Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Tiggwin

YES!!! WITH A RESOUNDING YES!! I blame Clinton. I guess you dont remember the late 90's (1998 to be exact) when all the scandal sh*t was going on with Clinton, Saddam pushed out ALL of the weapons inspectors. He may have eventually allowed 56 people made up of weapons inspectors and support staff but that was a drop in the bucket compared to what was in Iraq prior to 1998. During the whole Monica Lewinski scandal Clinton should have manned up... admitted he had sexual relations with that woman... and gone about the business of enforcing the UN sanctions... Also as Firstdown has pointed out.. if you watch all of the videos of Dem's (when they were in power that is) talking about how Saddam needed to be stopped yada yada yada... its sickening to see the lies coming out of their mouths in the aftermath of the invasion. That whole Bush Bashing Campaign was nothing more than Dem's trying to take power back in the White House.. and they did it on the back of our Soldiers. I am a former Marine.. I was in the First Persian Gulf War.. there are many subjects (Lotus) that we can debate on and you catch me in the wrong.. but this aint one of them. Also there is sooooo much shit that you dont either know or pay attention to that are facts. ie after we went into Afghanistan and broke up the Taliban and the Al Qaeda training camps there.. were do you think they moved?? Yep Dats Rite!! to Nothern Iraq. So with the "FACT" that Al Qaeda was in Iraq.. (ie Al Qaeda in Iraq) and there was intelligence that ALL of the World believed to be true in that Saddam had WMD's doesnt matter to you does it?

You call yourself and independent... I bet youre an independent Socialist... I am an Independent as well... I am an Independent Conservative. I used to call myself Republican until I started to see the big spending mentality that they have as well. Call me a Teabagger... YEP sure love my TEA!!

I was in the Gulf War, too. And before you start yelling Semper-Fi at me, my ship hit an Iraq contact mine that ripped the hull wide open.

But I'm not sure what my Naval experience, your career as a Marine, Monica Lewinsky or Bill Clinton have to do with George W. Bush invading Iraq under false pretenses. I think it's one thing to say previous administrations were suspicious of Saddam and that he posed a national security threat, it's another to invade and occupy a sovereign nation without provocation or legitimate and verifiable intelligence. It's simply not justifiable. There's no question we strengthened, emboldened, and multiplied terrorists groups around the globe as a result. And in the process damaged our standing with the Arab and Muslim world.

But hey, I'm an independent liberal so what do I know.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Tiggwin

YES!!! WITH A RESOUNDING YES!! I blame Clinton. I guess you dont remember the late 90's (1998 to be exact) when all the scandal sh*t was going on with Clinton, Saddam pushed out ALL of the weapons inspectors. He may have eventually allowed 56 people made up of weapons inspectors and support staff but that was a drop in the bucket compared to what was in Iraq prior to 1998. During the whole Monica Lewinski scandal Clinton should have manned up... admitted he had sexual relations with that woman... and gone about the business of enforcing the UN sanctions... Also as Firstdown has pointed out.. if you watch all of the videos of Dem's (when they were in power that is) talking about how Saddam needed to be stopped yada yada yada... its sickening to see the lies coming out of their mouths in the aftermath of the invasion. That whole Bush Bashing Campaign was nothing more than Dem's trying to take power back in the White House.. and they did it on the back of our Soldiers. I am a former Marine.. I was in the First Persian Gulf War.. there are many subjects (Lotus) that we can debate on and you catch me in the wrong.. but this aint one of them. Also there is sooooo much shit that you dont either know or pay attention to that are facts. ie after we went into Afghanistan and broke up the Taliban and the Al Qaeda training camps there.. were do you think they moved?? Yep Dats Rite!! to Nothern Iraq. So with the "FACT" that Al Qaeda was in Iraq.. (ie Al Qaeda in Iraq) and there was intelligence that ALL of the World believed to be true in that Saddam had WMD's doesnt matter to you does it?

You call yourself and independent... I bet youre an independent Socialist... I am an Independent as well... I am an Independent Conservative. I used to call myself Republican until I started to see the big spending mentality that they have as well. Call me a Teabagger... YEP sure love my TEA!!

You are talking about the al Qaeda affiliated group Ansar al-Islam. Yes, they were in northern Iraq. They were in the "No Fly Zone" which was not controlled by Saddam. We controlled the no-fly zone in the air. Therefore we could have bombed the heck out of Ansar al-Islam and wiped those guys out without ever invading.

Since they were in the northern no-fly zone, they were outside of Saddam's control. Thus there was no connection between them and Saddam. If you don't believe me, read the U.S. Army report which says the same thing that I am.

I will give you credit for one thing: at least you are honest about your blaming Clinton for Bush's lies, no matter how foolish a stance that is.

[Lotus]

Tiggwin, since you are a Tea Party person, certainly you want to avoid wasteful government spending and budget deficits. Please notice that the Iraq war put us $1.2 trillion in debt (mostly to China, our lovely financial ally). If all we wanted to do was to take down Saddam, we could have done it much cheaper. For example, there were several assassination attempts on Saddam and some came close to working. We could have provided materials to ensure that the next attempt would work, and we could have done so much, much cheaper than $1.2 trillion.

