DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 11, 2014, 06:58:06 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsB1iX5T504
-
Expect any defense efforts to rationalize...."look how hard he has had to work?"...."look how hostile he's been treated by those racist Republicans & Tea Partiers"...."of course he needed more time to recuperate"...."He had to take all those vacations"
-
He cannot ever manage to out vacation Juniorbush.
-
He already has.....in spades. Bush even stopped playing golf, with the war with Iraq started up
-
Bush may have given up golf, but he spent more time on vacations.
Obama does not do golf vacations.
Golf is the curse of the GOP: Taft, Ike and JUniorbush in particular. I do not see where it is a problem. It does me go to go outside and take a walk. I do not golf, but galf is said to be "a good walk spoiled".
-
Nice deflection.....fact remains that this President spends more time vacationing than leading, punctuated by his OWN WORDS, in which he made it clear that as President, he and his family would have to "sacrifice" for the good of the country. And that was in peacetime
-
Bush mainly went to his own ranch house,
didn't rent out mansions and Ritz Carltons on the taxpayer
like the "man of the people" does....what a crock fraud he is!
It's not even close!
-
Not even....gads vacations to to, just off the top of my head, Hawaii, Africa, Ireland, Spain, Aspen, New York, Florida, and I've lost track of how many to Martha's Vinyard
-
Since you hate him, all you do is gripe.
Since you hate all he does, his vacations should make you happy, since he cannot do as much of all that stuff you do not like while he is on vacation. But nope, there is no pleasing the righwing fanatics.
-
Couldn't refute the facts now, could ya 8)
-
You have nary a fact to refute.
If you were to say that Juniorbush took off X hours for fun and games and Obama took off X +y hours, that would be a fact.
Well, if it were true, it would be a fact.
As it is, all you have submitted is what can best be described as a "gripe".
A president will not be judged by his vacations, but by what he has accomplished, and no fair judgement can be expected for at least 25 more years.
You never hear about all the time FDR spent at Campobello or at Warm Springs.
The issue is just stupid and not worth bothering with. If you were a rational being, you would realize this.
However...
-
Actually, i already listed many of those facts....they included Hawaii, Africa, Ireland, Spain, Aspen, New York, Florida, and presently Martha's Vinyard
But you're finally right about 1 thing. A president will be judged on his "accomplishments". Jimmy
Carter is internally thanking Obama for getting him off the hook as perhaps the worst modern day President this country has ever had to endure
-
I think it is safe to say that Jimmy Carter is the greatest EX president we have ever had. He has helped millions of people since he left office.
-
Completely irrelevant to the point being made, but ... ok. Too bad about the 10's of millions he hurt, when he was in office. But at least he can look to Obama now for getting him off that hook
-
The presidency is not a race like Nascar, nor a silly ball game, like the Superbowl. Presidents do not think of themselves in being in any sort of competition, either. Each term has different obstacles, different resources and different aides and assistants. Nor does the condition at the end of the term seem to determine success. The president that left the country the worst off in history was Lincoln. His election started the Civil War and when he was short,half the country was destroyed and starving and the other half was impoverished and disorganized. Yet Lincoln was considered a major success in 1865 and a martyr for the cause of the Union..
-
So let's placate the deflection before anything else....no one claimed "it was a race", of any kind. Which pretty much make the rest what followed that deflection effort moot ::)
-
.
Since you hate all he does, his vacations should make you happy, since he cannot do as much of all that stuff you do not like while he is on vacation.
Actually this is a pretty good point!
The less he steers , the less he gets us lost.
It is mostly what he does that I don't like , he seems like an affable person that could carry on an interesting conversation, I would not mind having him as a neighbor.
Unfortunately I have him not as my neighbor , he is my boss. With four years of pay freeze and a furlough ,I don't feel like praising him as an employer.
Oh yes , sometimes I also do not like how he talks, like calling on increased hiring and pay raises on the part of industry while he throttles back on the DOD.
Believe it or not we civil servants used to have a pretty good insurance package , including coverage of preexisting conditions, we still have the benefit , but we pay a lot more for it now.
So yes , if I were to pay his green fees and get him out of his office an extra day, might be a good idea, might be worth the investment.
-
He will remain president. His vacations are of no real importance.
And you ARE most certainly making all this into some sort of stupid race, sirs. Read the crap you posted.
-
I have read it. I also keep reading how you perpetually try to argue points never made, like this is some supposed race. oy. ::) His plethora of vacations would be of real importance if this were a GOP President who had said he had no intentions of taking frequent vacations
A race requires there be some sort of finish line, with some "reward" at the end. Since you insist on arguing a non-issue, to placate this fantasy of yours, what do you think that I think is the finish line, and what does the person win?
-
What is to be won?
In a political contest?
You don't know?
-
You generally answer questions with a question? Let's try again...you keep erroneously claiming that I'm making this about a race, like Nascar, that you then claim this isn't a race. So, if I'm supposedly thinking this is some Nascar race, what do you think that I think is the finish line, and what does the person win?
-
I did indeed say that you think of what you call "political debate" to be some sort of contest. To "win" these contests, you ask silly question or questions that make no sense at all and claim victory when I tell you that the question is silly and makes no sense. You seem to think that you have won onlt=y when the other person abjectly prostrates himself metaphorically before you, while you gloat. Please not that this has never actually occurred. Yo do not seem interested in discussing issues, you want admission that you are right and a statement that the other person was wrong.
-
If you can't answer a simple question, why post? Does it make you "feel better"? :-\
-
Not answering your stupid questions brings mirth to my day and a bounce to my step. It's like leaving a casino with $500 of their money.
-
Not answering also reinforces how wrong you were in the 1st place. Touche' 8)
-
Your place is always the last place. Your prize, the prize of Booby.
-
Which ironically keeps reinforcing my point. Your contribution is indeed appreciated. You may now return to your regularly scheduled ignoring of both the facts and point of the thread being made
-
There is no point. You made no point.
If you do not like Obama, then you should rejoice when he is away from his job.
-
Actually I did......the original point being the one how Obama himself declared of the "sacrafices" a President AND his family must make, as it relates to vacations, now demonstrating precisely the opposite. A point that remains unrefuted.
Then the follow-up point was to declare how I was thinking this whole political process is some Nascar race, and then demonstrably refuting that it isn't, when I never claimed or even implied it was in the 1st place. Then when asked to demonstrate how I supposedly was making it some race, you couldn't be bothered to support that claim either
And now you've shifted back into the same nonsense of snarking & demonizing. But yea, you're right about one thing, as I share it with Plane, and a majority of the rest of the country, that Obama doing nothing, is a prescious gift & reprieve. Can't wait until it comes to a full blown stop, come Nov.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk081414dAPC20140814014510.jpg)
-
"The national debt had increased by 7 trillion dollars since President Obama took office. Wow. That’s like, enough for 2 whole Michelle Obama vacations!" 8)
-
How much did the Iraq War cost?
Cheney said "deficits do not matter".
Not when he is at the trough, anyway.
-
And how much as the debt gone up under Obama again, compared to every other President?....combined? You really want to go down that road?? Who was it again that said the amount of debt that went up under the previous President was literally unpatriotic?? Here's a hint...its the current President. If it was unpatriotic under Bush, it's apparently full on treasonous at this point under Obama
-
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was huge and would have been huge under a President McCain or a President Romney, The 2007 crash was not Presidrent Obama's fault and had that money been spent, Wall Street would never have recovered.
-
The cost of those wars compared to the nation's GDP & % of spending is a mere fraction of the cost of previous wars, such as WWII or the Vietman war. And even placating the fatansy of a President Romney or President McCain still doesn't negate the current FACT of the debt being perpeutated by this President.....greater than all other presidents combined...punctuated by Obamacare, that has squat to do with Wall Street bailouts or war. A debt that this President proclaimed as unpatriotic when he was criticising his predescessor....which again makes his acrual of debt apparent high treason
-
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was .....
How is Obama spending more money with less war?
-
GREAT Question. Exponentially more, in fact
-
Yeah right. No proof, just "exponentially"
-
LOL...yea you're the one to try and spout the notion of "proof"
FACT, spending & debt under Obama is greater than all other presidents combined
FACT, there's very little war to "spend on", as Obama has pulled nearly everything out of both Iraq & Afghanistan
Which begs the FACTUAL question, (posed by Plane, NOT me, so you can't try to use me as your go-to inability to answer), how is it that we're spending a mere fraction on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, compared to when Bush was in office, and yet the debt is exponentially higher now that Obama is in his 2nd term in office?
Try to riddle yourself out of that one, while Obama gets back to the golf course
-
Yeah right. No proof, just "exponentially"
I think that President Obama is spending more in total , even though he is spending less on the Department of Defense.
I think that social services are already larger than sustainable, and are being grown as if there were no other choice.
This is rapidly becoming an example of an over powered government regulating the economy into collapse.
-
Yeah right. No proof, just "exponentially"
I think that President Obama is spending more in total , even though he is spending less on the Department of Defense.
