Jump to content

Will Dems sit down again and do the RIGHT thing?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

The Iraq War was wholly about "nation building."

 

It is disingenuous to dismiss it.

 

It depends on who you ask. Its supporters seem to claim so. Of course, that rationale came about after every other possible reason had turned up bogus. Spreading Democracy. That reason will ALWAYS be there. The March of Dimes came about to cure help with the effort to cure polio. Once polio was cured, it needed a mission that wouldn't ever end. Birth Defects. A mission that will ALWAYS be there. So it is with nation building. There's always going to be someone needing democracy.

 

On the other hand, I don't think it was about nation building. I think it was about wealth transfer, from the many to the very few.

 

But what do those protesters think? I don't think it was about nation building because that didn't become the justification for Iraq until quite some time later....

Or you could just read the resolution and see exactly what they voted on.

Really, it's that simple? Yet some would tell you that the health care bill is a communist plot for the government takeover of a large percentage of our economy...though the bills don't quite say that. So all we need to do is look at the actual legislation to divine what's behind it? That's awesome, in a Malarkey kind of way.

Well, you can look at the legislation or you can make shit up. You choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can look at the legislation or you can make shit up. You choose.

 

Cool, so when we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace and we can look at the language of the document. But when we're talking health care, it's a great big commie plot! That's awesome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can look at the legislation or you can make shit up. You choose.

 

Cool, so when we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace and we can look at the language of the document. But when we're talking health care, it's a great big commie plot! That's awesome!

Speaking of Obamacare. You for it, or against it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can look at the legislation or you can make shit up. You choose.

 

Cool, so when we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace and we can look at the language of the document. But when we're talking health care, it's a great big commie plot! That's awesome!

Speaking of Obamacare. You for it, or against it?

Look under Sol's id. It's there. I said long ago (long before the dimwit partisans in The Party) that I would prefer that they go back to the drawing board. The only beneficiaries of this reform are the ones who paid for it, the pharm and insurance industries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bush specifically decried nation building when he ran for President.

It was only when his other justifications turned up bogus that he embraced it. While the neocons were of bipartisan membership, I agree that they were embraced by the GOP. I do not, and I will never, believe that the Iraq War was started from some benevolent desire to spread democracy. It was about money, and getting a great many of us to send ours to a tiny favored few.

 

Now, roll the clock back a bit. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia.... Were those not nation building exercises? Granted, Somalia didn't start that way, but I don't think its a stretch to say that it got there by the time we left. Were the Democrats up at arms about those missions? No, I seem to recall lots of Big Talk from Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich and their party in opposition to those. Granted, the President was of a different party then.

 

Oh for God's sake.

 

I don't give a crap what Bush the Dumber said in a chopped up video.

 

The fact is that he appointed Don Rumsfied - who frequently and openly advocated "regime change" in Iraq well before 2000 -- as Secretary of Defense.

 

And I certainly don't believe that there has ever been anything "benevolent" about neoconservativism. It is nothing plain, old-fashioned empire-building with a shiny new badge (well, not so new now) on the grill.

 

Bipartisan membership? Check the letter posted by RTB. Which signatories are Democrats?

 

Somalia? Sheesh. How soon they forget. "President George H. W. Bush responded to this by initiating Operation Restore Hope on 4 December 1992." (wiki)

Haiti, well maybe that was some nation-building there, I'll grant you that. How much did it cost us?

Bosnia? It seems pretty obvious that it was first and foremost a humanitarian mission to stop genocide. Nation-building (or more accurately, nation-dismantling) was more of a byproduct than a policy objective.

 

Is every humanitarian mission "nation-building" in your estimation? That seems like a funny way of defining "nation-building."

 

One party, and only one party, has a sizable contingent that advocates nation-building as a matter of US government foreign policy. And that party ain't the one with the Donkey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush specifically decried nation building when he ran for President.

It was only when his other justifications turned up bogus that he embraced it. While the neocons were of bipartisan membership, I agree that they were embraced by the GOP. I do not, and I will never, believe that the Iraq War was started from some benevolent desire to spread democracy. It was about money, and getting a great many of us to send ours to a tiny favored few.

 

Now, roll the clock back a bit. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia.... Were those not nation building exercises? Granted, Somalia didn't start that way, but I don't think its a stretch to say that it got there by the time we left. Were the Democrats up at arms about those missions? No, I seem to recall lots of Big Talk from Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich and their party in opposition to those. Granted, the President was of a different party then.

 

Oh for God's sake.

 

I don't give a crap what Bush the Dumber said in a chopped up video.

 

The fact is that he appointed Don Rumsfied - who frequently and openly advocated "regime change" in Iraq well before 2000 -- as Secretary of Defense.

 

And I certainly don't believe that there has ever been anything "benevolent" about neoconservativism. It is nothing plain, old-fashioned empire-building with a shiny new badge (well, not so new now) on the grill.

 

Bipartisan membership? Check the letter posted by RTB. Which signatories are Democrats?

 

Somalia? Sheesh. How soon they forget. "President George H. W. Bush responded to this by initiating Operation Restore Hope on 4 December 1992." (wiki)

Haiti, well maybe that was some nation-building there, I'll grant you that. How much did it cost us?

Bosnia? It seems pretty obvious that it was first and foremost a humanitarian mission to stop genocide. Nation-building (or more accurately, nation-dismantling) was more of a byproduct than a policy objective.

 

Is every humanitarian mission "nation-building" in your estimation? That seems like a funny way of defining "nation-building."

 

One party, and only one party, has a sizable contingent that advocates nation-building as a matter of US government foreign policy. And that party ain't the one with the Donkey.

Reinstalling Aristide was nation building.

Somalia began as a humanitarian mission. It became nation building when we started trying to do more than drop off food and water.

Bosnia was indeed humanitarian, but it was about regime change from the outset.

 

GWB? Here this isn't so choppy.

 

Both parties use the military. The Democrats use it for nation building/humanitarian means, and the GOP uses it to keep our domestic economy propped up, to keep the middle class bent over, and to make a few contributors rich(er), but they are happy to claim the nation building mantle if nothing else pans out to justify their actions.

 

And conservatives think we should use it for defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is by no means certain that Obama and the moonbats are going to get this crap sandwich fed to the masses (let them eat shit) despite the wreckociliation. Witness the latest success of the House Witch.

 

Nancy Pelosi Successfully Flips a House Vote!

(From "Yes" to "No")

The Observer-Dispatch reports that Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-NY, who voted yes for the House legislation last November, is inclined to vote no this time.T

Not a good sign for Granny McBotoxImplants or Mr. Barry Soweto.

 

(credit ACE)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's kind of hard to forget bullshit like shutting down the Federal government and impeaching the president of the US over a blow job.

 

Bipartisanship, indeed.

 

Right now I wouldn't mind shutting the government down for a month. Did it truly inconvenience you the first time? The problem was that it really didn't slow the growth of government. Those government workers just got a paid vacation during that period.

 

As for impeachment, I'd love to have an independent investigator look at SEIU, Acorn and the Obama administration under the RICO laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...