2 ms·

Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq

by cmurf 11y ago

Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tzs 11y ago
Why are you lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together? Those were vastly different situations. Note to down voters: do some research. First of all, there was widespread support for invading Afghanistan in both the US (over 90%) and in Afghanistan (also in the 90% range). This was not the case for Iraq. Second, Iraq was based on questionable intelligence that there might be things going on there that could potentially lead to attacks on the US at some future time. Afghanistan was in response to an attack that had already occurred by groups that were operating out of Afghanistan. Third, Congressional support for the Afghanistan invasion was 420 yes, 1 no, 10 not voting in the House, and 98 yes, 2 not voting in the Senate. For Iraq, the House was 297 yes, 133 no, 3 not voting, and the Senate was 77 yes, 23 no. FFS, even Ron Paul voted for invading Afghanistan. There is no way you can make a plausible case that Bush supporting the Afghanistan invasion indicates low intelligence, whereas you can kind of make such a case for Iraq.
- cmurf 11y ago
  Well you can make a low intelligence claim for Afghanistan because of how many others have tried that in the past and failed miserably. But history and constitutions are just pieces of paper, he wanted to do what he wanted to do because he wanted to do it, even though neither country attacked the U.S. and therefore attacking both of them was a U.N. Charter violation, which we are of course signatories to. So I prefer suggesting he was low brain cell count rather than suggesting he's malevolent, but those are the binary options in my world view when it comes to George, and anyone else who voted for either one of those invasions.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    How is invading Afghanistan against the constitution? >even though neither country attacked the U.S Afghanistan attacked the US by allowing an terrorist group who declared war on America plot an attack on the United States from their country. >and therefore attacking both of them was a U.N. Charter violation, which we are of course signatories to. The UN Charter allows for self defense AND the UN authorized the attacks. In fact the ISAF is a UN operation.

by cmurf 11y ago

Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tzs 11y ago

Why are you lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together? Those were vastly different situations. Note to down voters: do some research. First of all, there was widespread support for invading Afghanistan in both the US (over 90%) and in Afghanistan (also in the 90% range). This was not the case for Iraq. Second, Iraq was based on questionable intelligence that there might be things going on there that could potentially lead to attacks on the US at some future time. Afghanistan was in response to an attack that had already occurred by groups that were operating out of Afghanistan. Third, Congressional support for the Afghanistan invasion was 420 yes, 1 no, 10 not voting in the House, and 98 yes, 2 not voting in the Senate. For Iraq, the House was 297 yes, 133 no, 3 not voting, and the Senate was 77 yes, 23 no. FFS, even Ron Paul voted for invading Afghanistan. There is no way you can make a plausible case that Bush supporting the Afghanistan invasion indicates low intelligence, whereas you can kind of make such a case for Iraq.

cmurf 11y ago
Well you can make a low intelligence claim for Afghanistan because of how many others have tried that in the past and failed miserably. But history and constitutions are just pieces of paper, he wanted to do what he wanted to do because he wanted to do it, even though neither country attacked the U.S. and therefore attacking both of them was a U.N. Charter violation, which we are of course signatories to. So I prefer suggesting he was low brain cell count rather than suggesting he's malevolent, but those are the binary options in my world view when it comes to George, and anyone else who voted for either one of those invasions.
- rhino369 11y ago
  How is invading Afghanistan against the constitution? >even though neither country attacked the U.S Afghanistan attacked the US by allowing an terrorist group who declared war on America plot an attack on the United States from their country. >and therefore attacking both of them was a U.N. Charter violation, which we are of course signatories to. The UN Charter allows for self defense AND the UN authorized the attacks. In fact the ISAF is a UN operation.