I think that social services are already larger than sustainable, and are being grown as if there were no other choice.
This is rapidly becoming an example of an over powered government regulating the economy into collapse.
Boy, that's an understatement
-
I like understatement.
Makes a good paring with hyperbole.
-
8)
-
sirs says whatever he wants, but does not present proof.
Yet he expects it from others.
When he is given proof, he rejects is=t and asks dumb questions and demands that they be answered.
-
I already did....in spades. I only epect it in those who want their word to mean something. By all means, don't.
For instance, putting aside erroneous claim of my demanding my questions to be answered, what "proof" has been presented that I've "rejected"? Sure sounds like another episode of projection on your part, this thread being a perfect example
And here's the kicker, you don't have to answer.....*gasp*....another claim by xo shot down in flames. Not answering simply reinforces how much in error your attempted projection was in the 1st place is all 8) Ball in your court
-
Not my ball, not my game, not my court.
Your insistence on Saddam Hussein actually having weapons of mass destruction was legendary.
It was Cheney, not Obama that proclaimed"deficits don't matter."
-
And most everyone else believed he had them as well.....does that make Clinton "Legendary"? Gore? Reid?? The UN?, nearly every other intelligence agency on the globe?? Nor has there been proof that he never had them...quite the contrary, he's used them on the Kurds, so he most assuredly did have them.
As far as Cheney and his comments, how is that proof of what?? You need to present it in context, But not only would I not agree with it in general, neither did Obama, proclaiming such deficits under Bush was unpatriotic......again making his abuse of deficits and debt apparently treasonous
So what again is an actual example of "proof that I've rejected", that I guess everyone else hasn't (rejected)? Ball back in your court
-
See what I mean?
He HAD then once, just not when the US invaded.
It is worthless to discuss anything with you.
-
No, I don't see what you mean. Nor would anyone else. What "proof" has been presented that I've rejected, that everyone else hasn't?? That's your latest error filled unsupported claim. Most everyone else, including your precious Dems thought Saddam had WMD. It's only until after we went in, that it was learned they had possibly had been destroyed, but more likely moved out, probably to Syria, but will never know because there's NO PROOF OF WHAT AND WHERE IT WENT. BUT HE MOST ASSUREDLY DID HAVE THEM AT ONE TIME
So what again is an actual example of "proof that I've rejected", that I guess everyone else hasn't (rejected)?
-
He did not, however, have them at the time of the invasion, which was a terible idea at the time,and I think it is pretty obvious that invading Iraq was a terrible idea in retrospect. If you recall, I have ALWAYS been against it. It was obvious to me that Iraq posed no threat to any Americans other than those in the area of Iraq.
-
He did not, however, have them at the time of the invasion
And as FACTUALLY has been presented, most everyone thought he did....including a vast majority of your precious Democrats
You can argue about it being a "terrible idea", until your blue in the face. I didn't "reject anything" that wasn't rejected by nearly every rational minded person as well
Being against the war isn't the same as the WMD issue however. But that's more a philosophical debate, and one I still support to this day. But that's not proof of anything that I've rejected. It WAS a good idea, just poorly executed after Saddam was taken out.
So, we're back to square one, where you have yet to demonstrate a proof that I've rejected.
But we have one for you, before this attempted projection effort. There is proof beyond all doubt that this president has acrued more debt than all other presidents combined. I can provide some website links for you to ignore, if you wish. And yet, we're no longer spending all those billions on the Iraq or Afghan wars, that was being spent under Bush
So, despite the ongoing efforts of claiming how much Bush was spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have proof positive that Obama is managing to spend significantly more of our tax dollars, yet on less war.
And yet *poof* you've simply rejected it...just can't be, so he didn't, end of story. Blinders securely in place
-
It would have been a terrific idea had the US had the information, the Arabic speakers, and the plan to remove Saddam, placate the country and turn it over to an elected government. However, they clearly were ill-prepared and screwed nearly everything up. We would have been better off had we simply have waited for Saddam to die or be overthrown. So would most Iraqis, on average.
I was against it, I was against voting to give Juniorbush the authority to invade.
I was right.
-
Your "rightness" is indeed related to your definition of right. If rightness is specific to have prevented Saddam from transporting any WMD that most everyone believed he did have to various terrorist groups, that he factually did have contact with, that was partially achieved, although the disposition of what WMD stockpiles he did have will never be known. Point being, after 911, we couldn't simply wait to watch Saddam die of old age, so the decision was made for him to comply, or else. He chose or else
Point being that is a philosophical debate. The war was supported by a majority of the country, AND Congress, AND the intel that was being provided, AND he was given authority to act
That has squat to do with demonstrating some "proof that I've rejected" that everyone else hasn't. Proof would be:
- Sirs says x (example, xo believes that Obama hasn't spent all that much),
- and the facts have said y (example, Obama has accumulated more debt than all other Presidents combined which takes into account he's spending only a fraction on the Iraq & Afghan wars compared to Bush),
- but sirs still believes x (example, xo still thinks Obama hasn't spent all that much, because ...well because Bush spent so much on the Iraq & Afghan wars....and and...besides, Cheney said it was ok, because deficits don't matter)
-
Blah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blah, Blah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blah
blah.
-
Priceless....the epitome of a hard core liberal's ability to rationally debate. (or perhaps in the case, more of that trying to defend the indefensible) Your contributions are indeed appreciated 8)
-
Sometimes when proof is not possible , it can be worthwhile to explore an interesting idea anyway.
If interesting is possible ....
I thought Saddam Hussein had WMD , and I think it quite possible that Saddam also thought so.
But if he didn't, why did he spend a dime or a minute on concealing what he did not have?
-
Great questions, Plane. None of them ever to be answered however, without some divine intervention.
I just found it odd that the professor would use WMD as my supposed outright rejection of something proven, when most folks believed he had them to begin with.....including possibly Saddam. That is 1 theory, that his WMD stockpiles were moved without his knowledge. In order for the professor's claim to have any merit, I'd need to be on record as claiming that Iraq must still have them, despite that its been proven that Iraq no longer has them
Perhaps xo was confusing what the intel was telling everyone with what the results of our going in discovered. Not sure what it proved that I've supposedly rejected, but then again, that's only an answer he can provide......which ironically may also require some divine intervention ;)
-
I certainly cannot prove this , but I think that Saddam wanted to fig leaf his lack of WMD because it was embarrassing to obey his enemies.
In the face of Iran , and other enemies he wanted some doubt on their part about his ability to respond to attack , he probably expected to fight again.
So while proving he lacked WMD would have been simple and cheap, he preserved doubt at great expense and danger.
-
That is exactly correct. Either Saddam did not wish to show his weakness to the world, or he was lied to by underlings who feared what he might do if he discovered that he was an emperor with no clothes.
I was sure that he was no threat to the US, and that is why I was always against the invasion.
I was amazed by the total incompetence of Bush & Cheney after they invaded. What morons! They sent grad students in to rebuild Iraq as some sort of Libertarian republic, but saw no need for Iraqi police.
-
I was sure that he was no threat to the US, and that is why I was always against the invasion.
Which puts you in a distinct minority of folks, at the time, not to mention does nothing to validate any supposed proof of something that I've rejected.
If you simply want to debate about why or why not it was a good idea to take out Saddam, that's cool, since I still think it was a good idea, given what the intel was telling us, and a risk we couldn't take, following the events of 911. Only that such a dialog does nothing to prove anything that I've supposedly rejected, per yet another erroneous claim
-
It cost a fortune, and it resulted in the deaths of 400 Americans, a bloody civil war in Iraq and ttens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed.
It was CLEARLY not worth the expense or the effort, and the intel was bogus and looked bogus at the time.
-
It's cost was a mere fraction of both $'s and lives, compared to nearly every other war. It was just as clearly worth the expense in both the security it HAD produced (completely lost now by the current bone headed foreign policy decisions, by this administration), and opportunity it provided to the peoples of the region in joining a democratic 21st century, (which has also been lost now thanks to our apparent need to hurry all our troops out of the countries, without even trying to maintain a status forces agreement, that we have in so many other parts of the globe. An action that by itself could have helped prevent this current collapse of the middle east. At least in Iraq)
But this is good debate, as this is a philosophical debate, specific to should we or should we have not gone into Iraq. There's really no right or wrong answer, because we both have set up our own parameters as to what is "right".
I'm still just waiting for even 1 of these supposed plethora of examples of an actual proven fact that I've rejected. Going into war was not one, since a majority of the country supported that act, including congress...including many Democrats. The lack of WMD wasn't one, since a preponderance of folks believed he had them, based on the intel that was provided, including a MAJORITY of political Democrats
Can you cite even one of these supposed examples of my rejecting some proven fact? I did it for you, surely you can do one for me...........right?
-
When he is given proof, he rejects is=t and asks dumb questions and demands that they be answered.
Even 1 example??
-
Saddam had me tricked, after decades of intensely cultivating WMD technology with his own scientists and every one that he could hire, he came to battle with empty threats.