Now I realize that such assassinations have been illegal since Bush I. But unprovoked wars are also illegal under international law.

Basically, if our goal was to take out Saddam, we could have done it in a much cheaper way. Why do you continue to support the way that was much more expensive and therefore much more wasteful? Are you true to your Tea Party principles or not?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Tiggwin, since you are a Tea Party person, certainly you want to avoid wasteful government spending and budget deficits. Please notice that the Iraq war put us $1.2 trillion in debt (mostly to China, our lovely financial ally). If all we wanted to do was to take down Saddam, we could have done it much cheaper. For example, there were several assassination attempts on Saddam and some came close to working. We could have provided materials to ensure that the next attempt would work, and we could have done so much, much cheaper than $1.2 trillion.

Now I realize that such assassinations have been illegal since Bush I. But unprovoked wars are also illegal under international law.

Basically, if our goal was to take out Saddam, we could have done it in a much cheaper way. Why do you continue to support the way that was much more expensive and therefore much more wasteful? Are you true to your Tea Party principles or not?

The war was never illegal because we were just enforcing the cease fire agreement.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You guys ever find yourself out and suddenly you really need to find a restroom? So you go to the nearest restaurant and there's a sign that says "Restrooms for Customers Only"

So then you're like, well damn what do I do. Do I just move on and try to find the next place, or do I buy some fries for a dollar and then use the bathroom?

So I'm not saying the Parking Lot is a bathroom but this is a Redskins fan site, first and foremost. The Locker Room is where we serve our meals and the reason people are joining, to consume Redskins info. Someone who only posts in the Parking Lot, and never actually talks about the Redskins-on a Redskins fan site...it's kind of like walking into our restaurant just to use our bathroom.

Funny you say that. I come to the site read a few Redskin Post and maybe make a few post then come here because I get tired of reading the same thing over and over again. Yea, I know.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The war was never illegal because we were just enforcing the cease fire agreement.

We did not enforce a cease-fire. We attacked first. It was the only unprovoked war in American history.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

We did not enforce a cease-fire. We attacked first. It was the only unprovoked war in American history.

You really live in your own little world.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You guys ever find yourself out and suddenly you really need to find a restroom? So you go to the nearest restaurant and there's a sign that says "Restrooms for Customers Only"

So then you're like, well damn what do I do. Do I just move on and try to find the next place, or do I buy some fries for a dollar and then use the bathroom?

So I'm not saying the Parking Lot is a bathroom but this is a Redskins fan site, first and foremost. The Locker Room is where we serve our meals and the reason people are joining, to consume Redskins info. Someone who only posts in the Parking Lot, and never actually talks about the Redskins-on a Redskins fan site...it's kind of like walking into our restaurant just to use our bathroom.

So given this scenerio, are they're certain people that flush and one's that don't? And who's good at lifting the lid is what I really want to know.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You guys ever find yourself out and suddenly you really need to find a restroom? So you go to the nearest restaurant and there's a sign that says "Restrooms for Customers Only"

So then you're like, well damn what do I do. Do I just move on and try to find the next place, or do I buy some fries for a dollar and then use the bathroom?

So I'm not saying the Parking Lot is a bathroom but this is a Redskins fan site, first and foremost. The Locker Room is where we serve our meals and the reason people are joining, to consume Redskins info. Someone who only posts in the Parking Lot, and never actually talks about the Redskins-on a Redskins fan site...it's kind of like walking into our restaurant just to use our bathroom.

Its more like going to the local carnival because you saw the roller coaster you love to ride and getting side tracked by the freak shows. LOL

[SmootSmack]

No one here is talking about Libya?

[12thMan]

What happened?

We were pretty much left with no choice. But I do support Obama's method of getting a broad coalition to carry out this intervention. Pretty interesting watching the Obama doctrine unfold before our eyes.

What's more interesting is that Libya supplies about 3% of the world's oil supply and only a fraction coming to the U.S. So our vital interests are nill.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

No one here is talking about Libya?

Of course not, you know that every political thread has to be about the left vs. the right.

Plus nothing is going on in Libya, right? Oh wait, there's this little thing about international forces attacking Gaddhafi. LOL.

On a serious note, I was fearing that the international forces would act a little too late, but that may not be the case. I hope the opposition is able to organize themselves and be able to take advantage of this help from the UN.

[Lotus]

Qaddafy should have been out a couple of weeks ago. Now that the international community is involved, I strongly recommend that he get his bags packed and sign a lease on a villa in Argentina.

Maybe T.O. will cry, "he's my dictator" (sniff sniff).

[BuckSkin]

Next question, who will take over from the French once the Gadaffi forces start shooting back?

[GMScud]

In all honesty, I think Obama is doing the right thing here, on a few levels.

First off, we're already heavily involved in two ongoing, drawn out wars in the muslim world with Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to bring closure to both very soon.

Secondly, the American public is very weary of any further involvement in war of any kind given the past 8+ years. It would be bad for national morale, Obama's re-election plans, and the US military to take the lead in yet another muslim-related skirmish. Action needed to be taken in Libya, but it's smart to only be a player in a supportive role on this one given the current circumstances.

All that said, it will be interesting to see how much say we have in Ghaddafi's fate. Do we take the lead on his disposal/replacement despite not having the lead in his takedown?