Helmet_hair Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It's NOT two wars we are fighting! It's one war, the War On Terrorism, fought on two fronts or one war fought on multiple fronts! Even if you do not agree that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, it really is because of The Bush Doctrine which is part of the War on terror. Another thing, who care about what the fag who made Obama's dress for her thinks about the politics of Obama. Stupid f-in media! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I genuinely worry about this country and Obama's financial ideas. I will wait to see what comes out before I go ballistic mind you. In the meantime, I am provided with this excellent entertainment. I love seeing what the conservative side is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I genuinely worry about this country and Obama's financial ideas. I will wait to see what comes out before I go ballistic mind you. In the meantime, I am provided with this excellent entertainment. I love seeing what the conservative side is all about. Here's what the lib's and the Obama's side are all about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Still fighting the war of semantics. Iraq isn't a war, it's an occupation. The war ended when Saddam was removed from power. And just because you or Bush say it was part of the war on terrorism doesn't make it so. You and he may have thought it was a help, but it had the opposite effect. Ask Sarah Palin what the latest definition of the Bush Doctrine is, it's changed over time to suit the needs of its proponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It's NOT two wars we are fighting! It's one war, the War On Terrorism, fought on two fronts or one war fought on multiple fronts! Even if you do not agree that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, it really is because of The Bush Doctrine which is part of the War on terror. Another thing, who care about what the fag who made Obama's dress for her thinks about the politics of Obama. Stupid f-in media! As stupid as the media is I think they're actually bright enough to understand that you can't declare war on a tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It's NOT two wars we are fighting! It's one war, the War On Terrorism, fought on two fronts or one war fought on multiple fronts! Even if you do not agree that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, it really is because of The Bush Doctrine which is part of the War on terror. Another thing, who care about what the fag who made Obama's dress for her thinks about the politics of Obama. Stupid f-in media! The era of Bush-Speak ended yesterday at noon. They are two seperate wars, and only one had anything to do with terrorism. Britain gave up using the term "war on terror" two years ago, and even many in the Bush Admin stopped using it. The Bush Doctrine, also thankfully getting smaller in the rear view mirror, has been debated endlessly (and with futility on this board) with regards to international legality and effectiveness and it would be pointless to continue that debate now as it is no longer relevent going forward as far as US foreign policy goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Still fighting the war of semantics. Iraq isn't a war, it's an occupation. The war ended when Saddam was removed from power. And just because you or Bush say it was part of the war on terrorism doesn't make it so. You and he may have thought it was a help, but it had the opposite effect. Ask Sarah Palin what the latest definition of the Bush Doctrine is, it's changed over time to suit the needs of its proponents. I think we need to have an intervention for PJ. I fear he may have become addicted to Sarah Palin as he can't go more than a couple hours without a PalinBad! fix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Still fighting the war of semantics. Iraq isn't a war, it's an occupation. The war ended when Saddam was removed from power. And just because you or Bush say it was part of the war on terrorism doesn't make it so. You and he may have thought it was a help, but it had the opposite effect. Ask Sarah Palin what the latest definition of the Bush Doctrine is, it's changed over time to suit the needs of its proponents. Who says the war was over when Saddam was removed? BTW, do you actually know history. Did you know that after WWII there was lots of fighting for years with factions who refused to give in, both in the pacific as well as germany, etc... The USA and allies who stayed to help rebuild those areas and defend them after the war was over were being shot at just the same. This is true of Iraq as well. The war has been over it is now not really a war but a rebuilding effort with a huge faction of extremists who refuse to allow the fighting to be over. You would do well to read a history book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Who says the war was over when Saddam was removed? This guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Here's what the lib's and the Obama's side are all about Is that supposed to be some sort of eye-opening insult? Personally, I go to DailyKos several times a day, as do millions of others, as I find it to be a valuable current events resource. You know, your side has been getting clobbered because of technology and the internet, you'd think you clowns would catch on at some point. Thankfully, I doubt you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 This guy Really I don't remember him stating that the war was over at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Still fighting the war of semantics. Iraq isn't a war, it's an occupation. The war ended when Saddam was removed from power. And just because you or Bush say it was part of the war on terrorism doesn't make it so. You and he may have thought it was a help, but it had the opposite effect. Ask Sarah Palin what the latest definition of the Bush Doctrine is, it's changed over time to suit the needs of its proponents. Ask someone in the military stationed in Iraq that has lost a good friend or maybe crippled for life by the enemy if it's a war or not. Obviously you have never served your country ...coward. Palin is all you Tards have to talke about and no one cares. If you truely believed in Obama you would go volunteer for someting but typical as Tards go you will let the other guy do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I think we need to have an intervention for PJ. I fear he may have become addicted to Sarah Palin as he can't go more than a couple hours without a PalinBad! fix PJ is an anal retentive Tard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ask someone in the military stationed in Iraq that has lost a good friend or maybe crippled for life by the enemy if it's a war or not. Obviously you have never served your country ...coward. Palin is all you Tards have to talke about and no one cares. If you truely believed in Obama you would go volunteer for someting but typical as Tards go you will let the other guy do it. It's so sad that some people like yourself have been so brainwashed that you think people are cowards unless they serve in the miltary. FYI I've been volunteering helping kids for over a decade, but maybe I should stop because I wasn't in the military. And my manager's son who lost a leg in Iraq still thinks it was a mistake to go there. Iraq is a soverign nation, we are not at war with Iraq anymore. I guess you're auditioning for Bush's job of being fast and loose with the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The era of Bush-Speak ended yesterday at noon. They are two seperate wars, and only one had anything to do with terrorism. Britain gave up using the term "war on terror" two years ago, and even many in the Bush Admin stopped using it. The Bush Doctrine, also thankfully getting smaller in the rear view mirror, has been debated endlessly (and with futility on this board) with regards to international legality and effectiveness and it would be pointless to continue that debate now as it is no longer relevent going forward as far as US foreign policy goes. No, they're related. But only by policy, and they are two wars, as is easily proven by the fact that one of them was completely optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 No, they're related. But only by policy, and they are two wars, as is easily proven by the fact that one of them was completely optional. All wars are optional. You have the option to fight or to bend over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Still fighting the war of semantics. Iraq isn't a war, it's an occupation. The war ended when Saddam was removed from power. And just because you or Bush say it was part of the war on terrorism doesn't make it so. You and he may have thought it was a help, but it had the opposite effect. Ask Sarah Palin what the latest definition of the Bush Doctrine is, it's changed over time to suit the needs of its proponents. no just don't like revisionist history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 All wars are optional. You have the option to fight or to bend over. Yeah, if we didn't invade Iraq, we were !@#$ed in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Why did we fight Germany then? Japan attacked us, Germany didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 9/11 lead to the "Bush doctrine" which lead to Afghanistan which lead to Iraq in which the Bush white house the intelligence agencies in the UK, France, US and the Clinton white house thought that Iraq had WMDs and that these WMDs or precursors to WMDs could easily be past or sold into the hands of terrorists (where the Bush doctrine comes into play). They knew they did not have long range missile technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts