coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
i miss him like lance armstrong misses cancer.
Daddy didn't have a long-standing feud with Osama.
here's something we can blame on Bush:
Got a little news for ya, 1. even if Bin Ladin had been captured or killed at Tora Bora in 2001, Al Quada would still exist today, the taliban would still be fighting in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. No amount of troops or reinforcements would have guaranteed the killing or capture of Bin Ladin in 2001. The area had difficult terain, and many caves and tunnels which could easily allow an individual or small group of individuals to escape. Even with todays much larger deployment of troops and resources, small groups of Taliban fighters still go back and forth across the border undetected.
3. Once again, lets try to remember that Bin Ladin and Al Quada existed prior to Bush coming into office. Clinton had years and several opportunities to kill or capture Bin Ladin and failed to. Clinton had the option for a far more aggressive stance towards Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet both were still well in place years after they had bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing hundreds of American citizens and Kenyan and Tanzanian citizens.
The fact is, when Clinton left office, the Taliban were still in power in Afghanistan, and Saddam was still in power in Iraq. Bush removed both of these threats from power.
Oh and by the way, claiming that Bush lost the war in Afghanistan as well as the war in Iraq is probably the most absurd thing you have ever said in this forum. The original goal of each war was to remove the ruling regime in each country, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saddam regime in Iraq. Both regimes were removed within weeks of Bush ordering the military to do so.
With both regimes removed the long process of nation building in both countries was started. There have been set backs and huge accomplishments in this process in both countries. But this is a process that has historically taken 10+ years or even decades to complete.
Iraq today has a standard of living better than a country like Morocco and violence is down to levels as low as the United States based on the number of people murdered per month and compared to the USA on a per capita basis. The Iraqi military has made great strides over the past 6 years in developing into a force that can handle security on its own in Iraq. Economic growth continues and companies from around the world are coming in to develop Iraq's oil fields which in the coming years will generate enormous wealth for the country. Politically, while there has been much trouble, things are being handled through discussions and negotiotions instead of violence. The difference between today and just before the Surge in January 2007 is basically night and day. Even Obama, who opposed the Surge has admitted that it worked. There has been total continuity between both administrations on Iraq. Bush's policies in Iraq were so successful that Obama chose to continue those same policies when he came into office.
The setbacks in Afghanistan have been unfortunate, but do not change the fact that much has been accomplished there since 2001. While the Taliban have become resurgent thanks to their sancturaies in Pakistan, they have not been able to take or hold any major towns in Afghanistan. The Surge in Afghanistan will work, just as it did in Iraq. Afghanistan is a larger and much less developed country than Iraq, which is part of the reason why the efforts there are running into more problems. But provided the US and other countries do not abandon the effort, it will eventually succeed in helping Afghanistan develop into a country that can handle its own internal security problems without the need for significant numbers of foreign troops.
By the way, are you still supporting Biden's old plan to carve up Iraq into different countries?
And yes, I aware that many of you consider GWB a big boob.
Strongbow: you are on my ignore list. please respect that and stop trolling my posts.
If I was indeed on your ignore list, you wouldn't be able to quote me. LOL
Wow!? Guess what, responding to another persons post is NOT considered to be trolling!
If I was indeed on your ignore list, you wouldn't be able to quote me. LOL
Incorrect.
Then you'll just have to be ok with the fact that replying to Irvine's posts won't produce any replies from him. So if you're lining up a 10 page response to really show him, consider that you won't get any reply from him on it.
Incorrect.
Wow!? Guess what, responding to another persons post is NOT considered to be trolling!
wow, guess what, you go through threads and pull up posts of mine from weeks ago and cut-and-paste your usual antagonistic bullshit. .
it isn't intended to start any sort of debate or discussion, it's intended to try and get a rise out of me.
perhaps you feel the need to try and score some make-up points because i used to take the time to dismantle and destroy your "arguments" over the years.
i added you to my Ignore List -- the only person, ever -- well over a year ago, and i have almost never respond to in any direct way for well over a year, and on the rare occasion that i do, it's because i've had a slip in judgment and given in to your antagonism.
you can obviously do what you like, and this is a public message board, but i am asking you to please leave me alone.
Strongbow, it's extremely dishonest of you to say that you're not antagonistic. You post lies as fact to get a rise out of people.
LOL, I entered this one thread on the legacy of George W. Bush and responded TO ONE POST! There was nothing ataganoistic about what I said. Just discussing the issues. Unfortunately, you can't seem to discuss issues without making false, inaccurate, and absurd comments about other forum members which have NOTHING to do with the issues.
Again, what I discuss are the issues. What you like to discuss are the alleged posting habbits of other people as your most recent post once again proves.
LOL, usually what would happen is that after failing to do just that, you would turn your focus on the poster with tons of labling, name calling, and comments about the poster rather than the issue being discussed, just as you are doing here.
I can bring up plenty of examples if you like.
This post by you is an example of antagonism. Discussing issues in this forum is not considered to be antaganistic. Discussing posters and their alleged posting habbits as you like to do, as well as labling them, is antaganistic behavior.
Well, if I'm really on your ignore list, I don't see how this is an issue.
Discussing issues in this forum is not considered to be antaganistic.
All I know is that if Obama and Reid and Pelosi had had their way in Iraq, Saddam and his sons would still be raping women, gassing the Kurds, and proliferating weapons to our enemies.
All I know is that if Obama and Reid and Pelosi had had their way in Iraq, Saddam and his sons would still be raping women, gassing the Kurds, and proliferating weapons to our enemies.
No.All I know is that if Obama and Reid and Pelosi had had their way in Iraq, Saddam and his sons would still be raping women, gassing the Kurds, and proliferating weapons to our enemies.
Jesus, Sting. Drop it already. It's ok to relent and let an issue drop without having said your piece. Irvine has asked you to leave him alone.
It most certainly can be, depending of course on how you're discussing the issues.
neither do I, but I can still be an annoying twerp too busy to repeat myself ad nauseum to even care what the rest of the world is on aboutStrongbow rarely, if ever, posts smears or personal attacks.
Strongbow rarely, if ever, posts smears or personal attacks. It's not Strongbow's fault that his (unpopular and lengthy) opinions are not well received here.
The cover features a photo of then-President Bush alone with his thoughts, standing in the Rose Garden Colonnade, wearing a dark suit and holding a briefing book, his head turned slightly from the camera, listening for the voice of God.