Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 10/15/2009 12:15:28 PM PDT by pabianice
New policy: poked in tummy w/corner of fluffy pillow, comfy chair torture, etc...
Because once you invade countries and then find out they really were not much of a threat, any questioning of the initial preemption decision is called ‘treason’ and ‘hating the troops’ . So maybe we need a better process before hand so we dont get to the point that we cant disagree so easily.
Lovely! In the meantime...
“Russia Open to Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes”
Oct. 14, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/14/world/main5384090.shtml
Saddam never honored the surrender agreement. The war never eneded throughout the 1990s and into Shock-n-Awe.
“IOW, Obama wants us to wait to be hit by terrorist nukes before we do anything to protect ourselves. I can hear the Taliban laughing from here.”
The Taliban has no ability to strike us...
I remember. He still wasn't even close the the threat we were sold for invasion. Cheney got on NBC and talked about preempting “Mushroom clouds over US Cities”. Who was going to oppose that? Turns out it was smog over the US cities and it didnt come from Iraq. Plus Cheney said Iraq oil would pay for reconstruction. Guess what? No surprise most Americans tuned GWB out for last 3 years.
Shows that something that sounds good can be a disaster.
Thank you for posting that.
I can’t understand how anyone can be so stupid to offer a kum by yah policy a day after Russia sets their muke preremption.
All this is a day AFTER russia schooled USA on what our new Iran policy will be and Odumbo said yes sir
Thank you for posting that.
I can’t understand how anyone can be so stupid to offer a kum by yah policy a day after Russia sets their muke preremption.
All this is a day AFTER russia schooled USA on what our new Iran policy will be and Odumbo said yes sir
Of course it will be discarded. The new Obama policy will officially be known as “Thank you. May I have another?”
No. The TV sold you a version for the "invasion." All one has to do is read the joint resolution to use force or Bush's speech to the UN General assembly to know the reasons.
Saddam never honored the surrender agreement. End of Saddam. End of story.
Sarah Palin is not going to be happy about this. She spent a lot of time getting up to speed on the Bush doctrine and now they are going to drop it.
I thought the right of pre-emptive strike was Clinton’s policy not Bush’s.
You are right. Cheney on TV (NBC) and sold me that version of the invasion rationale about preempting “Mushroom clouds over US Cities” and “Iraq oil would pay for reconstruction”. I know, the talk radio threesome beat the drums years later claiming it was all about democracy and terrorism and whatever, not about WMDs. Except, those that never listened to them, still had their memories intact.” Period”
Yes I am. And perhaps once you read the transcript of Bush's speech at the UN Sept 2002 and the joint resolution you'll wean yourself from what the TV fed you.
Saddam never honored the surrender agreement. We were at war with him thoughout the 1990s. End of story.
You may also wnat to consider the 15 nations of the UN Security Council all of whom declared Saddam armed and dangerous. All in agreement. Did they bulls%%t you too.
You may also wnat to consider the 15 nations of the UN Security Council all of whom declared Saddam armed and dangerous. All in agreement. Did they bulls%%t you too.
Didnt they all vote against invasion?
I posted this back in 2006. You may want to read it or you can ignore it. Your choice. It’s the BND (german intellegence agency) reporting on Iraq.
German Intellegence (BND) Report on Iraq WMD
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621800/posts
“Didnt they all vote against invasion?”
No.
The UN security council never voted on it. The US, UK, Spain, all knew that Russia and China would vote no, thereby killing it. That’s when the US Congress drew up the Joint Resolution to Use Force Against Iraq.
Like you would have done any better after 9-11. We were very afraid of getting hit again
The intel showed Saddam had nukes. Our intel said that so did France’s and Russia’s. UK too
You are doing very lazy Monday morning quarterbacking
In retrospect we should have left Saddam in power. But that is based on what we know now
Not my job. It’s my job do decide if the elected did good or bad, just like we are doing with Obama. You think I will ever forget Os promises either??/
My big issue isnt just that GWB made a big mistake, it was the political sales pitch that was used to sell the mistake, that was the making of a political disaster. If Iraq attacked us, or we found evidence that they were about too, history would be different and voters would have forgiven many problems. Maybe GWB wouldnt have felt the need to go down the social spending path to buy back political support.
Faulty reasoning on your part and a libertarian flaw. You have to put yourself in GWBush’s shoes after 911 and with the intel he had on Saddam
Would you have done any better?
All else is extraneous
Faulty reasoning on your part and a libertarian flaw. You have to put yourself in GWBush’s shoes after 911 and with the intel he had on Saddam
Would you have done any better?
All else is extraneous
You cant put yourself in his shoes because you don't have all the information he had, you are not him. It's completely irrelevant. It is our JOB to judge him as we do democrats. I believed him. That is NOT my fault.
All democrats can use your arguments to defend the failed stimulus plan. “All the qualified experts advised Obama...It would have been worse... You would have done the same..” bla-bla-bla
My ‘libertarian flaw’ came from GWB Iraq nightmare. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was the most enthusiastic hawk. GWB made sure we can never go to war in the future even against a valid threat.
You are hereby admitting that if you were President you would have done the exact same. Thank you
GWB made sure we can never go to war in the future even against a valid threat.
This is unfortunately true
I chalk it up to bad intel.
GW and Cheney and Rumsfeld did their best after the 911 attack
You are saying GW went to war with what he knew was bad intel
I disagree and say GW acted in good faith
Like I already said--- Knowing what I know now I would not have gone into Iraq
GW Bush just might say the same thing
I know how Iran has done well by this war and how we have been bled of billions and too many Americans have died their and been maimed
President Bush set a precedent for future presidents. Thank you President Bush!
I already got a few Neo-cons mad at me on this thread, I think it was yesterday.
Heh...I saw. It wouldn’t hurt for many to truly think this doctrine through again. The last administration may have had good intent, but made some major missteps in crafting the doctrine itself.
*Any* Gubermint policy needs to be reviewed and scrutinized often. This one is no exception.
I hate to tell you, but the liberals will find ANY excuse not to support US military action.
If they can't find an excuse, they make one up and the complicit media will carry the water for them in the face of contradictory facts.
Ha! You forget the lynch-mob that the liberals and media created over "connecting the dots" after 9/11?!
So, the liberals were mad that Bush did not "connect the dots" to stop 9/11, but connected too many dots to invade Iraq?
By falling for liberal, two-faced standards, you only make them stronger.
I fall for MY OWN standards. The liberals were a joke for opposing waterboarding and wiretapping and secret prisons after blaming GWB for 9/11. Notice the phony MSNBC Jersey girls never said a word to defend GWB for using those to defend us from another attack, because they were fakes.
Iraq is a different story. Just because we were attacked on Sept 11, and democrats tried to blame GWB, doesn't give him the rationale to throw us into war with some completely other country, on questionable if not invalid grounds, and get most of the country mad at him, and mad at republicans, and then really not even have a plan for what to do after invasion and not come up with one until Dec 2006 after losing mid-terms.
Right is right. Just because people who call themselves Conservatives have talking points, doesn't automatically make them right.
9/10 Mentality
REality...
Caused by the TALIBAN, was it? Putz...
You can repeatedly claim that we went into Iraq on "questionable" or "invalid" grounds, but the evidence was pretty clear.
The UN gave Sadaam one last chance to account for all the chemical and biological weapons that were previously found in Iraq, but whose whereabouts were unknown.
Sadaam sent a report that was a joke and that did not account for the missing weapons.
There was sufficient grounds for war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.