Again, if Saddam was just killing Kurds with a small army, I don't think the US bothers with him.    He invaded another oil-rich country(we like oil-rich countries) and pretended he could build WMD that could extend his reach to cause devastation.   That was a case of poor decision-making on his part.

I think that's the disconnect with the libs.  They'll scream "WHAT ABOUT CONGO!!?!?!?!!?" when that situation will never threaten the American way of life.  Sure, if would be nice if we could involve ourselves anywhere atrocities are being committed but we can't. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:57:00 AM (view original):
I think that's the disconnect with the libs.  They'll scream "WHAT ABOUT CONGO!!?!?!?!!?" when that situation will never threaten the American way of life.  Sure, if would be nice if we could involve ourselves anywhere atrocities are being committed but we can't. 

No, that's not true. No one brings up the Congo unless some idiot starts talking about how it's our job to police the world.

Liberals are the ones who don't want us fighting wars.

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.

People forget suddam killed millions of civilians, invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his own people, and spent 15 years denying the UN investigators access to identify WMDs. So Bush drew a line in the sand and suddam did not comply. Unlike Obama, Bush actually says what he means and does what he says. By the time bush left office iraqi civilian deaths were at 4000/yr for almost a half decade and they were coming out and voting for the first time ever. Now that death count is over 16,000 in 2014.

Don't you think that the problems the Iraqis are having now is somewhat tied to our decision to invade their country?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:57:00 AM (view original):
I think that's the disconnect with the libs.  They'll scream "WHAT ABOUT CONGO!!?!?!?!!?" when that situation will never threaten the American way of life.  Sure, if would be nice if we could involve ourselves anywhere atrocities are being committed but we can't. 

I was in no way advocating going into Congo. Moy didn't mention the area where the most atrocities were being committed and the reason he didn't is because, like you said, we don't give a **** about the Congo. There's nothing to gain there.

I glossed over the exchange between you/moy but, for the most part, I was agreeing with you.    We're not "policing global terror" when it doesn't affect our way of life.   We just don't give a damn about machete murders in some far away part of the world.   Hell, if we did, we'd be in Mexico. 

Posted by moy23 on 11/20/2014 8:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.

People forget suddam killed millions of civilians, invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his own people, and spent 15 years denying the UN investigators access to identify WMDs. So Bush drew a line in the sand and suddam did not comply. Unlike Obama, Bush actually says what he means and does what he says. By the time bush left office iraqi civilian deaths were at 4000/yr for almost a half decade and they were coming out and voting for the first time ever. Now that death count is over 16,000 in 2014.

Of course he drew a line in the sand. There were billions of dollars of no bid contracts to hand out to his buddy the VP.

Of course he knew there were chemical weapons there. His father helped facilitate the sale of them to Hussein when he was our "friend" fighting the Iranians. We didn't give a **** who he was killing when he was on our side.

If you want to play the Iraqi civilian death report game, I'll be glad to engage you with my own stats. Being that no one really has a good count I'm curious as to where your info comes from.

From August 2007 until may 2008 there were between 15,200 and 16,700 civilian deaths. This year, through six months the total is 5,500.

From march 2007-august 2007 there were between 9800 and 12,000.

Blah blah blah. The numbers increase the further one goes back. A far cry from your 4,000 a year count.

Did Rush publish the 4,000 count?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2014 9:57:00 AM (view original):
I glossed over the exchange between you/moy but, for the most part, I was agreeing with you.    We're not "policing global terror" when it doesn't affect our way of life.   We just don't give a damn about machete murders in some far away part of the world.   Hell, if we did, we'd be in Mexico. 

Yeah, anyone with half a brain knows this is the truth.

I'm not sure moy is necessarily disagreeing.   It sounds like he likes the idea but does recognize that resources are limited and, to use his words, we "need to pick our battles."

Pick our battles being code for "wherever we can profit from".

I misread what you were posting. Problem with posting before coffeeing.