1
   

G.O.P. Losses Attributable to altruism

 
 
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 12:21 am
We went to war to depose Saddam and his dynasty,
because as a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us
( for Kuwait ) and access to nukes ( either homemade or
bought from Russians nextdoor ) he was an intolerable risk.


It took the US Army and Marines about 10 minutes
to knock down Saddam 's military establishment.
We victoriously succeeded in our mission
when we arrested Saddam after killing his evil princes.
After that point in time, it ceased being a defensive war
and degenerated into altruistic foreign aid,
to make Iraq a nice, sweet place to live.

Nowhere in the US Constitution is government granted authority
to wreak altruism thru out the world, at the expense of Americans,
neither in the lives of our troops, nor in the treasure
that has been supporting this foreign endeavor.

After arresting or killing Saddam,
we cud have n shud have brought the troops home,
and LEFT IRAQ IN SHAMBLES,
NOT clean up after ourselves
and leave the place all neat n tidy.
W is the President of the United States;
he is NOT the president of Iraq and its well-being is NOT properly of concern to him.

Admittedly, every Moslem terrorist that we kill over there,
is one that cannot come over here, like Atta, and cause trouble, but still....
enuf is enuf.

I believe that W has delusions of bringing peace
to the Middle East, and wishes to leave that legacy,
for his place in history; it is not worth it,
and this is what comes, from the electorate, for trying it.

Altruism is alien to the Constitution. This is what comes of it.
Let W confine his attention to only satisfying AMERICAN interests
and leave the aliens to fend for themselves.
David
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,032 • Replies: 40
No top replies

 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 12:42 am
Re: G.O.P. Losses Attributable to altruism
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It took the US Army and Marines about 10 minutes
to knock down Saddam 's military establishment.
We victoriously succeeded in our missionDavid[/b]


You must have been living under a rock the previous years
to make statements like these.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 12:48 am
We won the war as soon as we overthrew Saddam 's dynasty
by arresting him and killing his sons.
THAT was the reason for the war; nothing else.
David
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 02:32 am
That Bush and his poodle went into Iraq in the first place, was totaly illogical. If it was under the banner of ridding the world from the threat of WMD's, then surely Bush and Fifi should have tackled North Korea first, who posed (and still pose) a REAL threat.

"......Nowhere in the US Constitution is government granted authority
to wreak altruism thru out the world, at the expense of Americans......."

.and where in your Constitution does it state that the US President can order the wreaking of havoc and devastation in another country, after knowingly supplying false evidence to his government in order to secure their approval to go to war?

If Bush was retaliating for the atrocity on 9/11, why the hell did he target Iraq, as opposed to Yemen or Saudi, both well known AQ strongholds?


".......Admittedly, every Moslem terrorist that we kill over there,
is one that cannot come over here, like Atta, and cause trouble, but still.... "

David, because of Bush and Fifi being so damned belligerent from day one regarding this whole matter, there are probably queues of willing young men lining up to join any terrorist organisation that may offer them the opportunity of hitting the USA and UK hard, whether it be on our respective home soil, or any outpost around the world.
Don't think for one tiny second that Bush and Fifi have caused the threat of terrorism to diminish in any way. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

Sorry, David, but if Bush and Fifi want to go and demolish another country for such an illogical reason, based on such flimsy evidence and without any form of exit strategy in mind, then the least they can do now is to provide whatever it takes to help those poor people rebuild their homes and general infrastucture.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 11:35 pm
Lord Ellpus wrote:
That Bush and his poodle went into Iraq in the first place, was totaly illogical.

As I said hereinabove, and u ignored:
we went to war to depose Saddam and his dynasty,
because as a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us
( for Kuwait ) and access to nukes ( either homemade or
bought from Russians nextdoor ) he was an intolerable risk.
THAT is not " illogical " in any respect,
but as soon as the job was done, 3 years ago,
we shud have brought the troops home;
( MAYBE, at the most, we cud have run free elections first ).


Quote:

If it was under the banner of ridding the world from the threat of WMD's,
then surely Bush and Fifi should have tackled North Korea first,

Actually, it was AMERICA, not the world.
W 's duties are only to America.
We did not elect him for the benefit of " the world ".


Quote:

who posed (and still pose) a REAL threat.

ONE thing at a time, please.



Quote:

"......Nowhere in the US Constitution is government granted authority
to wreak altruism thru out the world, at the expense of Americans......."

.and where in your Constitution does it state that the US President can order
the wreaking of havoc and devastation in another country

Article 2 Section 2,
in that as being commander in chief of the Armed Forces,
he can order them to go places and do things;
( e.g., attack and overthrow menacing governments ).





Quote:

, after knowingly supplying false evidence to his government
in order to secure their approval to go to war?

I reject your premise.



Quote:

If Bush was retaliating for the atrocity on 9/11,

He was not.


Quote:

why the hell did he target Iraq,

As I said 2ice hereinabove:
we went to war to depose Saddam and his dynasty,
because as a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us
( for Kuwait ) and access to nukes ( either homemade or
bought from Russians nextdoor ) he was an intolerable risk.



Quote:

as opposed to Yemen or Saudi, both well known AQ strongholds?
".......Admittedly, every Moslem terrorist that we kill over there,
is one that cannot come over here, like Atta, and cause trouble, but still.... "

David, because of Bush and Fifi being so damned belligerent from day one regarding this whole matter, there are probably queues of willing young men lining up to join any terrorist organisation that may offer them the opportunity of hitting the USA and UK hard, whether it be on our respective home soil, or any outpost around the world.
Don't think for one tiny second that Bush and Fifi have caused the threat of terrorism to diminish in any way. Quite the opposite,

Your reasoning is poor.
Each terrorist who is killed THERE is too dead
to cause trouble here or in England.
The fanatical Moslems who fite for Quaeda
were already that way long before either Gulf War.


