Tiberius Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The Domino Theory lives. Who made it America's role to conquer foreign lands and force democracy down the throats of people who don't even want it? All we're doing over there is making enemies faster than we can kill them. We have one and only one strategic interest over there. OIL. Not the question I was answering. For someone to say NOTHING good came out of Iraq invasion or Saddam being gone is stupid. And as to your assertion that oil is our only stregic interest there is myopic. A functioning democracy--now or in the future--is an area that buys and sells, provides an area for investment and isn't as much of a pain in the arse and drag on the rest of the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 Not the question I was answering. For someone to say NOTHING good came out of Iraq invasion or Saddam being gone is stupid. And as to your assertion that oil is our only stregic interest there is myopic. A functioning democracy--now or in the future--is an area that buys and sells, provides an area for investment and isn't as much of a pain in the arse and drag on the rest of the world You can't even rephrase the question correctly, so there's zero hope you can answer it correctly. No one, not a single person (not even Rubio) said "NOTHING good came out of the Iraq invasion or Saddam being gone", in fact, I spent quite a bit of time explaining how Iran is quite happy and pleased with the outcome. The question was "is the world (overall) a better place TODAY with Saddam gone?" Also, your definition of a functioning democracy needs work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) And as to your assertion that oil is our only stregic interest there is myopic. A functioning democracy--now or in the future--is an area that buys and sells, provides an area for investment and isn't as much of a pain in the arse and drag on the rest of the world At what cost? is it worth you father/mother//spouse/friend/brother/sister/son/daughter's life? If you don't have to to pay that price, good for you , but a lot of people will so we can sell iPhones made in China to Iraq. Yeah, there may be some other reasons for all this, but the over arching reason is OIL, Rwanda had a huge genocide problem going on that we chose to ignore. Why not help them? They don't have oil. Why did we put boots on the ground in Syria last week? Because ISIS selling black market oil was eating into Exxon's and Shell's profits. Yeah yeah yeah and it was funding ISIS. If we want to cripple ISIS we should stop arming them. In the Ramadi defeat the other day when the Iraqi troops fled (again), they left behind for ISIS 30 Humvees (which make great car bombs) and 10 tanks plus a huge cache of ammo that WILL be used against us. When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. Edited May 20, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 At what cost? is it worth you father/mother//spouse/friend/brother/sister/son/daughter's life? If you don't have to to pay that price, good for you , but a lot of people will so we can sell iPhones made in China to Iraq. Yeah, there may be some other reasons for all this, but the over arching reason is OIL, Rwanda had a huge genocide problem going on that we chose to ignore. Why not help them? They don't have oil. Why did we put boots on the ground in Syria last week? Because ISIS selling black market oil was eating into Exxon's and Shell's profits. Yeah yeah yeah and it was funding ISIS. If we want to cripple ISIS we should stop arming them. In the Ramadi defeat the other day when the Iraqi troops fled (again), they left behind for ISIS 30 Humvees (which make great car bombs) and 10 tanks plus a huge cache of ammo that WILL be used against us. When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. What if your goal is to reach the other side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 You can't even rephrase the question correctly, so there's zero hope you can answer it correctly. No one, not a single person (not even Rubio) said "NOTHING good came out of the Iraq invasion or Saddam being gone", in fact, I spent quite a bit of time explaining how Iran is quite happy and pleased with the outcome. The question was "is the world (overall) a better place TODAY with Saddam gone?" Also, your definition of a functioning democracy needs work. And your answer was that it isn't. Which is silly. And Iraq is far from a perfect democracy, no argument there, my point was that the Iranian leadership probably doesn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 And your answer was that it isn't. Which is silly. And Iraq is far from a perfect democracy, no argument there, my point was that the Iranian leadership probably doesn't like it. It's not silly. It's demonstrable. What's silly is your propensity for misquoting and mischaracterizing someone's arguments. I'd give you credit for trolling if I thought it was intentional, but it's clearly a product of your inability to breathe with your mouth closed. And if you think Iran is in any way upset with destablized Iraq you're wrong again -- shocking absolutely no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Rwanda had a huge genocide problem going on that we chose to ignore. No they didn't! It was genocide-like activity! Shut up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 It's not silly. It's demonstrable. What's silly is your propensity for misquoting and mischaracterizing someone's arguments. I'd give you credit for trolling if I thought it was intentional, but it's clearly a product of your inability to breathe with your mouth closed. And if you think Iran is in any way upset with destablized Iraq you're wrong again -- shocking absolutely no one. I'm saying the world is better with Saddam gone. Ok? You are saying that's not true, correct? And you actually cry about someone else mischaracterizing a person's arguments?? Wow! I didn't say a destabilized Iraq, I said an Iraq that was something of a democracy being a threat to the absolute rule of the fundamntalists in charge in Iran. Do you remember the green movement of 2009? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I'm saying the world is better with Saddam gone. Ok? Based on this statement, I would like to amend my earlier comment that the world is a better place with Saddam gone. I'm not sure why. I just know that agreeing with gatorman on pretty much anything is going to be a losing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Based on this statement, I would like to amend my earlier comment that the world is a better place with Saddam gone. I'm not sure why. I just know that agreeing with gatorman on pretty much anything is going to be a losing game. He wasn't all bad. He did give us Baghdad Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Based on this statement, I would like to amend my earlier comment that the world is a better place with Saddam gone. I'm not sure why. I just know that agreeing with gatorman on pretty much anything is going to be a losing game. Thanks for admitting the obvious, you are not an independent thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Thanks for admitting the obvious, you are not an independent thinker. I'm independent enough to know you don't know jackschiit about jackschit, and the only way you're ever right about anything is purely by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 I'm saying the world is better with Saddam gone. Ok? You are saying that's not true, correct? And you actually cry about someone else mischaracterizing a person's arguments?? Wow! I didn't say a destabilized Iraq, I said an Iraq that was something of a democracy being a threat to the absolute rule of the fundamntalists in charge in Iran. Do you remember the green movement of 2009? Right now, as it stands today, the world (including the United States) is not a better place today compared to pre-invasion 2003. You, your nom de plume, and Rubio believe that it is yet cannot offer any evidence as to why they feel that way other than "Saddam was a bad guy". I have already explained, in great detail, my opinion and the reasons why both of your positions, and Rubio's is demonstrably inaccurate. But that, of course, is not what you claimed I was saying. You claimed I said "nothing good" came out of deposing Saddam, which I never said. Words matter, don't they? And as for Iran, they gained more than any other nation from Saddam being out of power, democracy or no. They continue to benefit from Saddam being taken out. That's something that's a threat to American interests in the region and the world if you believe what the hawks of both parties tell us. Unless you have some facts and figures to back up your statement that Iran is somehow in a worse strategic and geopolitical position today than they were in 2003, you should really start doing some more critical thinking about your positions before you type them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Share Posted May 27, 2015 Rubio Pathetically Plays the Victim: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/26/marco-rubio-pathetically-plays-the-lgbt-victim.html?via=mobile&source=email And so, with the grit of history in his eye, Rubio continues howling in the wind—his words more and more lost in the tempest of history passing him by. It's shocking how out of touch with reality this guy is, even though this article is clearly written by someone who isn't much of a fan. I understand he has to shore up the base of the party if he has any chance to win (which he doesn't), but he just continues to say the absolute wrong thing every time a microphone is put in front of his mouth. Rubio's campaign so far: 1. Wants to keep (the now deemed illegal) the most controversial portions of the Patriot Act permanent without reform. 2. Uses fear mongering to pander to the religious right in the base of his party and paints Christians as victims of an evil gay agenda. 3. Believes the world is a better place today than it was in 2003 because Saddam is gone. BACKWARDS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 6, 2015 Author Share Posted June 6, 2015 Rubio's campaign cribs JFK: From the start, Rubio, 44, has wrapped his campaign in the rhetoric of youth. "Yesterday is over," he said the day of his launch in Miami. Campaigning near Iowa State on Saturday, Rubio railed against "outdated leaders" and declared, "If we keep promoting the same people we'll be left behind by the future." But it was a new line he began road testing in Iowa that stood out. Rubio presented the 2016 campaign as a generational pivot point, likening his vision for a "New American Century" — the tagline of his campaign — to Kennedy's 1960 challenge to the nation to embrace a "New Frontier." I don't know what's more disingenuous about his comments, the fact he compares himself to Kennedy (despite sharing none of his politics), the fact he claims we'll be "left behind by the future" by not voting for Rubio who's entire campaign platform comes directly from the last century, or the fact Rubio believes quoting JFK is somehow going to make him feel fresh to the voting public. Nothing he's running on is novel or new. He's bought and paid for by the same folks who have been buying and paying for all our past presidents and elected officials. He doesn't support gay marriage, he does support further intervention in the middle east (with his eyes firmly on bombing Iran), and he believes the only way to keep citizens safe is to spy on and control its citizens as evidenced by his unabashed support of the illegal bulk collection methods of the Patriot Act. So who is Rubio really? Fearmonger to the extreme: check. Homophobic: check. In the pocket of the military industrial complex: check. Rubio is a candidate who's ideas are firmly stuck in the 20th century. He's not a vote for the future, he's a vote for the past -- the worst parts of our past. The debates are going to be brutal for this guy. I can't wait to watch him squirm as he tries to walk the line. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/marco-rubio-is-now-channeling-jfk-explicitly-20150606 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Right now, as it stands today, the world (including the United States) is not a better place today compared to pre-invasion 2003. You, your nom de plume, and Rubio believe that it is yet cannot offer any evidence as to why they feel that way other than "Saddam was a bad guy". I have already explained, in great detail, my opinion and the reasons why both of your positions, and Rubio's is demonstrably inaccurate. I forgot about this thread. You are right, no one can provide any evidence, because he was gone after 2003, so no evidence after that. You have no evidence either, but I'm pretty sure a brutal dictator, with a centuries worth of oil, two sons ready to take over after he was gone, not being in power is a good thing. Too bad we didn't take out the North Korean dictatorship in 1950, if it was possible. Rubio's campaign cribs JFK: and he believes the only way to keep citizens safe is to spy on and control its citizens as evidenced by his unabashed support of the illegal bulk collection methods of the Patriot Act. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/marco-rubio-is-now-channeling-jfk-explicitly-20150606 Control?? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Rubio's campaign cribs JFK: I don't know what's more disingenuous about his comments, the fact he compares himself to Kennedy (despite sharing none of his politics), the fact he claims we'll be "left behind by the future" by not voting for Rubio who's entire campaign platform comes directly from the last century, or the fact Rubio believes quoting JFK is somehow going to make him feel fresh to the voting public. Nothing he's running on is novel or new. He's bought and paid for by the same folks who have been buying and paying for all our past presidents and elected officials. He doesn't support gay marriage, he does support further intervention in the middle east (with his eyes firmly on bombing Iran), and he believes the only way to keep citizens safe is to spy on and control its citizens as evidenced by his unabashed support of the illegal bulk collection methods of the Patriot Act. So who is Rubio really? Fearmonger to the extreme: check. Homophobic: check. In the pocket of the military industrial complex: check. Rubio is a candidate who's ideas are firmly stuck in the 20th century. He's not a vote for the future, he's a vote for the past -- the worst parts of our past. The debates are going to be brutal for this guy. I can't wait to watch him squirm as he tries to walk the line. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/marco-rubio-is-now-channeling-jfk-explicitly-20150606 You're sounding a lot like "Baghdad Bob" here. Also, your obvious disdain for Rubio seems to be dictating some harsh judgements of him. If you truly believe what I "bolded" above then you would have to admit Obama is the same, but disingenuous about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 You're sounding a lot like "Baghdad Bob" here. Also, your obvious disdain for Rubio seems to be dictating some harsh judgements of him. If you truly believe what I "bolded" above then you would have to admit Obama is the same, but disingenuous about it. He sure seems to have a hatred for Rubio. I think I know what it is, but can't be sure. I mean is Rubio much different in his opinions that other Republicans? Or Democrats, as you pointed out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baghdad Bob Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 You're sounding a lot like "Baghdad Bob" here. Also, your obvious disdain for Rubio seems to be dictating some harsh judgements of him. If you truly believe what I "bolded" above then you would have to admit Obama is the same, but disingenuous about it. This bastard 3rdnlng lies, and I won't say shamelessly, because he doesn't know what shame means! Rubio is a criminal! This criminal in Miami is a pathetic criminal and he deserves to be beaten with bullets and shoes! This criminal lies to the world because he is a criminal by nature and conditioning. He is a blood sucking bastard and a liar. A liar! Today I have visited whole city of Miami, no Marco Rubio found. You go and see how we have ousted him from this city. Rubio is NOT in Miami! I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Rubio's campaign cribs JFK: I don't know what's more disingenuous about his comments, the fact he compares himself to Kennedy (despite sharing none of his politics), the fact he claims we'll be "left behind by the future" by not voting for Rubio who's entire campaign platform comes directly from the last century, or the fact Rubio believes quoting JFK is somehow going to make him feel fresh to the voting public. Nothing he's running on is novel or new. He's bought and paid for by the same folks who have been buying and paying for all our past presidents and elected officials. He doesn't support gay marriage, he does support further intervention in the middle east (with his eyes firmly on bombing Iran), and he believes the only way to keep citizens safe is to spy on and control its citizens as evidenced by his unabashed support of the illegal bulk collection methods of the Patriot Act. So who is Rubio really? Fearmonger to the extreme: check. Homophobic: check. In the pocket of the military industrial complex: check. Rubio is a candidate who's ideas are firmly stuck in the 20th century. He's not a vote for the future, he's a vote for the past -- the worst parts of our past. The debates are going to be brutal for this guy. I can't wait to watch him squirm as he tries to walk the line. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/marco-rubio-is-now-channeling-jfk-explicitly-20150606 Come on. Tell us how you really feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts