Our government is in CRISIS - worst situation since the civil war
-
Nadler Might Call Ivanka, All Trump’s Advisers in Sweeping Witch Hunt
Socialism-loving House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Monday that Ivanka Trump and other associates of the president could “quite conceivably” hear from his committee. Nadler, sent out 81 letters to people to be called. And that is only the first round.
For now, he says he just wants information,and admits he doesn’t have evidence for impeachment or to charge a crime.
The witch hunt has begun in earnest since Democrats don’t think Mueller has the goods. They will investigate all things Trump and everyone remotely connected to Trump.
While the list included Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Jared Kushner, it did not include the president’s daughter and senior adviser.
“She’s not on the initial list. That’s all we can say,” Nadler said.
THE LIST
Everyone in the United States who ever met, talked about Donald Trump, watched an episode of the Apprentice, or stayed in a Trump hotel could be put on the Nadler list, judging by his comments of late.
Democrats are now left-wing McCarthyites or Stalinists.
McCarthyism is defined as a campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations. Stalinists, for their part, used secret police and fished for crimes or just fabricated them. The slogan of Stalin’s favorite police chief was, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
Ironically, Nadler, acting like a dictator, wants to make sure this administration “isn’t a dictatorship.”
The only ones trying to take away our private health insurance, First and Second Amendmentssovereigntyhy, and personal wealth are the DEMOCRATS!
Since most of these people on the list are not in government, they don’t have to answer any questions, and shouldn’t. Who the hay are these congressional witch hunters to drag them in without evidence of anything?
They are even calling the firm allegedly hosting a Russian troll farm, Concord Management and Consulting. Naturally, the committee will bully the Flynns and Carter Page, who have already had their lives ruined by this witch hunt.
THE PRESIDENT RESPONDS
The President called it abuse and harrassment of a President. It is leftist McCarthyism as these Democrat bullies admit they don’t have evidence to impeach but are out to find some. They are going into every aspect of his life, as the President says, so they can regain the power to “institute Socialism.”
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
This is tough to accept, that what used to be a real "other political Real American party", is now a leftist, stalinist style organization.
Very intriguing read:
-
Nadler Might Call Ivanka, All Trump’s Advisers in Sweeping Witch Hunt
Socialism-loving House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Monday that Ivanka Trump and other associates of the president could “quite conceivably” hear from his committee. Nadler, sent out 81 letters to people to be called. And that is only the first round.
For now, he says he just wants information,and admits he doesn’t have evidence for impeachment or to charge a crime.
The witch hunt has begun in earnest since Democrats don’t think Mueller has the goods. They will investigate all things Trump and everyone remotely connected to Trump.
While the list included Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Jared Kushner, it did not include the president’s daughter and senior adviser.
“She’s not on the initial list. That’s all we can say,” Nadler said.
THE LIST
Everyone in the United States who ever met, talked about Donald Trump, watched an episode of the Apprentice, or stayed in a Trump hotel could be put on the Nadler list, judging by his comments of late.
Democrats are now left-wing McCarthyites or Stalinists.
McCarthyism is defined as a campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations. Stalinists, for their part, used secret police and fished for crimes or just fabricated them. The slogan of Stalin’s favorite police chief was, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
Ironically, Nadler, acting like a dictator, wants to make sure this administration “isn’t a dictatorship.”
The only ones trying to take away our private health insurance, First and Second Amendmentssovereigntyhy, and personal wealth are the DEMOCRATS!
Since most of these people on the list are not in government, they don’t have to answer any questions, and shouldn’t. Who the hay are these congressional witch hunters to drag them in without evidence of anything?
They are even calling the firm allegedly hosting a Russian troll farm, Concord Management and Consulting. Naturally, the committee will bully the Flynns and Carter Page, who have already had their lives ruined by this witch hunt.
THE PRESIDENT RESPONDS
The President called it abuse and harrassment of a President. It is leftist McCarthyism as these Democrat bullies admit they don’t have evidence to impeach but are out to find some. They are going into every aspect of his life, as the President says, so they can regain the power to “institute Socialism.”
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
-
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
It was ridiculous. How the fuck do you think anybody took it? But it's just like the lefties screaming about lying to Congress or lying to the investigators or lying to anybody. Yes he did lie got away with it and Witnesses refuse to testify in the Whitewater case in which there were 12 at least indictments and everybody got off the hook oh, well at least everybody important. And it was a fucking Witch Hunt.
At least and Monica's case she was a willing participant.
WSS
-
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
The problem is the appointing of a special counsel. It should almost never happen. I can only think of the Nixon Watergate case where one was legitimately needed. A special counsel has almost unlimited funds and an army of lawyers with little oversight. Obama was smart enough to have attorney generals like Holder and Lynch who were never going to appoint a special counsel on any of the scandals on his watch so in his 8 years it never happened. Trump got nailed with Special Counsel Mueller only a few months in office over a phony Russian collusion charge Trump chose an inept bumbling AG in Jeff Sessions (likely a political favor for Session's support in the primary) who was in over his head at the DOJ. Trump was rightfully upset that Sessions never warned him about possibly recusing himself from the Russian investigation beforehand.
The republicans had every right to proceed with impeachment proceedings against Clinton when he clearly committed a felony and lied under oath. It was a mistake politically however and the republicans suffered in the polls. The majority of the American people were not behind it as they did not want to see a president removed from office over lying about an extramarital affair (much like the dems have tried to make hay over Stormy Daniels and the hush money paid). We know Trump lied about the affair (that was 10 years ago well before he was in office) and the dems found out like the republicans did with Clinton the majority of the American people aren't interested in seeing an election overturned on stuff like this. When the Russian collusion charge fizzles out and the dems continue to investigate Trump over anything they can find in the hopes of trying to remove him from office this will benefit the republicans and help Trump win in 2020. The few smart dems that are left in the party have warned the dems in congress not to have endless investigations of Trump but work to legislate because they know all the investigations into Trump will backfire on them like it did with the republicans with Clinton. The dems can't help themselves and will do it anyway because they hate Trump so much. They will have nothing to show for in 2020 as to anything done legislatively as they focus on bringing down Trump by any means possible.
MAGA Trump 2020.
**** Also Tex I agree with you we have a spending problem but instead of only blaming Trump remember those good old RINO's like the "budget hawk so called" Paul Ryan who passed some of the largest spending bills in history under his watch.
-
Fishing expeditions are Stalinist, not American. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as it was in Stalinist Russia.
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
There was no fishing for Bill Clinton, that is stupid. The evidence was all over - corroborating witnesses, stained dress/dna, actual REAL testimony, PROVEN lies by your sleazeball hero - (would you have any other kind?)
Just because you smart off a retort, doesn't make that retort a genuine moral equivalency.
It's just that your emotions are the driving force.
-
Hmmmmm. Where did you stand when the Republicans were fishing for Bill and came up with Monica? Was that Stalinist Russia too?"
The problem is the appointing of a special counsel. It should almost never happen. I can only think of the Nixon Watergate case where one was legitimately needed. A special counsel has almost unlimited funds and an army of lawyers with little oversight. Obama was smart enough to have attorney generals like Holder and Lynch who were never going to appoint a special counsel on any of the scandals on his watch so in his 8 years it never happened. Trump got nailed with Special Counsel Mueller only a few months in office over a phony Russian collusion charge Trump chose an inept bumbling AG in Jeff Sessions (likely a political favor for Session's support in the primary) who was in over his head at the DOJ. Trump was rightfully upset that Sessions never warned him about possibly recusing himself from the Russian investigation beforehand.
The republicans had every right to proceed with impeachment proceedings against Clinton when he clearly committed a felony and lied under oath. It was a mistake politically however and the republicans suffered in the polls. The majority of the American people were not behind it as they did not want to see a president removed from office over lying about an extramarital affair (much like the dems have tried to make hay over Stormy Daniels and the hush money paid). We know Trump lied about the affair (that was 10 years ago well before he was in office) and the dems found out like the republicans did with Clinton the majority of the American people aren't interested in seeing an election overturned on stuff like this. When the Russian collusion charge fizzles out and the dems continue to investigate Trump over anything they can find in the hopes of trying to remove him from office this will benefit the republicans and help Trump win in 2020. The few smart dems that are left in the party have warned the dems in congress not to have endless investigations of Trump but work to legislate because they know all the investigations into Trump will backfire on them like it did with the republicans with Clinton. The dems can't help themselves and will do it anyway because they hate Trump so much. They will have nothing to show for in 2020 as to anything done legislatively as they focus on bringing down Trump by any means possible.
MAGA Trump 2020.
**** Also Tex I agree with you we have a spending problem but instead of only blaming Trump remember those good old RINO's like the "budget hawk so called" Paul Ryan who passed some of the largest spending bills in history under his watch.
**** Also Tex I agree with you we have a spending problem but instead of only blaming Trump remember those good old RINO's like the "budget hawk so called" Paul Ryan who passed some of the largest spending bills in history under his watch.
Actually I blame the whole Republican party since it has become evident since then Trump can't read and had little to do with the tax cut bill. They gave him credit which he fully took, so in that way it is "his". But I don't really believe he understood a word of what he was signing. It was just another ego thing for him to sign and credit himself. And I agree Ryan & I think also McConnell should shoulder most of the blame for the bill itself that created this mess of a "budget". Just another reason to wonder what happened to the Republican party. They also were supposed to be king at protecting us from foreign enemies, but are dropping the ball big-time because they won't fight back on these ridiculous "gut" decisions by Trump unsupported by intelligence/military leaders.
-
no evidence, Texsag. No reason to spew your hateful rhetoric, it's just pouting. You lost the election. Freaking get over it already.
-
**** Also Tex I agree with you we have a spending problem but instead of only blaming Trump remember those good old RINO's like the "budget hawk so called" Paul Ryan who passed some of the largest spending bills in history under his watch.
Actually I blame the whole Republican party since it has become evident since then Trump can't read and had little to do with the tax cut bill. They gave him credit which he fully took, so in that way it is "his". But I don't really believe he understood a word of what he was signing. It was just another ego thing for him to sign and credit himself. And I agree Ryan & I think also McConnell should shoulder most of the blame for the bill itself that created this mess of a "budget". Just another reason to wonder what happened to the Republican party. They also were supposed to be king at protecting us from foreign enemies, but are dropping the ball big-time because they won't fight back on these ridiculous "gut" decisions by Trump unsupported by intelligence/military leaders.
Actually I blame the whole Republican party since it has become evident since then Trump can't read and had little to do with the tax cut bill. They gave him credit which he fully took, so in that way it is "his". But I don't really believe he understood a word of what he was signing. It was just another ego thing for him to sign and credit himself. And I agree Ryan & I think also McConnell should shoulder most of the blame for the bill itself that created this mess of a "budget". Just another reason to wonder what happened to the Republican party. They also were supposed to be king at protecting us from foreign enemies, but are dropping the ball big-time because they won't fight back on these ridiculous "gut" decisions by Trump unsupported by intelligence/military leaders.
I think the biggest problem is the way our system of government is set up. With a budget bill needing 60 votes to pass in the Senate the republican are unable to pass a budget they want but have to have democrat support to get over 60 votes as the republicans only have 53 senators. What seems to happen is to get a bill passed the dems get pretty much all the spending they want and then the republicans do the same.
Give Trump credit for seeing we needed a tax cut to get the economy going. Obama never had this kind of economy in his 8 years because he never considered tax cuts.
To cut our national debt and deficit there are some things we can do such as cutting spending, and trying to grow the economy through tax cuts. I think doing both of those things are the best way. The dems seem to think we can spend our way out of debt through stimulus programs and higher taxes which are proven failures yet they continue to want to go down this road.
-
our spending is completely out of control - and of course, it's the fault of both sides of the aisle.
But how much fault ? I don't know - except social programs are a blooming stink weed that is threatening our future.
Something akin to "the straw that broke the camel's back"
Inviting hundreds of thousands, even millions of illegals here, and give them a free ride for their democratic leftwing votes...
is going to break us eventually, yes, along with other spending. Illegal immigration is more like the straw that will break our economy's back.
Weimar Republic - total crash/outrageous inflation/desperation/social strife/poverty etc etc. not good.
-
Actually I blame the whole Republican party since it has become evident since then Trump can't read and had little to do with the tax cut bill. They gave him credit which he fully took, so in that way it is "his". But I don't really believe he understood a word of what he was signing. It was just another ego thing for him to sign and credit himself. And I agree Ryan & I think also McConnell should shoulder most of the blame for the bill itself that created this mess of a "budget". Just another reason to wonder what happened to the Republican party. They also were supposed to be king at protecting us from foreign enemies, but are dropping the ball big-time because they won't fight back on these ridiculous "gut" decisions by Trump unsupported by intelligence/military leaders.