I am trying to come up with metaphor.
Imagine a gunslinger with deadly reputation, who is robbed of his weapon, fills his holster with a banana, painted gun metal blue, just to hide his embarrassment and enhance his safety with illusion. As he crosses the street at high noon he sees Batt Masterson and Wild Bill Hickok.
Unfortunately they see him too.
Now things look bad for this banana slinger , but if he manages to survive this encounter, I see him replacing his fruit with some real metal at soonest opportunity and any cost.
-
Saddam was no threat to Americans living in the USA.The War was a colossal waste of men and money.
-
Well. ... that's one opinon
-
Saddam was no threat to Americans living in the USA.The War was a colossal waste of men and money.
You have to ignore a lot about him to think this.
When he was unencumbered he spent a lot of time building WMD and consolidating power, there was no expectation of peace.
-
Precisely. Not to mention that the issue with Saddam NEVER was about Iraq directly attacking the continental U.S. The left loves to push that bogus theory, in order to then debunk it. Too bad that was never at issue to begin with.
The concern was the connections Saddam & his party had, both directly & indirectly with Islamic terrorist organizations, including, and in particular, with AlQeada. With the events that occcured on 911 with mere box cutters, the notion of what an AlQeada-like cell could do with just one of Saddam's WMD's, be it mustard gas or tabun liquid, was a nightmare scenario that Bush decided was too great not to address.
The fact that no WMD's were located, after Saddam was deposed. doesn't refute the fact he did have them at one time
-
If Saddam was no threat to the US, then there was zero reason to invade. It is not a bogus theory.
This country has mongered far too many wars for no reason. It has made u0s a violent society in which killing foreigners for many boys is a rite of paassage" Join the Army, go overseas and kill a Commie, Muslim, terrorist, whatever. It has cost us tons of money and lives.
The first war in Iraq was caused by the Olebush administration saying that it took no stand on the borders between Kuwait and Iraq. The Second was really fought to punish Saddam for failing to go away as a result of the first Iraq war. Both wars were mistakes caused bu warmongering idiot Republicans, and their allies in the Democratic Party that were influenced by the arms industry.
The motive of the war was not to rid Iraq of gas weapons that were used years before. That is a load of crap.
-
If Saddam was no threat to the US, then there was zero reason to invade. It is not a bogus theory.
It is a bogus theory, when that was never the reason we invaded in the 1st place. I just explained the reason.....by all means, continue to ignore that inconvenient truth
-
When he is given proof, he rejects is=t and asks dumb questions and demands that they be answered.
Even 1 example??
Didn't think so
-
And there we have it, yet another dumb sirs request for the answer to an unanswerable sirs question.
That is why I refuse to play your silly games.
They always end with this sort of crap.
-
There we have....what exactly?? Yet another dodge to backing up a claim you could never prove in the 1st place? But I do appreciate you validating it yourself as being unanswerable, being it was your claim to begin with.
What's truly "silly" is you believing that anyone is actually taking any of your accusations, with even an ounce of credibility. Your contributions in this thread being yet again a perfect example. You make some boneheaded accusation about me, then refuse to provide even 1 credible example. It's like trying to debate a 1st grader. ::)
-
Go fuck yourself, sirs.
It is obvious to many one-celled life forms that the second Iraq war was a terrible idea.
-
Go fuck yourself, sirs.
I stand corrected...it's like trying to debate a 1st grader with a potty mouth
It is obvious to many one-celled life forms that the second Iraq war was a terrible idea.
Which has absolutely squat to do with your bone-headed claim of some proven fact that I've rejected, as its not a fact that it was a terrible idea. Merely an opinion by some. Opinions change, since a majority supported the idea of going into Iraq as a good idea, before we went in.
Again, the post Saddam planning had a boat load of problems, but the rationale, based on both the intel we all were getting, from sources across the globe, coupled with the events of 911, made the idea of taking him out, pretty logical at the time, and hardly some fact of it being a supposed "terrible" idea.
-
The majority were indoctrinated by propaganda and lies. The war was unnecessary and a terrible idea.
The majority once thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that mental illness was caused by demons.
-
...and once again, your opinion, including the uncredible claim of some mass amount of propoganda employed that turned so many into supporters of the war, is duly noted. Just as uncredible as your claim of some ongoing pattern of rejection of proof I've employed. I thank you for your contribution 8)
-
The only proof you have offered is that you are a jive turkey of limited reasoning ability.
