In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq

[klamath]

CPUd you're too liberal for your own good. I have destroyed your argument over going after ISIS family before and here it goes again. DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE SAFE FROM THEM? Seriously DO YOU? Because if you do, I have Ocean Front property in Arizona that I can sell you, on the cheap.

You have destroying nothing. Killing someone that is innocent does NOT make any of our families safe. If someone killed my children and grandchildren I would die trying to kill them.
If you kill someone you kill the people that are actively killing you and yours. While you are busy killing, torturing and raping the women and children of the actual killers they will walk in and jerk your head back and saw your head off.

 

[silverhandorder]

I don't defend Cruz. Trump is the most mushy candidate of all the 20 running. The only thing he doesn't back down from is his insulting obloxious comments. EVERYTHING ELSE he mushes all over the place. He calls it flexible... He will be flexibly for his wars....

Actually I have the same problem. I tend to change my mind slightly a lot. Especially on complicated issues. Trump is not a libertarian so it would be even more apparent in him. But the more he discusses these issues the more I like him. He tends to change his mind in the right direction. Now many stances he takes are certainly not popular but he makes them popular. He was the first one to hammer about the wall. And he keeps getting rewarded with loyalty and support for that.

 

[Fivezeroes]

How does this position, or support for a candidate who takes this position, advance the cause of liberty?

It's sort of hard to explain, do you have kids? If you do, you know you would give your life in a minute to support them. We have all seen video of ISIS training their kids to cut off heads, so it comes down to this. It's us or them and you can best bet if it comes to that, I'm going to be rooting for us no matter what.

 

[silverhandorder]

To expand on it. If you are at war you need to fight to win. Most Americans lost their balls (democrats and republicans). So if you fight like Trump they will either reject war or we win. Otherwise we lose the war. I am happy with either outcome. Right now they can continue a losing war while populace does not care.

 

[Fivezeroes]

You have destroying nothing. Killing someone that is innocent does NOT make any of our families safe. If someone killed my children and grandchildren I would die trying to kill them.
If you kill someone you kill the people that are actively killing you and yours. While you are busy killing, torturing and raping the women and children of the actual killers they will walk in and jerk your head back and saw your head off.

I'm not Muslim, I don't have to rape women or children as preached in the Koran. This is the problem with bleeding hearts, you can't stomach what needs to be done to get rid of extremist Muslims. War isn't always sunshine and butterflies. There will be lots of people killed and not one of those extremists are innocent, not their wives, not their children, why don't you try looking up what they teach their children, why don't you look at the video that shows the 4-5 year old holding a severed head. Oh wait, that would go against your narrative that people such as this doesn't exists and these children and terrorist wives are innoncent.

 

[erowe1]

I meant. We all agree that invading Afghanistan after 2001 was the right thing to do. In and Out. Job done. No nation building. I think Trump wants to do that with ISIS.

I don't agree with doing that in Afghanistan, and I don't agree with it for ISIS. And I don't believe that Trump would follow a course of action at all like that. Building is his thing.

 

[Ender]

I meant. We all agree that invading Afghanistan after 2001 was the right thing to do. In and Out. Job done. No nation building. I think Trump wants to do that with ISIS.

No, we do not all agree.

OBL was used as an excuse to take over Afghanistan for pipelines- he denied being involved with 911. The Taliban said they would turn over OBL for trial IF it was held in a neutral country. W ignored them and started the war.

 

[erowe1]

To expand on it. If you are at war you need to fight to win. Most Americans lost their balls (democrats and republicans). So if you fight like Trump they will either reject war or we win. Otherwise we lose the war. I am happy with either outcome. Right now they can continue a losing war while populace does not care.

You are happy with getting into more wars as long as we win?

 

[silverhandorder]

You are happy with getting into more wars as long as we win?

I don't think we will. Look at Russia. They go in at what they can handle and then pull out. I don't want more war but if we are to have it what Trump is saying makes more sense.

Right now we can handle jack shit. If Trump were to focus on winning he would have to pull out of many other theaters of war.

 

[jmdrake]

Well let's see if anything comes of this. The level of discourse on this forum has fallen so low that I highly doubt anyone would take any action over one word.

Speaking of which it is funny that this is coming from you since your tactic is to filibuster so that would piss you off more than others.

