Trump Booed in GOP Debate for Denouncing Iraq War

a reply to: kosmicjack

Iraq wasn't a mistake, IMO. The ridiculousness leading into America going in, followed up with boots on the ground was a HUGE mistake. The US shouldn't have invented reasons to take out Hussein, because they had more than enough legitimate ones sitting on the table to begin with. Hussein violated his end of the agreement by not cooperating with inspectors, period. That was all the US needed to say "Hey, we're done playing games. United Nations, you tasked us with enforcing the rules you set, they've been broken, move out of the way and watch the consequences." US boots on the ground was too early and ultimately pointless. America's air strikes should have continued, on a wider and more impactful scale, and alongside a simple announcement to the Iraqi people "When you present us with the bodies of Saddam Hussein, his sons, and these inner party policy makers and tyrants, America will stop dropping bombs on you. Thank you and God speed." That's called war... unlike this mamby-pamby childish and expensive bullcrap vision of "kinder and gentler" tactics they ultimately employed, which did little more than provide a sheltered hotbed of ill will and terrorist breeding grounds.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Daddy and Mommy Bush filled the audience with the big uns this time. That is all that happened

a reply to: DisinfoCom

The part I was surprised most about 9/11 is that Bush wasn't asked to resign by the Republicans who put him there after he so miserably failed. While people were going around starting to worship Bush, I was thinking. Infuriated hardly begins to describe my impression of Bush after 9/11. And that is regardless of whether or not he knew, because he failed so badly either way, even if he did fine the rest of the time he'd still deserve to get fired 2001 times over.

Rand leaves, trump then parrots Rand's foreign policy?
is he trying to pick up rand's supporters or is he doing a mental jujistu on the low info trump voter, who now will parrot paulist foreign policy after likely parroting bomb middle east for the last couple decades?
What if in the next debate he suggest people read the book "blowback"


But this is South Carolina, the place that once booed the golden rule when ron paul suggested we use it in foreign policy.

a reply to: DisinfoCom

I don't mind typing this but I think I may vomit in my mouth if I say it out loud: "I like the Trump I just saw in that video."

In a weird way that only true narcissists seem to pull off, he's an asshole yet remains the least insidious and least evil of the three or four top GOP runners right now. Sort of like the antihero of the GOP. Oh gods... I think I still vomited in my mouth just for typing that. But it's kind of true, dammit.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There was a google trends graph throughout the debate. Trump was googled almost twice as much as the other candidates put together. I sense your dislike for the guy and I understand why but by the looks of things, he's the only GOP candidate that will overt WW3.

That's how it seems to me anyway.

Yeah I watched it that graph was for name searches.

Of course Trump's name will be searched more than others, that's a given...
Just like he'll win the online polls.


But going by substance and actual debate he lost.

The debate was a fraud anyway where the audience was packed with beltway insiders and lobbyists rather than random local citizens all for Rubio They had to put up a phony show for the media to see but all across the country people saw the fraud for what it was.

Good for sharing as it shows how fixed these events are. During the last election Ron Paul's answers at the GOP debates many of the audience was told to boo or applaud at certain times making him"look" unfavorable. It's all TV entertainment. In an example with MSNBC,

Viewers also noted how Romney, Giuliani and McCain were allowed to crack jokes and enjoy pops and cheers from the audience, but when the audience responded to Ron Paul they were politefully told to shut up. "The first time it happened, MSNBC reminded the audience no "outbursts...or applause."

The second time Paul got the studio audience cheering - when he said we never should have invaded Iraq - the audience was reminded to hold back "pent up energy." Nothing was said when any of the other candidates told jokes or inspired audience interaction," according to ConnieTalk.

Source

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Him getting booed for criticizing the Iraq War shows how misinformed, brainwashed, and cognitively dissonant most Americans are.

Sad, but absolutely true.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

While it was certainly no utopia before, do you believe the Iraq War had a net positive or net negative impact on the lives of the Iraqi people and the Middle East as a whole?

Keeping that in mind, how anybody can state that it wasn't a catastrophic mistake is beyond me...unless they are blinded by patriotism or some type of partisanship.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: burdman30ott6

While it was certainly no utopia before, do you believe the Iraq War had a net positive or net negative impact on the lives of the Iraqi people and the Middle East as a whole?

Keeping that in mind, how anybody can state that it wasn't a catastrophic mistake is beyond me...unless they are blinded by patriotism or some type of partisanship.

Id say it has a lot to do with obama . He continued many of the policies started by Bush. Bit yet they need to attack his foreign policy. To do this they have to differentiate it from Obama meaning Bush was right Obama is wrong. To admit they the Iraq war shouldn't have been started takes away from their ability to blame Obama for Iraq and Syria. Truth be told Hus fault is he continued Bushes policies too long he should have took office pulled out of Iraq and never looked back. Instead he continued it for years making the wntual failure even worse.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I see his point to a degree.