-
Your opinion on this matter has been weighed, and found wanting. Thank you for playing...if that's what you can all it
-
If Saddam had not been attacked by the US and coalition, was there hope that there would be peace?
-
Umm....no.
-
If the Saddam regime had been attacked on a monthly or weekly basis with pin point attacks strictly ,(as Clinton was wont to do) would this have led to peace eventually?
-
Alas.....no. But here's a follow-up question....what are your parameters for peace? This kinda gets to the heart of the differing positions folks like myself have, compared to folks like xo. How does one define peace and how does one define "right thing to do"
-
There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr108416.html#qL63PD4bVFxjQhaW.99
-
There was peace, and then Cheney and Bush decided there should be war and together with Tenet they made up a bunch of crap and you swallowed it whole. Uranium from AFRICA! Mushroom CLOUDS! Panic! panic! panic!
You can't even admit that you were stuffed full of crap. You are still full of crap.
-
There was peace, and then Cheney and Bush decided there should be war and together with Tenet they made up a bunch of crap and you swallowed it whole. Uranium from AFRICA! Mushroom CLOUDS! Panic! panic! panic!
Problem with that theory is that there WAS Uranium in Africa, there WAS the threat of Iraq manufacturing an atomic weapon that he could put in a scud and decimate Israel, or some other western leaning Arab country nearby, and the topper that it wasn't just the CIA giving us this information. It was the global community including the intel agencies from the UN, France, & Germany. Now, they concluded that the threat wasn't enough for them to want to do much about it, but the point of this is that in order for the "propaganda theory" to hold any water, Bush had to have been in cahoots with all these other countries and their leaders. Good luck trying to prove that one.....or should I say....panic!..deflect!..panic!
-
There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin
Once again, we're in need of parameters. An oppressive dictatorship can generate a very bad peace. Without WWII, we may all be speaking German or Japanese, so indeed, that was a good war, in that it had to be fought. So it depends on how a person defines Peace
-
Germany with its allies Japan and Italy were a threat to the US,
Iraq was a puny country with a small population and certainly less a threat than North Korea (that I observe we have technically been at war with since 1950). Invading Iraq was unjustified, the WMD's were fictitious, and Cheney lied like Hell and is STILL lying like Hell.
I really doubt that we would be speaking German or Japanese, even if they had won WWII, but WWII posed a threat to the US and Iraq did not.
The first time we attacked Iraq it was supposed to be the "Mother of all Wars". It was anything but. The second time, Iraq was far worse off, and yet Condi claimed they would nuke us, others said they would infect us with weaponized smallpox, anthrax and cholera, and they would gas out troops with mustard gas. It was all pure horseshit. I KNEW it was horseshit, because I lived in Mexico in the 1960's and the government there was deceitful and far better liars than Cheney, Rummy and Juniorbush.
You are incapable of recognizing horseshit even when buried in it up to the eyebrows.
-
Iraq was a puny country with a small population and certainly less a threat than North Korea...I really doubt that we would be speaking German or Japanese, even if they had won WWII, but WWII posed a threat to the US and Iraq did not.
And as has already been explained to you, the issue has never been about what Iraq could do to the Continental U.S., so you can drop that deflective garbage
Invading Iraq was unjustified,
That's one opinion. Many others have seen it differently, and still do, based on the events around that time
the WMD's were fictitious,
No, they weren't. He had before, he had used them before, and most every intelligence agency on the globe still believed he had them
and Cheney lied like Hell and is STILL lying like Hell.
About what....SPECIFICALLY? Facts matter here. If you want your word to mean something, you're gonna have to provide what he's "still lying about", and factually how its a lie (meaning proof that he has said something, that he knew to be false. That's the definition of a lie......NOT that there was an error in what he and everyone else thought/believed at the time)
-
There was peace,
No, Saddams troops were conducting the war at a low level and Clinton was responding on about the same level. One or two bombings a month is not Peace. Saddam did not want peace and didn't have to put up with peace if he didn't want any, there was no peace to protect.... and then Cheney and Bush decided there should be war and together with Tenet they made up a bunch of crap.............................
I don't think so.
This would not explain that the intelligence of Britain or other sorces being in agreement on this subject , there was not full agreement but the preponderance was that Saddam had not changed his habits of the previous three decades.
By the way at one time Saddam had the fouth place largest army in the world , stop calling his country dinky, it was not just large and well funded , he was really busy making it larger and better funded.
-
By the way at one time Saddam had the fouth place largest army in the world , stop calling his country dinky, it was not just large and well funded , he was really busy making it larger and better funded.
