Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/5/2011 1:19:00 AM (view original):
He said invaded or attacked. 

We were attacked on 9/11 and the west has been invaded by a Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad

I may be stretching the point a bit, but we are at war with a Global entity trying to enslave the world. Wasnt that Hitler's description?

So, by this logic, we should invade Pakistan immediately.  

Posted by creilmann on 5/5/2011 3:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/5/2011 1:19:00 AM (view original):
He said invaded or attacked. 

We were attacked on 9/11 and the west has been invaded by a Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad

I may be stretching the point a bit, but we are at war with a Global entity trying to enslave the world. Wasnt that Hitler's description?

So, by this logic, we should invade Pakistan immediately.  

Wait... is swamp comparing us to the Allies (Hitler was a Global entity trying to enslave the world) or the Nazis (Hitler thought the Jews were a Global entity trying to enslave the world)?

Posted by moosep on 5/5/2011 3:34:00 AM (view original):
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Exactly. 

...and now it is time to start to prep to get out of Afghanistan.

Exactly.

Posted by moosep on 5/5/2011 3:34:00 AM (view original):
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. No argument.

Iraq was part of the bigger war on terror.

Iraq was about as relevant to the "War on Terror" as they were to World War II.

I think the British and USSR might disagree with you.  If Hitler wasn't so pigheaded and try to get Moscow and the Caucasuses, Iran and Iraq may have been next.  USSR relied on their oil for survival. 

But I get your point.

Posted by antonsirius on 5/5/2011 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Iraq was about as relevant to the "War on Terror" as they were to World War II.

How relevant was French North Africa to WWII? We still invaded it.

We didnt really need to. It was a huge risk. It Worked.

That was a pretty important move.  The Allies had to make sure that the Vichy France and its navy was taken out of the war.

Posted by raucous on 5/5/2011 8:44:00 PM (view original):
That was a pretty important move.  The Allies had to make sure that the Vichy France and its navy was taken out of the war.

Yet the invasion didint actually do that.

Roosevelt lied about Weapons of French Naval Destruction and people died!

1 Part of the Clinton boom is from the Reagan era. The peace dividend and the Economic growth that led to the Tech Bubble. To be fair Clinton was a master of getting out of the way and letting America be America. He may have benfitted from Regan, but it isnt Reagan's boom, it is Clinton's!

2 I think you will find very few Republicans blaming 9/11 on Clinton, except in response to the Democrats trying to blame it on Bush. And yes clearly the 1st "Bush Recession" was from the tech bubble collapse. It wasnt anyones fault. Capitalism runs in up and down cycles. The less you play with it the less time it takes to come back up.

3 The 2nd Bush recession was because of the real estate bubble crash. It wasnt anyones fault either. Normal cycles. Obama gets balmed now because he didnt turn his recession around like Bush did.

4 Rush and I both applauded Obama for getting Bin Laden. Almost everyone is cheering Obama.

So again your narative is based on reworked history!

Swamp, gotta disagree on the real estate bubble.  It was a lot of people's fault.

It was republicans (the democrats are right)
It was democrats (the republicans are right)
It was consumers (very few people are willing to say so, but those who do are right)

It was the republicans fault for not doing anything to make loan restrictions tighter when there was an obvious problem being pushed into the future until it collapsed (much like out of control gov't spending today).  They didn't have the sack to go after the aggressive pressure that was put on the loan institutions caused initially by social agendas that began in the 70's and carried out through the 90's.  Any conservative who stood their ground against this would be labeled "racist" or "against the poor"...as we saw in the mid 2000's.

It was the democrats fault for putting their head in the sand regarding the social pressure they put on the institutions to loan money to those who couldn't afford to pay it back and for playing politics with that pressure.

It was ultimately consumers' fault too because of the refusal of the general population to understand even the basics of finance - which is why those that understand the basics of finance make a lot of money with that understanding, while those who don't pay for that ignorance.  (The subject of another future thread).

Oh and don't let me forget it was the lending institution's fault for taking the unnecessary risks with the capital and being greedy enough to "get theirs" before the house of cards collapsed (much like politicians and their power/spending cycle today).