Iraq had signed a treaty and what good is a treaty if not enforced?

I dont agree with the disgusting notion of carpet bombing.

But targeted strikes at military and government buildings until Saddam agreed full access to UN inspectors would have been a more sane approach.

Saddam would have caved after the first bomb anyway seeing as he wasn't hiding anything. All he was doing was trying to call the US bluff.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Like I said, it was poorly conducted. The goal of war must always be to win something, land, spoils, concessions, something. I do not believe the average American saw anything beneficial come out of the war because there was no clearly identified goal to be won. Thus, my above comment on the entire war being better served as a massive and sustained air strike, no US troops on the ground, until the PEOPLE of Iraq conceded America the carcasses of their leaders. Then, America leaves Iraq to its own devices.

Ultimately the war weakened America's position and influence in the region thanks to us fumbling our way through the whole conflict.

a reply to: crazyewok

No, Hussein was trying to keep Iran from attacking Iraq. Had he been honest and admitted Iran lacked WMDs, his neighbors would have been on Baghdad like a duck on a June bug. He gambled that the US would, once again threaten him hollowly and do nothing.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: crazyewok

No, Hussein was trying to keep Iran from attacking Iraq. Had he been honest and admitted Iran lacked WMDs, his neighbors would have been on Baghdad like a duck on a June bug. He gambled that the US would, once again threaten him hollowly and do nothing.

Meh so what?

Let Iran and Iraq duke it out.

Still he would have caved.

Admiting you had no WMD's would be less likely to have caused a loseing war woth Iran than haveing your entire military infrastructure flattened.

It's hilarious that people think it was okay to invade Iraq. There really was no reason. Well, it was so Haliburton (Dick Cheney's Company) could make 40 Billion. Oh and so that we could put a few airbases next to Iran and Syria. That's it though.

Weapons of mass destruction? Yeah, we knew they used Chemical weapons on the kurds, we have proof of that. But lots of countries have "Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons" and we don't and shouldn't invade them.

These countries all have Chemical weapons....Angola, Albania, China, Cuba, Egypt, Ethopia, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Burma, NOrth Korea, Pakistan, Russian, Serbia, South Korea (oh we already invaded them LOL), Sudan, Syria, Tawain, Vietnam.

All of these countries have nuclear weapons UK< France, Russia, USA, China, India, Pakistan, NOrth Korea, Israel, and South AFrica used to.

Biological Weapons - Egypt, Iran, ISrael, North Korea, Russia, Algeria, China, France probably still does though denies it, South Africa, Syria, UK and USA.


Who in their right minds, thinks it's the USAs job to invade anyone for oil and air fields?

a reply to: crazyewok

Iran would have killed Hussein just as the Iraqis did following his capture. From Hussein's point of view, he stood the best chance in risking that America was again bluffing.

This is my issue with the "lies" that got American lawmakers to buy in on the idea of removing Hussein. They didn't need any lies. They had all the reasons and justification they needed to finally stop bluffing and do what they were supposedly tasked by the UN to do. The UN wanted to continue to play games, whoopy! That's pretty much what the UN does 24/7, so it was time for the adults to step up to the plate and stop playing games with Iran. That (sort-of) happened, but could have and should have been a much cleaner process for the Coalition forces than it ultimately turned out to be. Troops weren't needed to ensure Hussein, his sons, and his generals saw the inside of body bags... nor should troops and Coalition resources been used to reconstruct Iraq. That was freaking idiocy right there, you fight a war, you defeat a foe, then you pay to rebuild your enemy!?!?! WTF? When war ends and your side has won, you take your spoils and go home, leaving only a memory of what hellish nightmare goes down when you're crossed to ensure the remaining enemy has zero will left to fight you again.

I get it, scorched Earth war strategies aren't embraced by the enlightened modern civilized people... Fact of the matter is those policies and strategies have worked, far better than modern strategies, and for many centuries longer. You *want* to make war as brutal and hellish as possible because that brutality and promise of a waking nightmare makes all parties involved far less eager to fight any more wars for a couple of generations.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because you can't sell a war on being a liberator, which I guess is part of your beef, and then use scorched earth strategies.

Also that kills the civilians that had nothing to do with it, not so sure the families of those that died will have no will to fight. IMO it is the opposite and why we have all the groups we have in that area.

Also when did it stop people from fighting wars for a couple generations?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Also when did it stop people from fighting wars for a couple generations?

Prior to the US and USSR turning Asia into a giant proxy war in the shadow of WWII. There was wars, obviously, but countries which could still taste the bitterness of a recent fight tended to be reluctant to get involved. It's why the US tried to stay on the sidelines in WWII (until forced in) and, for the most part why they did the same in WWI.

And yeah, I don't think it was America's business to "liberate" anyone. If there's a political reason to take out a dictator, take the SOB out... at the point when that goal has been accomplished, return home and allow the losing nation to address their own situations.