To our liberal friends

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't care what you were addressing, nor do I care about the picture.

In case you missed it (and you did), there was more in the post than the picture.

A lot of people blame Bush and his administration for starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hold him responsible for the human misery it has caused (including the relatives of service personnel).

[_Simpson_ 250]

I don't care what you were addressing, nor do I care about the picture.

In case you missed it (and you did), there was more in the post than the picture.

A lot of people blame Bush and his administration for starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hold him responsible for the human misery it has caused (including the relatives of service personnel).

I know exactly what effect the pic was going for, it was still uncalled for regardless to what you think about the war.

I think people who blame Bush for going to war needs a reality check, blame the american people, blame the faulty evidence and sure some of the blame is to fall on Bush but quit using him as a escape goat and portraying him in such a way as this pic did, he wouldnt of gone without our support and there was plenty of support. We wanted to out a bad man for good reasons and why there isnt more anger directed at the people causing this misery first hand is just flat out stupid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was anger, why do you think anti American sentiment increased during his terms of office?

[_Simpson_ 250]

There was anger, why do you think anti American sentiment increased during his terms of office?

The reasons are many.

On one hand you have a country that went into another country to take out a bad man for good reasons, a mistake yes, hindsight is 20/20. On the other hand you have cowards trying everything they can to bring chaos to Iraq. Where should most of the anger be directed to in your opinion?

Edited October 20, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

Not even Afghanistan? How are these cowards coming into the country not considered aggressors?

[meowmeowmeow 0]

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD's, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made

into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry.

He's done all this in 8 months -- so you'll have three years and four months to come up with an answer.

your extremely linear thinking is ....sad to say the least. there's no difference between any of these fools we elect. the system is what's wrong, not democrats, or republicans, or whatever. obama is just more likeable than dubya is, among other things. and people are human, all those points you bring up are petty at the most. give it some time, let's see what barack does and then we can talk.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Its not debatable - not even slightly. It was predicted all the way back in '91 and was the reason that Bush's father didn't remove Saddam, because they knew it would result in a sectarian power vacuum.

It was predictable when we went in with an under strength force that wasn't sufficient in numbers to secure the territory it had taken, just as it was predictable when the government disbanded the Iraqi army and put tens of thousands of armed men out of work and gave them nothing to do.

Anger, such as it is useful, should be directed at the government who pushed us into these wars and under whose watch they took place.

[yogib37 3]

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

I will anwser one of them about the teleprompter. GWB did not use one for the simple fact he is too stupid. He will not be able to read it because it is above his reading grade level. He had his speeches piped into his ear, that is why he kept fumble with the words..

Come on. Obama is so much better then GWB.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

Not even Afghanistan? How are these cowards coming into the country not considered aggressors?

I said we had no business going into one of them (Iraq) which, I thought would indicate that we did have business going into the other one (Afghanistan). The problem with the latter is that we had specific business going in there and chose to take our eyes off that business in favor of venturing into a land that we did not have any business venturing into. There's also never been a clear strategy on what to accomplish in either place - only inept strategery...

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Its not debatable - not even slightly. It was predicted all the way back in '91 and was the reason that Bush's father didn't remove Saddam, because they knew it would result in a sectarian power vacuum.

It was predictable when we went in with an under strength force that wasn't sufficient in numbers to secure the territory it had taken, just as it was predictable when the government disbanded the Iraqi army and put tens of thousands of armed men out of work and gave them nothing to do.

Anger, such as it is useful, should be directed at the government who pushed us into these wars and under whose watch they took place.

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

Not even Afghanistan? How are these cowards coming into the country not considered aggressors?

I said we had no business going into one of them (Iraq) which, I thought would indicate that we did have business going into the other one (Afghanistan). The problem with the latter is that we had specific business going in there and chose to take our eyes off that business in favor of venturing into a land that we did not have any business venturing into. There's also never been a clear strategy on what to accomplish in either place - only inept strategery...

Would we have business over there had he had nuclear weapons as intelligence led us to believe? If not when is a preemptive attack ok with you?

[Niels Bohr 72]

US sent rockets flying to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban Government then for hiding Osama Bin Laden. Thousands of death, Afghanistan in ruins, no Osama Bin Laden. US thought they did something good. The good thing is they ruined the regime that is hostile towards US. But, at the same time, it caused chaos in that part of the world.

Vietnam and Cambodia. US thought the domino effect would get more allies for the Communistic countries and devour the democracy of the world eventually. US bombed Vietnam, destroying cities, civilians, and US government issue service men. Result, US couldn't win and suffered thousands of death. Not only that, the CIA plotted with Lon Nol (Prime Minister of Cambodia) to bring Cambodia into an ally of the US. It failed and sufferred massive reprercussion.

Therefore, it is necessary to remove troops from the Middle East and let the Afghany fight their own civil war just as Cambodia and Vietnam.