Knowing what we know now, would Obama and Hillary have still abandoned Iraq like they did?

Oh my, how clever you are, undercunt. In my haste to list the many things you suck at, I inadvertently left out the word "at" in front of "reading comprehension". Nice catch! Damn, you really made me look stupid there. Almost as stupid as your saying "we're not talking about the past - we're talking about 2003!" Almost as stupid as your saying no means yes on the Korea question. Almost as stupid as... aw, forget it, everyone already knows how stupid you are! Originally Posted by lustylad

This was in reference to you trying to take it back to Ike, which is most definitely the past. We weren't talking about the past. We were talking about 2003. 2003 comes after 1953. Get it now, dickless? You have no substance, so this is what you're reduced to. The incoherent ramblings of an unhinged, chicken-dick mind. Is that you IB?

LustingForCocks maybe you can tell the GOP field to put "Korean War or Bust" as their campaign slogan. Likely seal up the 80 plus crowd for the GOP for as long as they live!

The Council on Foreign Relations is in the tank for conservatives. Nice try, dickcheese. You give me some opinion piece and try to pass it off as fact. You're full of shit as usual. Bush negotiated the withdrawal. It's only fair, seeing as how he pulled us into that shitty war. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Typical libtard response, try to condemn the messenger instead of addressing the argument. If it is only "an opinion" piece then you should have no problem rebutting everything in it. By the way, Bush did not negoiate the withdrawal and everyone knows that. Obama even took credit for it.

I'm surprised you missed the point. Bush/Cheney/Rice will not be back in power ever again. It's in the history books so the question is moot. On the other hand, Hillary wants to be the president in the future and Obama is the president now. The question is still important for them to answer. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So BCR get a pass? I don't think so.

And more importantly if we don't honestly reflect and learn, then as a country we will repeat (can you say Viet Nam)

Finally, I still occasionally see people on here, and elsewhere, advocating what a wonderful president C. Rice the ultimate ivory tower thinker would make. Or another in the Bush dynasty--isn't that guy from Florida around here some place?

By the way, Bush did not negoiate the withdrawal and everyone knows that. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

His Admin did. He signed it. He argued for a free democratic Iraq. He got it and they promptly kicked us out. So much for nation building!

I'm thinking that we need a warrior for our next president. Someone who knows how things work and has the resolve to follow through. Besides James Webb, there is Allen West, Tammy Duckworth, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Duncan Hunter Jr., or Tulsi Gabbi.

How about The Rock?

I'm thinking that we need a warrior for our next president. Someone who knows how things work and has the resolve to follow through. Besides James Webb, there is Allen West, Tammy Duckworth, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Duncan Hunter Jr., or Tulsi Gabbi. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You mean to send a quarter of million men back again and completely wipe out these "terrorists," right?

I'm thinking that we need a warrior for our next president. Someone who knows how things work and has the resolve to follow through. Besides James Webb, there is Allen West, Tammy Duckworth, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Duncan Hunter Jr., or Tulsi Gabbi. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Jesus Christ. You're fucking nuts. More money burned up and more lives lost. That's enlightened thinking...

Typical libtard response, try to condemn the messenger instead of addressing the argument. If it is only "an opinion" piece then you should have no problem rebutting everything in it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

+1


Yep, yep, yep.... The idiot shows that he never bothers to read or acquaint himself with intelligent foreign policy analysis. He doesn't have a fucking clue who the Council on Foreign Relations is. He probably thinks Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice share the same views because they share the same surname. Since he has no integrity (or ability to evaluate foreign policy in an objective, non-partisan fashion), he assumes everyone else must lack integrity too.

The Council on Foreign Relations is non-partisan. It disseminates foreign policy opinions across the spectrum. That's a fact. It is confirmed by numerous groups such as CitizenSource (see link) that track the political leanings and affiliations of think tanks. Only a desperate ignoramus would try to impugn the integrity of the Council on Foreign Relations by claiming they are “in the tank” with conservatives or anyone else. The Council's Board of Directors includes Robert Rubin, Madeleine Albright, and Fareed Zakaria – what a bunch of right-wing zealots!

Once again, undercunt has his ass handed to him.

http://www.citizensource.com/Opinion...ThinkTanks.htm


.

You're illiteracy is rearing its ugly head again. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I'm not a grammar Nazi, but by golly this one is a gem!

We weren't talking about the past. We were talking about 2003. 2003 comes after 1953. Get it now, dickless? Originally Posted by WombRaider

No. But keep on rambling like an idiot. Every shovel you lift only digs you deeper into the hole.

I'm not a grammar Nazi, but by golly this one is a gem!


Originally Posted by lustylad

Nothing stopping you from flying to Iraq and signing up to fight ISIS take JD with ya!

I'm thinking that we need a warrior for our next president. Someone who knows how things work and has the resolve to follow through. Besides James Webb, there is Allen West, Tammy Duckworth, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Duncan Hunter Jr., or Tulsi Gabbi. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Those that have gone to war are in general very reluctant to do so again. They don't see it as a game--as Bush-2, C. Rice, Obama, and Pelosi all do/did. And if they DO go to war because they must, because other options have failed, then they treat it as the life and death horror it is. Not as a game. And they don't try to make soldiers into policemen or day care workers or grocery store clerks. Trouble is we (both parties) are loath to be honest about the TRUE cost of going to war so they lie to the masses, and lie to themselves as well.

War really is hell. A necessary last resort at times, but used far to often.

Those on here who have never been, go talk to people who survived WW-II, Korea, VN, or Afghanistan. See how many WANT to see that again (different from those who will do so if needed, not the same thing at all).

Some on here are far too willing to send others to die.

Those that have gone to war are in general very reluctant to do so again. They don't see it as a game--as Bush-2, C. Rice, Obama, and Pelosi all do/did. And if they DO go to war because they must, because other options have failed, then they treat it as the life and death horror it is. Not as a game. And they don't try to make soldiers into policemen or day care workers or grocery store clerks. Trouble is we (both parties) are loath to be honest about the TRUE cost of going to war so they lie to the masses, and lie to themselves as well.

War really is hell. A necessary last resort at times, but used far to often.

Those on here who have never been, go talk to people who survived WW-II, Korea, VN, or Afghanistan. See how many WANT to see that again (different from those who will do so if needed, not the same thing at all).

Some on here are far too willing to send others to die. Originally Posted by Old-T

As always Old-T you are spot on.