Quote:

I'm afraid.

I suspected as much.





Quote:

Sorry, David, but if Bush and Fifi want to go and demolish another country for such an illogical reason, based on such flimsy evidence and without any form of exit strategy in mind, then the least they can do now is to provide whatever it takes to help those poor people rebuild their homes and general infrastucture.

Not at all.
The war was not our fault; it was DEFENSIVE,
against Saddam. We shud have taken reparations of war from the oil.

It was W 's duty to avoid risk nuclear Pearl Harbors.
U appear to adhere to the Neville Chamberlain school of philosophy.
David
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 11:52 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
We won the war as soon as we overthrew Saddam 's dynasty
by arresting him and killing his sons.
THAT was the reason for the war; nothing else.
David



<shaking head>

Don't you just hate it when people re-write (very recent! In living memory!) history to suit their own beliefs?

Psst, OSD ..... remember those dreaded WMDs?

Or didn't you actually believe your government at the time?

Confused
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 12:35 am
G.O.P. Losses Attributable to George Bush is more like it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 07:40 am
I dreamed last night that omsig was being sodomized by Borat. This was not a pleasant dream.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 07:56 am
David, please post the name of the asylum in which you reside, so that I may send you Christmas and birthday cards.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 08:56 am
msolga wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
We won the war as soon as we overthrew Saddam 's dynasty
by arresting him and killing his sons.
THAT was the reason for the war; nothing else.
David



<shaking head>

Don't you just hate it when people re-write (very recent! In living memory!) history to suit their own beliefs?

Psst, OSD ..... remember those dreaded WMDs?

Or didn't you actually believe your government at the time?

Confused

I certainly DO remember the WMDs.

I was very concerned about them during the Clinton Administration,
after Saddam threw out the nuclear inspectors
and tore down the TV cameras over his nuclear development sites.
All Clinton did was send Saddam a few missles
and then FORGET about it,
hoping that Saddam wud not attack us until
the next Administration; some defensive strategy !

Obviously, Bush was at fault in allowing Saddam
to remain intact after the First Gulf War; stupid thing to do.
What a WASTE.

If W had been FASTER, he cud have gotten the WMDs
before Saddam cud stash them with the Baath Party in Syria.

W was too slow to start the war,
and too slow to stop it, after we accomplished our mission
of removing Saddam 's Dynasty.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 08:58 am
blatham wrote:
I dreamed last night that omsig was being sodomized by Borat. This was not a pleasant dream.

U dream about sodomy a lot ?
U give it a lot of thought ?
David
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:00 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If W had been FASTER, he cud have gotten the WMDs
before Saddam cud stash them with the Baath Party in Syria.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:06 am
I guess 10 minutes wasn't fast enough Laughing
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:08 am
"Hurry up, boys! We've got ten minutes, and our WMD are still everywhere around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat! Quick!!!"
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:09 am
roger wrote:
G.O.P. Losses Attributable to George Bush is more like it.

Yes; of course.
That is what I meant.
The continuation of the war, for ALTRUISTIC purposes only,
after we have disposed of Saddam 's Dynasty,
is ONLY an act of altruism,
helping ONLY Iraq, not America.

The first part of the war was DEFENSIVE and justified.
The second part, after the arrest of Saddam,
was just ALTRUISTIC, and not justified.

The war shud have ended abruptly
when we accomplished our objective by arresting Saddam
and killing his sons.

If W had brought the troops home
when we arrested Saddam, we 'd have kept both houses of Congress.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:12 am
old europe wrote:
"Hurry up, boys! We've got ten minutes, and our WMD are still everywhere around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat! Quick!!!"

What do u mean " ten minutes " ???????
Saddam knew for YEARS that we were coming. Obvious.
Slow, but obvious.


Too slow to go,
and too slow to come back.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:15 am
parados wrote:
I guess 10 minutes wasn't fast enough Laughing

RIGHT, because it was preceded
by YEARS of anticipation.
David
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:19 am
Let me point this out to you....

OmSigDAVID wrote:
What do u mean " ten minutes " ???????
Saddam knew for YEARS that we were coming. Obvious.
Slow, but obvious.


You said:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
It took the US Army and Marines about 10 minutes
to knock down Saddam 's military establishment.


So either ten minutes were not quick enough, OR, by the time the invading army got there it was already obvious that they wouldn't find any WMD. Which begs the question: why invade at all?


P.S.: I bet you 1€ that Iraqi WMD will never be found anywhere. Not in Iraq, not in Syria, not even in China.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:29 am
old europe wrote:
Let me point this out to you....

OmSigDAVID wrote:
What do u mean " ten minutes " ???????
Saddam knew for YEARS that we were coming. Obvious.
Slow, but obvious.


You said:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
It took the US Army and Marines about 10 minutes
to knock down Saddam 's military establishment.


So either ten minutes were not quick enough,
OR, by the time the invading army got there it was already obvious
that they wouldn't find any WMD.

HOW, pray tell, was it " already obvious " ??



Quote:

P.S.: I bet you 1€ that Iraqi WMD will never be found anywhere.

Not in Iraq, not in Syria, not even in China.

U win your own bet,
since neither Syria nor China r being searched for them.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:32 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
HOW, pray tell, was it " already obvious " ??


I thought that was what you meant when you said

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Obvious.


If that's not the case, what else did you mean when you said

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Obvious.


???
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » G.O.P. Losses Attributable to altruism
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 11:37:18