I think the biggest problem is the way our system of government is set up. With a budget bill needing 60 votes to pass in the Senate the republican are unable to pass a budget they want but have to have democrat support to get over 60 votes as the republicans only have 53 senators. What seems to happen is to get a bill passed the dems get pretty much all the spending they want and then the republicans do the same.
Give Trump credit for seeing we needed a tax cut to get the economy going. Obama never had this kind of economy in his 8 years because he never considered tax cuts.
To cut our national debt and deficit there are some things we can do such as cutting spending, and trying to grow the economy through tax cuts. I think doing both of those things are the best way. The dems seem to think we can spend our way out of debt through stimulus programs and higher taxes which are proven failures yet they continue to want to go down this road.
I think the biggest problem is the way our system of government is set up. With a budget bill needing 60 votes to pass in the Senate the republican are unable to pass a budget they want but have to have democrat support to get over 60 votes as the republicans only have 53 senators. What seems to happen is to get a bill passed the dems get pretty much all the spending they want and then the republicans do the same.
Give Trump credit for seeing we needed a tax cut to get the economy going. Obama never had this kind of economy in his 8 years because he never considered tax cuts.
To cut our national debt and deficit there are some things we can do such as cutting spending, and trying to grow the economy through tax cuts. I think doing both of those things are the best way. The dems seem to think we can spend our way out of debt through stimulus programs and higher taxes which are proven failures yet they continue to want to go down this road.
And this morning they are reporting a 77% increase in deficit four months into this fiscal year so far and a huge jump in trade deficit. There just are not any good answers when neither party will deal with the other in a responsible way.
-
Also Tex on the military front. You are a Vietnam vet and this is my opinion as a veteran myself who was not in Vietnam (but my brother was). Should we have gone to war in Vietnam? I think the answer is no of course with 20/20 hindsight. We needed to learn the lesson of Vietnam and not go to war without clear objectives and goals to win the war. I think there is a better way to fight terrorism than the failed nation building we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq which cost us many lives and trillions of dollars. We should follow the example of Israel who has had lots of experience in fighting terrorism. When terrorists attack Israel they identify who they are and then they start showing up dead which is better and more effective and less costly than the wars we have been involved in. Israel also is a good example of walls working as the wall they have built has taken terrorists attacks down to about zero. Their anti missile shield has also proven to be a good success.
-
Also Tex on the military front. You are a Vietnam vet and this is my opinion as a veteran myself who was not in Vietnam (but my brother was). Should we have gone to war in Vietnam? I think the answer is no of course with 20/20 hindsight. We needed to learn the lesson of Vietnam and not go to war without clear objectives and goals to win the war. I think there is a better way to fight terrorism than the failed nation building we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq which cost us many lives and trillions of dollars. We should follow the example of Israel who has had lots of experience in fighting terrorism. When terrorists attack Israel they identify who they are and then they start showing up dead which is better and more effective and less costly than the wars we have been involved in. Israel also is a good example of walls working as the wall they have built has taken terrorists attacks down to about zero. Their anti missile shield has also proven to be a good success.
Also Tex on the military front. You are a Vietnam vet and this is my opinion as a veteran myself who was not in Vietnam (but my brother was). Should we have gone to war in Vietnam? I think the answer is no of course with 20/20 hindsight. We needed to learn the lesson of Vietnam and not go to war without clear objectives and goals to win the war. I think there is a better way to fight terrorism than the failed nation building we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq which cost us many lives and trillions of dollars. We should follow the example of Israel who has had lots of experience in fighting terrorism. When terrorists attack Israel they identify who they are and then they start showing up dead which is better and more effective and less costly than the wars we have been involved in. Israel also is a good example of walls working as the wall they have built has taken terrorists attacks down to about zero. Their anti missile shield has also proven to be a good success.
I used to think the Vietnam War was a big mistake, especially when I predicted we would eventually lose after I had come back. I was right about that part, but once the Berlin wall came down along with the old Soviet Union I began to think maybe we had bankrupted them so badly (along with their Afgan fiasco), that just maybe the long term end result had had an effect. Now that Putin is trying too rebuild it, who knows. Of course you know how I feel about current efforts being more in line with what Putin wants and not what America wants. Trump was a gift to them as evidenced in Helsinki. And as long as we stay aligned with the Saudi's for big oil, we will be dealing with Islamic terrorists. I say let 'em choke on it and spend our time working with Guyana, Venezuela, Permian basin and Canadian sands. Venezuelan oil is a better and more likely place to get going again if we assist them in getting their democracy back. That is one place I do support Trump.