Explain how it is possible to fillibuster on a web forum. The point of a fillibuster is to prevent something from being voted on. What vote am I preventing?

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think we will. Look at Russia. They go in at what they can handle and then pull out. I don't want more war but if we are to have it what Trump is saying makes more sense.

Right now we can handle jack $#@!. If Trump were to focus on winning he would have to pull out of many other theaters of war.

We couldn't handle another war when Trump was urging an invasion of Libya. That didn't stop him from urging an invasion of Libya. And your Russia/Syria analogy doesn't hold. Russia went into a situation with a functional, but rapidly failing due to external pressure, government and gave it breathing space to continue the fight on its own. Trump encouraged an invasion and overthrow of a stable government which has led to chaos. The problem with Libya isn't that we didn't "pull out" of Libya. The problem is that we destabilized Libya. That's Trump's kind of war, and in his own words, it is a "disaster." Only he's willing to call it a disaster after the fact, whereas Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and even Ted Cruz were all warning before the fact not to get involved in Libya at all.

 

[silverhandorder]

Explain how it is possible to fillibuster on a web forum. The point of a fillibuster is to prevent something from being voted on. What vote am I preventing?

Or to prevent the other side from talking. On the forum that results in walls of text. I have a limited time in my day. I can choose to fight with walls of text or to do something else. Most people choose to do something else. So asking ten different questions that require long explanations results in members giving up.

There is certainly a place for long discussion. Not when anti trump threads are getting spammed at the rate of 10 a day and they get filled up with 10 to 20 comments from anti trump people. It all comes down to lowest common denominator and seeing three pictures being posted in the period of five minutes in one thread is the lowest common denominator. Eliminate that and you can have longer more thought our discussion.

We couldn't handle another war when Trump was urging an invasion of Libya. That didn't stop him from urging an invasion of Libya. And your Russia/Syria analogy doesn't hold. Russia went into a situation with a functional, but rapidly failing due to external pressure, government and gave it breathing space to continue the fight on its own. Trump encouraged an invasion and overthrow of a stable government which has led to chaos. The problem with Libya isn't that we didn't "pull out" of Libya. The problem is that we destabilized Libya. That's Trump's kind of war, and in his own words, it is a "disaster." Only he's willing to call it a disaster after the fact, whereas Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and even Ted Cruz were all warning before the fact not to get involved in Libya at all.

I have not looked into this and since it's coming from know trump haters sorry probably will not. All I know is that he has not registered in my watching of news when the mess was happening and incidentally neither have Cruz. Only Rand and Ron were visible when that disaster was happening. I may not be fair to Cruz on not registering tho... However I do not trust him to stand up to war lobby pressure. He has demonstrated a demeanor of a sleaze bag. Iowa vote where his team stole Carson votes. He did not own up to that. On the other hand Trump stood up right behind Lewandowsky through the entire affair.

As far as Libia being a disaster you are right hence why we should not be there. We are not in disagreement here.

 

[jmdrake]

Or to prevent the other side from talking. On the forum that results in walls of text. I have a limited time in my day. I can choose to fight with walls of text or to do something else. Most people choose to do something else. So asking ten different questions that require long explanations results in members giving up.

LOL. Okay. So you your not having answers to simple questions equals my preventing you from talking? Seriously that's your argument? I decided to turn down the rhetoric and quit calling Trump supporters liars for taking positions that have no basis in fact (like claiming Trump didn't support the Iraq war or the war in Libya when he clearly did) but asking them to explain themselves and I'm the bad guy. Okay. That makes no sense to me but okay. I'm not going to sit idly by and let you and others spread misinformation.

There is certainly a place for long discussion. Not when anti trump threads are getting spammed at the rate of 10 a day and they get filled up with 10 to 20 comments from anti trump people. It all comes down to lowest common denominator and seeing three pictures being posted in the period of five minutes in one thread is the lowest common denominator. Eliminate that and you can have longer more thought our discussion.

Except your arguing against obvious truth is not "discussion". It's obfuscation. No. I will not be bullied by you or anyone else into silence. If you think Trump didn't actually support the war in Iraq, when he clearly said he did, then actually defend your position. If you believe that Trump didn't call for an invasion of Libya, when he actually did, then defend your position. If you believe that saying Muslims can't come to this country from anywhere (including Canada) is the same as saying "Let's halt immigration from terrorist hot spots (not Canada) regardless of the religion of the person coming until the Secretary of State can put forward a viable screening process", then defend your position. Or don't defend it. I don't care. But if you continue to call obvious truth lies I will continue to point out the obvious truth. That's not "filibustering". That's debating. Sorry if you don't understand the difference.