That's right...I meant to bring that up as well. Good mention there, Plane
-
The fourth largest army in the world, blah blah blah. The First Iraq War demonstrated what a fearsome bunch of sissies they were.
Saddam's army was wrecked by the first war. It was pretty clear that all the crap we heard was just crap. And you righties swallowed it whole and the truly idiotic among you still believe it.
-
You must mean the crap that this was supposedly about the threat Iraq posed to the US. Yea, alot of crap in those bogus claims
-
The fourth largest army in the world, blah blah blah. The First Iraq War demonstrated what a fearsome bunch of sissies they were.
Saddam's army was wrecked by the first war. It was pretty clear that all the crap we heard was just crap. And you righties swallowed it whole and the truly idiotic among you still believe it.
That is just what the facts are.
In the fighting they did with Iran , hundreds of thousands were killed and maimed over eight years of intense fighting.
That is what happens when the proportions are nearly even, the length and intensity of the war is maximised.
It is easy to propose that disproportionate warfare shortens war, was general Sherman right about that?
-
The Iran-Iraq War was a situation in which one side was armed, and then another, with the purpose of destroying the fighting power of both sides and seeing what sorts of nasty weapons and tactics could prove useful, like electrocution and poison gas.
All that crap about the "fourth largest army" was just that" crap. Iraq was no military threat to the US, which is defended from Iraq by geography. That was just stupid propaganda, like "America's leading detergent" and "America's fastest=growing beer".
-
If you want to keep pushing the defunct idiocy that Iraq was no threat to the continental U.S., you do it in a blanket of ignorance, since only those blinded by Bush hatred are the ones that keep pushing an issue that never was. Not one soul, that supported the war in Iraq, has EVER proclaimed that the reason we went into Iraq was to protect the U.S. from an Iraqi attack. NOT ONE. THAT is crap
-
Then there was no valid reason, was there?
Condi mentioned mushroom clouds. Other prominent shills mentioned anthrax, smallpox, sarin gas, atomic devices of several kinds.
The US is protected from Iraq by geography. Of course, Americans are not all that good at geography, and so the 9-11 attack was what seemed to be used to drum up support for the invasion. The Juniorbushleagers claimed that Saddam's WMD's were the main reason for the war. But there were none.
So those 4000 Americans who died in Iraq were not defending out freedoms? They were not defending our American Way of Life?
It was known that we clearly had plenty of oil. All those soldiers died for nothing. The thousands more that were wounded, did so for naught. It was all a huge fiasco and the only Americans that benefited were those who made the weapons, and a few children who will now be supported by the government because one or more parents were killed ij this stupid, senseless war, a war you still support.
As I said, it was a stupid idea that resulted in far more deaths of Iraqis than anything Saddam was likely to do. It made refugees out of Christian Iraqis, it started a civil war, and made ISIS possible. It cost a fortune in weapons.
It should never have been done.
-
Then there was no valid reason, was there?
Yes there was, (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18245.msg158416#msg158416) and has been repetatively explained (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18245.msg158483#msg158483), that you routinely ignore
But as is said, you ignore it in your own blanket of ignorance, since it was never about what Iraq could do to the U.S. Mushroom clouds were specific to the region, especially the risk to Israel which was within scud range, and the chance that TERRORISTS could get their hands on some of the other WMD that Iraq was believed to have, and use them in the U.S......NOT the Iraqi government itself.
But by all means, continue to shine a big bright spotlight on that blinding level of ignorance
-
So now you say that the US invaded Iraq to prevent Israel from getting nuked? Is that what you are saying?
Or was it that we invaded Iraq to protect Saddam's alleged, yet non existent WMD's from being swiped by "terrorists"?
I suggest that in your feeble attempt to support a useless and expensive fiasco of a war you are flailing aimlessly about, grasping at straws, as you sink into the quicksand of illogic.
The war was a terrible idea, and those who died in it did not die in defense of their country, they died for nothing, they were wounded for nothing, their children were orphaned for nothing.
-
So now you say that the US invaded Iraq to prevent Israel from getting nuked? Is that what you are saying?
No, not what I'm saying. Boy, for a lingustics professor, you have a hard time grapsing what other's clearly say. I demonstrated the context in which Condi was using the term Mushroom cloud.
Or was it that we invaded Iraq to protect Saddam's alleged, yet non existent WMD's from being swiped by "terrorists"?
Yes, we went in to take out the risk that Saddam could offload some of those WMD's that WERE existant at one time, and that most everyone still believed he had.
so, again your OPINION on the idea for going into Iraq, is duly noted
-
Not most everyone, just those who were afraid to be lambasted by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld.