-
the subject of Vietnam is a tough one. What did they call it back then? "war of attrition" ?what in the ....?
I remember the Gulf of Tonkin bs. and Lyndon Johnson's "limited forever war" -such a disgrace. My older cousin was an advisor to South Vietnamese ..."platoons" ?... in Laos and Cambodia.
He left a funny, popular with everybody guy, but came back as a sullen, very quiet, short tempered soul.
Never again - the Iraq war - I asked my friend who was in intel there, and he was always more a liberal than a few liberals on this board - (made for funny arguments between the two of us)...and he said we *absolutely had to go into Iraq - if all the American people knew the classified info, they would all agree. But as far as nation building - it's just a very tough way to go for many reasons. Too many years, too far a reach for different cultures.
-
Also Tex on the military front. You are a Vietnam vet and this is my opinion as a veteran myself who was not in Vietnam (but my brother was). Should we have gone to war in Vietnam? I think the answer is no of course with 20/20 hindsight. We needed to learn the lesson of Vietnam and not go to war without clear objectives and goals to win the war. I think there is a better way to fight terrorism than the failed nation building we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq which cost us many lives and trillions of dollars. We should follow the example of Israel who has had lots of experience in fighting terrorism. When terrorists attack Israel they identify who they are and then they start showing up dead which is better and more effective and less costly than the wars we have been involved in. Israel also is a good example of walls working as the wall they have built has taken terrorists attacks down to about zero. Their anti missile shield has also proven to be a good success.
I used to think the Vietnam War was a big mistake, especially when I predicted we would eventually lose after I had come back. I was right about that part, but once the Berlin wall came down along with the old Soviet Union I began to think maybe we had bankrupted them so badly (along with their Afgan fiasco), that just maybe the long term end result had had an effect. Now that Putin is trying too rebuild it, who knows. Of course you know how I feel about current efforts being more in line with what Putin wants and not what America wants. Trump was a gift to them as evidenced in Helsinki. And as long as we stay aligned with the Saudi's for big oil, we will be dealing with Islamic terrorists. I say let 'em choke on it and spend our time working with Guyana, Venezuela, Permian basin and Canadian sands. Venezuelan oil is a better and more likely place to get going again if we assist them in getting their democracy back. That is one place I do support Trump.
I used to think the Vietnam War was a big mistake, especially when I predicted we would eventually lose after I had come back. I was right about that part, but once the Berlin wall came down along with the old Soviet Union I began to think maybe we had bankrupted them so badly (along with their Afgan fiasco), that just maybe the long term end result had had an effect. Now that Putin is trying too rebuild it, who knows. Of course you know how I feel about current efforts being more in line with what Putin wants and not what America wants. Trump was a gift to them as evidenced in Helsinki. And as long as we stay aligned with the Saudi's for big oil, we will be dealing with Islamic terrorists. I say let 'em choke on it and spend our time working with Guyana, Venezuela, Permian basin and Canadian sands. Venezuelan oil is a better and more likely place to get going again if we assist them in getting their democracy back. That is one place I do support Trump.
Yep. I like that.
-
the subject of Vietnam is a tough one. What did they call it back then? "war of attrition" ?what in the ....?
I remember the Gulf of Tonkin bs. and Lyndon Johnson's "limited forever war" -such a disgrace. My older cousin was an advisor to South Vietnamese ..."platoons" ?... in Laos and Cambodia.
He left a funny, popular with everybody guy, but came back as a sullen, very quiet, short tempered soul.
Never again - the Iraq war - I asked my friend who was in intel there, and he was always more a liberal than a few liberals on this board - (made for funny arguments between the two of us)...and he said we *absolutely had to go into Iraq - if all the American people knew the classified info, they would all agree. But as far as nation building - it's just a very tough way to go for many reasons. Too many years, too far a reach for different cultures.
the subject of Vietnam is a tough one. What did they call it back then? "war of attrition" ?what in the ....?
I remember the Gulf of Tonkin bs. and Lyndon Johnson's "limited forever war" -such a disgrace. My older cousin was an advisor to South Vietnamese ..."platoons" ?... in Laos and Cambodia.
