Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Feb 2017, 10:27 pm
22 Feb 2017, 12:50 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Gore 100% would of invaded Iraq, it was planned long in advance of 9/11 and before Bush even took office. His VP was Joe Lieberman and Dubya ran as a non-interventionist who opposed nation building back in 2000(not sure what happened there)
Why would have Gore invaded? He wasn't the one who had a pathological need to do better than his much resented old man.
Gore/Lieberman was considered more hawkish than Bush/Chaney believe it or not, it really shouldn't be that hard to believe if you remember Joe Lieberman. Remember it was his BFF John McCain who was the other Republican in the primaries against Bush. It was a different time too, hard to believe that was 17 years ago.
I just don't see Gore doing something stupid like starting a two front war. For arguments sake, say Gore had Iraq in his crosshairs, I think he would have been bright enough to fight that war after the Afghanistan situation was resolved. And I seriously doubt he'd resort to the lies that Bush did.
Like Obama did? Gore wouldn't have had a choice. These wars were inevitable.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
22 Feb 2017, 12:56 pm
22 Feb 2017, 1:05 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Feb 2017, 12:39 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Feb 2017, 12:41 am
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Gore 100% would of invaded Iraq, it was planned long in advance of 9/11 and before Bush even took office. His VP was Joe Lieberman and Dubya ran as a non-interventionist who opposed nation building back in 2000(not sure what happened there)
Why would have Gore invaded? He wasn't the one who had a pathological need to do better than his much resented old man.
Gore/Lieberman was considered more hawkish than Bush/Chaney believe it or not, it really shouldn't be that hard to believe if you remember Joe Lieberman. Remember it was his BFF John McCain who was the other Republican in the primaries against Bush. It was a different time too, hard to believe that was 17 years ago.
I just don't see Gore doing something stupid like starting a two front war. For arguments sake, say Gore had Iraq in his crosshairs, I think he would have been bright enough to fight that war after the Afghanistan situation was resolved. And I seriously doubt he'd resort to the lies that Bush did.
Like Obama did? Gore wouldn't have had a choice. These wars were inevitable.
Obama had no choice, because he had inherited the whole mess from Bush.
24 Feb 2017, 5:55 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Gore 100% would of invaded Iraq, it was planned long in advance of 9/11 and before Bush even took office. His VP was Joe Lieberman and Dubya ran as a non-interventionist who opposed nation building back in 2000(not sure what happened there)
Why would have Gore invaded? He wasn't the one who had a pathological need to do better than his much resented old man.
Gore/Lieberman was considered more hawkish than Bush/Chaney believe it or not, it really shouldn't be that hard to believe if you remember Joe Lieberman. Remember it was his BFF John McCain who was the other Republican in the primaries against Bush. It was a different time too, hard to believe that was 17 years ago.
I just don't see Gore doing something stupid like starting a two front war. For arguments sake, say Gore had Iraq in his crosshairs, I think he would have been bright enough to fight that war after the Afghanistan situation was resolved. And I seriously doubt he'd resort to the lies that Bush did.
Like Obama did? Gore wouldn't have had a choice. These wars were inevitable.
Obama had no choice, because he had inherited the whole mess from Bush.
That's complete bulls**t. Be honest with yourself. You're just writing stuff that you probably know isn't even close to being true.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
24 Feb 2017, 7:29 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Gore 100% would of invaded Iraq, it was planned long in advance of 9/11 and before Bush even took office. His VP was Joe Lieberman and Dubya ran as a non-interventionist who opposed nation building back in 2000(not sure what happened there)
Why would have Gore invaded? He wasn't the one who had a pathological need to do better than his much resented old man.
Gore/Lieberman was considered more hawkish than Bush/Chaney believe it or not, it really shouldn't be that hard to believe if you remember Joe Lieberman. Remember it was his BFF John McCain who was the other Republican in the primaries against Bush. It was a different time too, hard to believe that was 17 years ago.
I just don't see Gore doing something stupid like starting a two front war. For arguments sake, say Gore had Iraq in his crosshairs, I think he would have been bright enough to fight that war after the Afghanistan situation was resolved. And I seriously doubt he'd resort to the lies that Bush did.
Like Obama did? Gore wouldn't have had a choice. These wars were inevitable.
Obama had no choice, because he had inherited the whole mess from Bush.
That's complete bulls**t. Be honest with yourself. You're just writing stuff that you probably know isn't even close to being true.
No, I'm writing what I know to be true, as opposed to paranoid Jewish/globalist conspiracy theories.
