned. The date for the final pullout was 2011. Obama fulfilled the agreement, leaving behind a militantly pro-Shia regime under Malaki (which insisted the agreement be honored) that fomented the renewal of Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself the Islamic State.

Meanwhile, in Syria, under a pro-Shia regime of the tyrant Assad, climate change created a huge drought which impelled the people to rebel once the Arab Spring had encouraged the revolutions in North Africa and the Near East in 2011. Assad would not allow his people to petition him for relief. He shot and bombed them, forcing the people to organize the Free Syrian Army. This had nothing to do with Obama's pre-arranged pullout of Iraq at all. Once Al Qaeda in Iraq (the Islamic State) had rebounded, it was able to take advantage of the civil war in Syria to gobble up some territory in Eastern Syria too in 2014, where it already had a presence since the mid-2000s.

Are you following this history yet, Classic? Or do you refuse to see it because you'd rather blame it on Obama and liberals?

The greatest humanitarian crisis of our time has little to do with the Islamic State or Islamic terrorism. The refugees are fleeing Assad's genocide, which has killed 400,000 and tortured thousands of Syrian citizens. Millions have been forced out of what used to be Syria. The IS has killed a tiny fraction of the people that Assad has murdered. If Obama had sent more support to the Syrian free rebels, perhaps they might have been in a better position to negotiate Assad's removal from power. But for now, it's up to Turkey and Russia.

The red president Drump's election had more to do with xenophobia, mostly concerning Mexicans, and about decline in the Rust Belt, than the war with Islamic terrorism. Obama made more progress in that than Dubya ever did, because Dubya was too busy arousing more of it with his useless and deadly invasion of Iraq. Blue voters realize most of this history, and won't be fooled by your nonsense. I just hope by 2020 we'll be able to edge out your side because Drump will have failed so badly at everything.

Of course, all that won't make any difference to voters like you, Classic Xer. Just like you ignored the facts about Iraq, you'll ignore the blunders and their results that Drump makes. You red voters would follow a blind pig off a cliff, and-- you do.

I've been following history the whole time. Bush invaded Iraq, eliminated Saddam and his regime, answered the question relating to the possibility of a secret WMD program that may or may not have existed at the time, established a democratic system while fighting an unconventional war with remnants from the old regime and Al Qaeda terrorists who were eventually defeated in Iraq and who escaped across an open border into Syria. Obama was elected and took over at that point. I don't claim to know what was going on inside Obama's head at the time of his decision to pull out of Iraq or claim to know who or what going on with his ability to make sound decision on behalf of America at the time. If you haven't figured it out yet, red voters are more individualistic and independent than the blue voters. Red voters aren't likely to follow a blind pig off a cliff. Blue voters??????

The answer to "the question relating to the possibility of a secret WMD program that may or may not have existed at the time" was that there was none. So, there was no justification for the war, and there was never any proof of such WMD. It was a ruse and a lie. In any event, even if Saddam had WMD, that still was not a basis for our invasion. It was entirely illegal. And the Iraqis fought against it.

The only alternative to Obama's decision to abide by Bush's agreement with Iraq to pull out in 2011, was to, in effect, establish another invasion and stir up opposition to it again. The "time of his decision to pull out of Iraq" was when he decided to run for president in 2006; "what was going on inside Obama's head" was his realization and statement that it was "a dumb war;" which it was.

Voting for blind pigs that take us off cliffs, as red voters do, is not individualistic. It is blind allegiance to an authority that has no basis in fact. It is not independent thought; it is ignorance.