Republican controlled senate means...?

[onejayhawk]

I think by Iraq 2.0 he means the first unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation ever conducted by US forces. The one that turned all the decades of noble rhetoric about 'peace through strength' that had been the USA's position on the world stage into hypocrisy and converted us into just another 'might makes right' thug. That's the main component of GWBush's legacy, without a doubt.

Inaccurate. We invaded Canada and Mexico well over 100 years ago and many island and South American nations since then. It was not called gunboat diplomacy for no reason. Recently there was North Korea and Indo-China. Cambodia is still pissed.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Inaccurate. We invaded Canada and Mexico well over 100 years ago and many island and South American nations since then. It was not called gunboat diplomacy for no reason. Recently there was North Korea and Indo-China. Cambodia is still pissed.

J

Like most apologists for Bush you have a very loose definition of 'unilateral invasion'. A small matter of the South Korean and South Viet Namese governments can be ignored I guess. Why not go all out and say we invaded Kuwait?

Bottom line, when I served in the US military I could say, with pride, that the US was not going to send me out to kill people without at least a general sense of international approval. Today I tell anyone who will listen to stay out of the US military because it has been gravely misused and no correction has been done to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

 

[onejayhawk]

Like most apologists for Bush you have a very loose definition of 'unilateral invasion'. A small matter of the South Korean and South Viet Namese governments can be ignored I guess. Why not go all out and say we invaded Kuwait?

Bottom line, when I served in the US military I could say, with pride, that the US was not going to send me out to kill people without at least a general sense of international approval. Today I tell anyone who will listen to stay out of the US military because it has been gravely misused and no correction has been done to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Funny, I thought you were the one with the loose interpretation unilateral invasion. The Brits were fully involved, with numerous other nations in supporting roles. You can say that there was no broad based approval, but the standard of "general sense of international approval" was easily met. I was there. I know.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Funny, I thought you were the one with the loose interpretation unilateral invasion. The Brits were fully involved, with numerous other nations in supporting roles. You can say that there was no broad based approval, but the standard of "general sense of international approval" was easily met. I was there. I know.

J

"General sense of international approval" in the modern day doesn't include "direct opposition by the United Nations". Sorry that you had to be there. I opposed it with every resource I had, and I failed you.

 

[Arakhor]

The Brits were fully involved...

We were lied to about the war, which was sold on the promise of finding non-existent WMDs. Tony Blair might have been generally approving, but I can assure you that significant sections of the British populace were not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We were lied to about the war, which was sold on the promise of finding non-existent WMDs. Tony Blair might have been generally approving, but I can assure you that significant sections of the British populace were not.

Oddly enough the same thing happened in the US.

 

[bathsheba666]

Everyone was lied to about the war.
The available intelligence was rewritten in both countries to fit what Bush then Blair had already decided to do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Everyone was lied to about the war.
The available intelligence was rewritten in both countries to fit what Bush then Blair had already decided to do.

And that too will be a significant part of the legacy of GWBush.

 

[MobBoss]

Bottom line, when I served in the US military I could say, with pride, that the US was not going to send me out to kill people without at least a general sense of international approval. Today I tell anyone who will listen to stay out of the US military because it has been gravely misused and no correction has been done to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Odd, I served with pride, retired, and I tell everyone I can to join because it's a great opportunity for people.

I mean, where else can you earn a wage, learn personal and career skills and get your education paid for?

Pretty friggin awesome job if you ask me.

I think by Iraq 2.0 he means the first unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation ever conducted by US forces.

I think you need to bone up on your US military history there, bub.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

More like Iraq 3.0, as you invaded Iraq in the 90s.

I did no such thing.

 

[Tee Kay]

Say, would Great Britain and the United States together have already invaded every country?

 

[Cutlass]

Say, would Great Britain and the United States together have already invaded every country?

I think there's a lot of South America still ripe for that first invasion. Most of it only had the Spanish and Portuguese.

 

[bhsup]

And let's not forget when South American countries invade the UK.

 

[Arakhor]

Not really, I'm afraid. It's probably an act of war against the UK, but not an invasion.

 

[classical_hero]

It's still sovereign British territory and thus considered to be part of the UK.

 

[onejayhawk]

Accurate.

Honestly, their only slam dunk is getting Keystone approved for delicious Canadian oil.
I don't care how much Dems claim to love science/the environment, this one is a no brainer.

Don't expect inaction
The XL Pipeline is indeed a no brainer. There is a list of energy related bills behind it. Expect expanded use of fracking and more offshore drilling. Both create high paying jobs.
Border security is another issue.
There will be a push to ramp up Iraq.
ACA needs fixing. The Republican's don't need to repeal it because it came from the factory broken.

Something over 100 bills were passed by the House, but never made it to the floor of the Senate. How many get dusted off and reused is an open question, but there is wood for the fire.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don't expect inaction
The XL Pipeline is indeed a no brainer. There is a list of energy related bills behind it. Expect expanded use of fracking and more offshore drilling. Both create high paying jobs.
Border security is another issue.
There will be a push to ramp up Iraq.
ACA needs fixing. The Republican's don't need to repeal it because it came from the factory broken.

Something over 100 bills were passed by the House, but never made it to the floor of the Senate. How many get dusted off and reused is an open question, but there is wood for the fire.

J

This comes back to the strategy question. You yourself pointed out that the debate the past four years has been all about the Democratic party positions, which has served the Republicans well. If these Republican driven initiatives really do come up for public debate, don't you think that serves the Democrats just as well?

The pipeline debate is already framed as big business despoiling the environment for big profits that go into the great trickle down pool that everyone has been waiting thirty years for already. Bringing Republican party economic policy to the forefront doesn't seem wise.

Romney got absolutely stomped on immigration while supporting the standard Republican position on border security. Is that a debate the Republicans really want to have for two years before the election?

The ACA can possibly be improved. If the Republicans try to improve it after years of promising their base that repealing is their position I don't see that playing well.

And I left ramping up in Iraq for last, because the idea of bringing Republican democratization by invasion theory back to the forefront before the next election is just too hilarious for words. Are you suggesting the Republican party took control of the Senate for the specific purpose of committing political suicide?

There is certainly 'wood for the fire', but unless the Republicans have changed their policies since their last airing they need to be really careful about providing any illumination.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Odd, I served with pride, retired, and I tell everyone I can to join because it's a great opportunity for people.

I mean, where else can you earn a wage, learn personal and career skills and get your education paid for?

Pretty friggin awesome job if you ask me.

Yeah. Being in the rear echelon is just another job. When you're doing the actual killing the questions of justification become an issue...if you are a person of conscience. So, are you rear echelon guy, a person of no conscience, or both?

 

[Arakhor]

It's still sovereign British territory and thus considered to be part of the UK.

Unlike France and the Netherlands, the UK does not consider every part of its colonial reach to be a part of the mother country. Our nearest non-UK holdings are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

I'd have thought that an Australian would be able to grasp the difference, to be fair.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I did no such thing.

By "you", I obviously mean "the Americans".

But hey, you're still free to invade Iraq. Nobody seems to mind.