24 Feb 2017, 7:41 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
24 Feb 2017, 7:47 pm
24 Feb 2017, 7:52 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Nothing you write is true. Obama started his own wars. He bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office. He changed the laws to make it OK for him to drone bomb innocent civilians, including US citizens. You keep it going with your paranoid, anti-Russian conspiracies Bill.
But we were never at war with Pakistan.
According to CNN and MSNBULL. You bomb a country and you are at war with them. In fact, when the US illegally entered Pakistan to allegedly find Bin Laden, Obama nearly started a nuclear war.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
24 Feb 2017, 7:56 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Nothing you write is true. Obama started his own wars. He bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office. He changed the laws to make it OK for him to drone bomb innocent civilians, including US citizens. You keep it going with your paranoid, anti-Russian conspiracies Bill.
But we were never at war with Pakistan.
According to CNN and MSNBULL. You bomb a country and you are at war with them. In fact, when the US illegally entered Pakistan to allegedly find Bin Laden, Obama nearly started a nuclear war.Well, no war ever broke out there, despite bombing terrorists hiding there.
I doubt nuclear war was ever a threat when we offed Bin Laden. And it wouldn't have been necessary if the Pakistani intelligence service and military hadn't had been in on hiding Bin Laden.
24 Feb 2017, 8:03 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Nothing you write is true. Obama started his own wars. He bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office. He changed the laws to make it OK for him to drone bomb innocent civilians, including US citizens. You keep it going with your paranoid, anti-Russian conspiracies Bill.
But we were never at war with Pakistan.
According to CNN and MSNBULL. You bomb a country and you are at war with them. In fact, when the US illegally entered Pakistan to allegedly find Bin Laden, Obama nearly started a nuclear war.Well, no war ever broke out there, despite bombing terrorists hiding there.
I doubt nuclear war was ever a threat when we offed Bin Laden. And it wouldn't have been necessary if the Pakistani intelligence service and military hadn't had been in on hiding Bin Laden.
Well done. Pakistani military that is equipped with nukes (thanks to the US), were ordered to take out anyone who were carrying out illegal military actions. See this is how influenced you are. Bin Laden has never been tried or found guilty of any crime regarding 9/11, and the correct action would have been to arrest him. The Taliban would have given him up in 2001 if the US had provided evidence regarding his involvement in 9/11, the trouble being there wasn't any. If they seriously wanted Bin Laden they would have gone for his involvement in the US Embassy bombing in 1998, but that would mean admitting that he had nothing to do with 9/11. See you just believe everything that comes from your government/establishment. Unless Trump is in, then you don't believe a thing, because the establishment are against him 
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
24 Feb 2017, 11:01 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Nothing you write is true. Obama started his own wars. He bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office. He changed the laws to make it OK for him to drone bomb innocent civilians, including US citizens. You keep it going with your paranoid, anti-Russian conspiracies Bill.
But we were never at war with Pakistan.
According to CNN and MSNBULL. You bomb a country and you are at war with them. In fact, when the US illegally entered Pakistan to allegedly find Bin Laden, Obama nearly started a nuclear war.Well, no war ever broke out there, despite bombing terrorists hiding there.
I doubt nuclear war was ever a threat when we offed Bin Laden. And it wouldn't have been necessary if the Pakistani intelligence service and military hadn't had been in on hiding Bin Laden.
Well done. Pakistani military that is equipped with nukes (thanks to the US), were ordered to take out anyone who were carrying out illegal military actions. See this is how influenced you are. Bin Laden has never been tried or found guilty of any crime regarding 9/11, and the correct action would have been to arrest him. The Taliban would have given him up in 2001 if the US had provided evidence regarding his involvement in 9/11, the trouble being there wasn't any. If they seriously wanted Bin Laden they would have gone for his involvement in the US Embassy bombing in 1998, but that would mean admitting that he had nothing to do with 9/11. See you just believe everything that comes from your government/establishment. Unless Trump is in, then you don't believe a thing, because the establishment are against him Dwell on insane conspiracy theories about Osama Bin Laden if you will, but as the rest of us on WP do not, please refrain from using any of it in your arguments, otherwise I for one can't take your arguments seriously.
26 Feb 2017, 3:32 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
26 Feb 2017, 9:32 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Alabama Supreme Court - Embryo is a child |
01 Mar 2024, 1:51 am |
| Which court card best describes YOU? |
16 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
| Israel and the International Criminal Court |
13 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm |
| Accommodations for Aspies in Court Litigation |
11 Apr 2024, 3:32 pm |