 

[klamath]

It's sort of hard to explain, do you have kids? If you do, you know you would give your life in a minute to support them. We have all seen video of ISIS training their kids to cut off heads, so it comes down to this. It's us or them and you can best bet if it comes to that, I'm going to be rooting for us no matter what.

I have kids, grandkids and I am a veteran of three wars. It will be a cold day in hell before a draft dodging Trump tells me I have to torture and kill a three year old kid because we have to be as bad as ISIS.

 

[klamath]

I'm not Muslim, I don't have to rape women or children as preached in the Koran. This is the problem with bleeding hearts, you can't stomach what needs to be done to get rid of extremist Muslims. War isn't always sunshine and butterflies. There will be lots of people killed and not one of those extremists are innocent, not their wives, not their children, why don't you try looking up what they teach their children, why don't you look at the video that shows the 4-5 year old holding a severed head. Oh wait, that would go against your narrative that people such as this doesn't exists and these children and terrorist wives are innoncent.

Ok buddy don't you fucking talk to me about what a war is. Show me you fucking dd 214. I am fully aware of what humans do to other humans. Nobody has a monopoly on cruelty done in the name of the right side.

 

[silverhandorder]

LOL. Okay. So you your not having answers to simple questions equals my preventing you from talking? Seriously that's your argument? I decided to turn down the rhetoric and quit calling Trump supporters liars for taking positions that have no basis in fact (like claiming Trump didn't support the Iraq war or the war in Libya when he clearly did) but asking them to explain themselves and I'm the bad guy. Okay. That makes no sense to me but okay. I'm not going to sit idly by and let you and others spread misinformation.

Except your arguing against obvious truth is not "discussion". It's obfuscation. No. I will not be bullied by you or anyone else into silence. If you think Trump didn't actually support the war in Iraq, when he clearly said he did, then actually defend your position. If you believe that Trump didn't call for an invasion of Libya, when he actually did, then defend your position. If you believe that saying Muslims can't come to this country from anywhere (including Canada) is the same as saying "Let's halt immigration from terrorist hot spots (not Canada) regardless of the religion of the person coming until the Secretary of State can put forward a viable screening process", then defend your position. Or don't defend it. I don't care. But if you continue to call obvious truth lies I will continue to point out the obvious truth. That's not "filibustering". That's debating. Sorry if you don't understand the difference.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You do not address what I say but trying to steer this into another direction. I explained to you how you are filibustering. Yet you are trying to bring in Trump supporters lying. You are talking to me at this moment and not some ephemeral trump supporters. I made none of those claims.


What you trying to get us into is to argue about what is "obvious" truth. And that is what I have no time for.

No one is bullying you. You come to the forum on your free volition and say what you want. So do I.

Why the hell are you talking about Muslims? One thing at a time. We are discussing how you filibuster.

 

[jmdrake]

I have not looked into this and since it's coming from know trump haters sorry probably will not. All I know is that he has not registered in my watching of news when the mess was happening and incidentally neither have Cruz. Only Rand and Ron were visible when that disaster was happening. I may not be fair to Cruz on not registering tho... However I do not trust him to stand up to war lobby pressure. He has demonstrated a demeanor of a sleaze bag. Iowa vote where his team stole Carson votes. He did not own up to that. On the other hand Trump stood up right behind Lewandowsky through the entire affair.

As far as Libia being a disaster you are right hence why we should not be there. We are not in disagreement here.

Since you edited your response to talk about Libya I will respond again. I got Trump's position on Libya from Donald Trump himself.



He called for the invasion of Libya from his own video blog, then during the GOP debates straight up lied about it. The man is a pathological liar. And he had the nerve to call Ben Carson "pathologic" and/or a liar? That's why I find it funny that Trump supporters are talking about what happened to "poor Ben Carson" in Iowa. Trump had already destroyed the man through character assassination. Forget losing the presidency. Thanks in large part to Donald Trump, Carson lost all respect. And Trump is proud of the way he destroys people. So spare me the "poor Ben Carson" song and dance.