He left a funny, popular with everybody guy, but came back as a sullen, very quiet, short tempered soul.
Never again - the Iraq war - I asked my friend who was in intel there, and he was always more a liberal than a few liberals on this board - (made for funny arguments between the two of us)...and he said we *absolutely had to go into Iraq - if all the American people knew the classified info, they would all agree. But as far as nation building - it's just a very tough way to go for many reasons. Too many years, too far a reach for different cultures.
When we were arming and sending advisers to Vietnam under Kennedy I think we had it right but we should have drawn the line at not fighting the war for South Vietnam. If arming and sending advisers was not enough Johnson should have just cut bait instead of sending more and more of our soldiers to fight the war.
In the first Gulf war I thought Bush Sr. did an incredible job of mobilizing multi nations and driving out Sadaam from Kuwait. I thought at the time we should have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein but Colin Powell was right when he said if we broke it we bought it (meaning the price of nation building).
When we fought the Iraq war under Bush Jr. I saw why Colin Powell was correct. We had Hussein under a containment policy and a no fly zone to protect the Kurds. Containment was probably the best option instead of a costly war and nation building. I thought when we liberated Iraq from Hussein we would be welcomed like the French did with us when we drove out the Nazis. We weren't. For me that is when I learned that in Muslim countries even when trying to help them we are always going to be the infidels and we are better off not getting involved in their conflicts.
-
the subject of Vietnam is a tough one. What did they call it back then? "war of attrition" ?what in the ....?
I remember the Gulf of Tonkin bs. and Lyndon Johnson's "limited forever war" -such a disgrace. My older cousin was an advisor to South Vietnamese ..."platoons" ?... in Laos and Cambodia.
He left a funny, popular with everybody guy, but came back as a sullen, very quiet, short tempered soul.
Never again - the Iraq war - I asked my friend who was in intel there, and he was always more a liberal than a few liberals on this board - (made for funny arguments between the two of us)...and he said we *absolutely had to go into Iraq - if all the American people knew the classified info, they would all agree. But as far as nation building - it's just a very tough way to go for many reasons. Too many years, too far a reach for different cultures.
When we were arming and sending advisers to Vietnam under Kennedy I think we had it right but we should have drawn the line at not fighting the war for South Vietnam. If arming and sending advisers was not enough Johnson should have just cut bait instead of sending more and more of our soldiers to fight the war.
In the first Gulf war I thought Bush Sr. did an incredible job of mobilizing multi nations and driving out Sadaam from Kuwait. I thought at the time we should have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein but Colin Powell was right when he said if we broke it we bought it (meaning the price of nation building).
When we fought the Iraq war under Bush Jr. I saw why Colin Powell was correct. We had Hussein under a containment policy and a no fly zone to protect the Kurds. Containment was probably the best option instead of a costly war and nation building. I thought when we liberated Iraq from Hussein we would be welcomed like the French did with us when we drove out the Nazis. We weren't. For me that is when I learned that in Muslim countries even when trying to help them we are always going to be the infidels and we are better off not getting involved in their conflicts.
When we were arming and sending advisers to Vietnam under Kennedy I think we had it right but we should have drawn the line at not fighting the war for South Vietnam. If arming and sending advisers was not enough Johnson should have just cut bait instead of sending more and more of our soldiers to fight the war.
In the first Gulf war I thought Bush Sr. did an incredible job of mobilizing multi nations and driving out Sadaam from Kuwait. I thought at the time we should have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein but Colin Powell was right when he said if we broke it we bought it (meaning the price of nation building).
When we fought the Iraq war under Bush Jr. I saw why Colin Powell was correct. We had Hussein under a containment policy and a no fly zone to protect the Kurds. Containment was probably the best option instead of a costly war and nation building. I thought when we liberated Iraq from Hussein we would be welcomed like the French did with us when we drove out the Nazis. We weren't. For me that is when I learned that in Muslim countries even when trying to help them we are always going to be the infidels and we are better off not getting involved in their conflicts.
Exactly. Staying and trying to build them a nation was just strange, with all the hatred from certain factions that will never? end.
-
I dudnr think the soviet union was heavily involved with vietnam. That was china that was backing the vietcong. What i always read bankrupred the soviets was the high missile and rocket r&d. Not just for their milutary but also their space program.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login