Obama’s War Policies Worse than Bush’s, Anti-War Activists Say

Well, if for the past 50 years you've immediately entered into discussions and begun hurling insults, then maybe you do need to learn the ropes.

 

Its called common sense.

 

I don't see anywhere on this thread where I made rash judgments or insulted anyone. Would you please show me where I did these things?

 

Great post and I would like to add, one thing I have admired about Bro. Curtis through our discussions is that he was against these wars on day one and has never waivered. e has been consistent in his desire to see the troops brought home.

I likewise agree that both parties are from hades which is why I belong to neither and find ground to support both. What surprises me is to see people so caught up in a political ideology that they sell to it their very soul and distort their own rational perspective (I am not saying there are many like this here but clearly there are some on both sides of these discussions).

 

Who said anything about this thread? In fact, you haven't even attempted to post on topic in this thread. You specifically entered this thread to try and say that if you were a troll then Bro. Curtis was a troll.

 

Very good non-partisan post WC... I don't recall ever seeing that side of you... :thumbsup:

I do blame Bush for the faulty intelligence that got us there even though Clinton and Gore believed likewise. I think what bothered me most was when the war in Iraq changed for a search for WMD to somehow be part of the war on terror. I also didn't like how he declared victory while our young men and women were still loosing their lives. If we won, bring them out of harms way.

Two things of late I have admired, Bush' old press secretary admitted and here is Conde http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/rice-911-iraq/ admitting terror was in no way part of our decision to invade Iraq.

 

Well then let me comment on the OP. I personally wish President Obama would withdraw our troops from Iraq quicker than he is doing. I am undecided about Afghanistan, perhaps we should withdraw from there as well.

 

He never intended to withdraw all troops at all.

He has always said so.

Anti war wackos were only hearing what they wanted to hear.

What's really good for the troops and our nation is that they were able to cobble a victory out of what had become a mess...

before Obama had a chance to cobble a defeat out of what had become a victory.

 

I find this to be both funny and ironic.

First you give WC a backhanded compliment - It's so nice that you finally decided to be non-partisan for once, WC.

And then you demostrate your own lack of non-partisanship by acknowledging that both Bush and Clinton believed the same faulty intelligence - but you blame Bush. :laugh:

 

I don't know you, and I have been told to wait awhile before getting into a heated debate. But when you say things like "Anti-war wackos" in answering my post, it seem like you enjoy hurling insults. I'm sorry you seem to think being pro-war is part of fulfilling the Great Commission.

BTW, I'm not anti-war, I'm anti unnecessary wars, like the one in Iraq.

 

Correction, I gave WC a sincere compliment that was in no way backhanded.

True, I admitted to being non-partisan in my only faulting Bush when Clinton and Gore had the same belief. IOW, I acknowledged faults in myself...

 

Yes, I have no doubt that you believe that you were giving a compliment.

After all - it is the first time that WC has been non-partisan.

Are you sure that you know what the word "non-partisan" means?:tongue3:

 

Wow !!! Where to begin?

Whatever happened to reading comprehension and critical thinking skills?

First of all, within the context of the discussion, he was saying that Obama's "anti-war wackos" believed that Obama said during the campaign that he would immediately withdraw from Iraq.

He did not call you an anti-war wacko or hurl an insult at anyone.

[QOUTE] I'm sorry you seem to think being pro-war is part of fulfilling the Great Commission.[/QUOTE]

Exaclty which of his words implies that he thinks that being pro-war is part of fulfilling the Great Commission?

Which of his words state that he is "pro-war"?

Oh, it seems then that you understand that one need not be either "anti-war" (against every war everywhere in all circumstances) or "pro-war" (desiring war with someone somewhere - anyone anywheres - just for the sake of war itself).

How is it then that you were unable to weigh the alternative positions concerning one's beliefs about war before drawing your erroneous conclusions and posting such silly remarks?

Perhaps you would find your time here more productive if you were to slow down and think about what you are reading and think about your words before posting.

It is odd that in the short time that you have been here that you have put off so many members. Before you know it you may find yourself simply ignored by everyone - and what fun would that be?

 

:laugh:

Was I talking to you?

 

Correction again, I said "I don't recall ever seeing that side of you..."

I don't recall is not the same as "it is the first time" unless you subscribe to the rights habit of twisting others words and feeling that is the "Christian" thing to do.

I would like my statement to WC to stand on its own merits without help from the peanut gallery... :laugh:

 

Come now, LeBuick...you criticize Republicans more than democrats by a factor of ten or more.

Please don't pretend you're a "non-partisan observer." You seldom criticize Obama or the democrats.

Support who you want...but don't pretend to be completely non-partisan. You're not.

 

They certainly weren't needed to invade Iraq for no good reason.

 

True Christians are what you call "anti-war wackos." You might want to consider that.

 

J/C, you were challenged a few pages back. Are you going to respond ?

And if true Christians are against war, why aren't you against Obama expanding war into Pakistan ?

I don't think you have a pure position on this. It seems you would rather wave your bible in people's faces, instead of opening it.