But back to Trump and Libya and Iraq. Early on I too thought Trump was a non-interventionist. There was a lot I didn't like about Trump, like his support for unbridled imminent domain and his support for TARP, but at least, I thought, he was antiwar. I was wrong. Here's the difference between you and me. I'm actually open to new information regardless of the source. And the new information I received is that Trump is as much of a warmonger as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. He's certainly more of a warmonger than Ted Cruz. But worse, he lies about his own positions! And that is what I can't trust. If you can't respect that, tough. If you don't to listen to people you consider to be "Trump haters" then there is an ignore feature and you can feel free to use it. But whenever I see that there are people as uninformed as I was about Trumps warmongering ways I'm going to speak up. Call it a "wall of text" or "fillibustering" or whatever you want to call it. But what I am doing is spreading the truth. And I won't back down.

 

[jmdrake]

This is exactly what I am talking about. You do not address what I say but trying to steer this into another direction. I explained to you how you are filibustering. Yet you are trying to bring in Trump supporters lying. You are talking to me at this moment and not some ephemeral trump supporters. I made none of those claims.

And I explained to you how your definition of filibustering is simply not true. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You are not entiteld to make up your own definition of the word "filibuster." What I am doing is not filibustering. It is responding to misinformation. You don't want to know the truth when it comes from what you consider to be Trump haters." By your own admission that is why you are ignorant as to Trump's position on Libya. You can wallow in ignorance all you want but I will continue to push the truth.

 

[silverhandorder]

 

Since you edited your response to talk about Libya I will respond again. I got Trump's position on Libya from Donald Trump himself.



He called for the invasion of Libya from his own video blog, then during the GOP debates straight up lied about it. The man is a pathological liar. And he had the nerve to call Ben Carson "pathologic" and/or a liar? That's why I find it funny that Trump supporters are talking about what happened to "poor Ben Carson" in Iowa. Trump had already destroyed the man through character assassination. Forget losing the presidency. Thanks in large part to Donald Trump, Carson lost all respect. And Trump is proud of the way he destroys people. So spare me the "poor Ben Carson" song and dance.

But back to Trump and Libya and Iraq. Early on I too thought Trump was a non-interventionist. There was a lot I didn't like about Trump, like his support for unbridled imminent domain and his support for TARP, but at least, I thought, he was antiwar. I was wrong. Here's the difference between you and me. I'm actually open to new information regardless of the source. And the new information I received is that Trump is as much of a warmonger as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. He's certainly more of a warmonger than Ted Cruz. But worse, he lies about his own positions! And that is what I can't trust. If you can't respect that, tough. If you don't to listen to people you consider to be "Trump haters" then there is an ignore feature and you can feel free to use it. But whenever I see that there are people as uninformed as I was about Trumps warmongering ways I'm going to speak up. Call it a "wall of text" or "fillibustering" or whatever you want to call it. But what I am doing is spreading the truth. And I won't back down.

So you keep pushing this thing at me even though I am talking about Trump vs Cruz. Again filibuster. But since you want to talk so much about Libya can you bring up his original blog in it's entirety?

And I explained to you how your definition of filibustering is simply not true. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You are not entiteld to make up your own definition of the word "filibuster." What I am doing is not filibustering. It is responding to misinformation. You don't want to know the truth when it comes from what you consider to be Trump haters." By your own admission that is why you are ignorant as to Trump's position on Libya. You can wallow in ignorance all you want but I will continue to push the truth.

I rest my case. Again you make this about something other than what we are talking about. It's not about my "ignorance".

I said filibustering is getting another person to stop talking. How you go about it can be in different ways. One way is to stand on the senate floor and talk for hours. Another way is to keep bringing up irrelevant topics as you are doing.

 

[jmdrake]

Why the hell are you talking about Muslims? One thing at a time. We are discussing how you filibuster.

Discuss how long you've been beating your wife. As I've already pointed out, I'm not filibustering. I will not play your game of dignifying your falsehoods. I gave the Muslim issue as simply an example of how Trump supporters deny obvious truths over and over again. Like the one that started this thread. Trump lied about being against the Iraq war from the beginning. There is now way now to honestly deny that. Yet you and others keep doing that. Why?