Jump to content

The Wars Toll


PghUSA

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well you do follow typical conservative dogma, attempt to discredit someone by making fun of their name. LOL The fact of the matter is that you (nor anyone else) have not provided any proof that proves that Saddam supported Al Queda.

Liberals can dish it out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is untrue about it?

It's simply pathetically transparent in that libs like yourself never castigated Bill Clinton for sending Americans into harm's way.

Again, you hate Bush with a purple passion and will never, ever give him the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now you are putting words in my mouth.  If Bill Clinton had committed the atrocities that Bush has, I would be just as critical.

Well, without UN approval he rained bombs on Kosovo for 60 days and some 2,000 civilians died. So I guess his operations weren't bad enough to warrant the charge of chickenhawk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but you are wrong again. It was NATO that bombed Kosovo with Clinton supplying forces as required by treaty obligations. Please check your facts. He did not unlaterally attack Kosovo so please stop trying to add legitimacy to Bush by equating his actions to something completely unrelated. BTW, NATO refused to support Bush in attacking Iraq. This includes Turkey who shares a border with Iraq. Pretty damning of Bush's actions if you ask me.

Bush = ChickenHawk, plain and simple.

Bush did not unilaterally atack Iraq, and no UN approval was given for the bombing of Kosovo. Check your facts again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say anything about the UN. Whose permission did Bush seek to attack Iraq?

Not all agree that Bush required permission. Nonetheless, perhaps he should be given some credit for attempting to marshall broad support.

No, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation that you'll give him that much credit. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of the world sees this as an unprovoked attack and invasion of a soverign nation. No different that what Saddam did to Kuwait. Why should we give Bush credit for anything having to do with this plan.

Many Americans would consider "the rest of the world" a weak argument, based on the conviction that where we stand is more important thatn with whom we stand.

And in any case "the rest of the world" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.