Congress did not vote to invade Iraq: they voted to grant Juniorbush the power to do so. Perhaps some thought that this would serve to scare Saddam into backing down. Such people apparently did not realize what a blockhead Saddam was. Or Juniorbush, either, for that matter.
-
Not most everyone, just those who were afraid to be lambasted by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld.
Wow...such low disregard to folks like Clinton, Gore, and most of the Democrat party :o
Congress did not vote to invade Iraq: they voted to grant Juniorbush the power to do so.
....and.....? You seriously think they did that, with the expectation that Bush wouldn't follow thru on being provided the authorization?? Face it professor, your propaganda theory is nothing but bull crud. Bush, of all people, given your folks continued lambasting his supposed lack of intellect, a so-called "block head", would have to have been the most incredible global master manipulator, to get all these other countries to "buy in" to what he was peddling, that even though he apparently knew Saddam had no WMD, (proof of such an accusation not required apparently either), that Saddam did still have WMD, even convincing a majority of the Democrat party, who hated his guts to begin with, to buy into it. Good lord, one has to laugh just thinking about it ;D
Sorry, what you're left to deal with is reality.....the reality that the global intel community believed Saddam still had his WMD, and following 911, Congress, including a majority of the Democrats provided Bush the authority to do what he believed needed to be done, to prevent some of those WMD getting in the hands of terrorists, who had just murdered 2000 of our citizens, with mere box cutters.
end of story
-
Only the Brits bought into the invasion, and some puny countries that were clearly bribed. The whole WMD tale was incredibly phony, but 9-11 turned Americans into would-be Rambos and they wanted vengeance.
It was a terrible mistake, and all those killed and wounded, deranged and deformed paid a horrible price for nothing.
-
We're not talking about who bought into the invasion, Professor deflection. We're talking into who "bought into" if Saddam had WMD or not. THAT was the justification for any subsequent invasion
But by all means, demonstrate this proof that Bush alone knew there we no WMD, and managed to convince, not just nearly every other country's Government, including the UN that he had them, but also how this supposed blockhead managed to bamboozle all those other intelligence agencies into buying into it as well
We all wait with baited breath
-
As I said, it was a stupid idea that resulted in far more deaths of Iraqis than anything Saddam was likely to do.
I think you underestimate the propensity of Saddam to kill his own and his neighbors pretty steadily.
Did we really surpass the toll Saddam had already run up? Let alone surpass the mischief he was still liable to do?
I think we didn't. I will look.
-
You would have to look up the number of Iraqis Saddam killed, and come up with an annual average, then come up with an annual average of those killed as a result of the invasion.
I am pretty sure that the total is higher after the invasion.
We did not, by the way, invade Iraq to save Iraqi lives. It was all about the WMD's, you know, the ones no one ever found.
-
We did not, by the way, invade Iraq to save Iraqi lives. It was all about the WMD's, you know, the ones no one ever found.
...although most believed they did, supported by intelligence agencies across the globe
So, how that proof Bush knew there were no WMD but bamboozled everyone into believing Saddam did, coming along? Don't worry, no one's holding their breath
-
You would have to look up the number of Iraqis Saddam killed, and come up with an annual average, then come up with an annual average of those killed as a result of the invasion.
I am pretty sure that the total is higher after the invasion.
We did not, by the way, invade Iraq to save Iraqi lives. It was all about the WMD's, you know, the ones no one ever found.
Why per year?
Does the statute of limitation on mass murders expire that fast?
Should I really leave out the Kuwaitis and Iranians that Saddam is responsible for killing?
Hey , I even want to count the communist party that Saddam practically wiped out early in his career.
Saddam racked up a very high score over thirty years, and he and his sons seemed set to keep at it indefinitely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
-
The war cost both sides in lives and economic damage: half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers, with an equivalent number of civilians, are believed to have died, with many more injured; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Man this is a long article , more detail than anyone this side of the War College would need.
....
Human rights organizations have documented government-approved executions, acts of torture and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.
......
According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14]
Of nearly 2 million refugees created by the 1991 crackdown on dissent, it is estimated that 1,000 died every day for a period of months due to unsanitary and inhumane conditions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq
Saddam didn't leave us precise records for everything he was up to , these estimates are probably the best I will find, other estimates seem just as valid even though the math is different, so I will look again ,sometime.
So the number of Dead Saddam Hussein can be held responsible for is a hazy estimate with a floor of one million and an upper side that could be four million .
Can I count the starvation death caused by sanctions? There isn't a reliable count on these either , but because they died for the sake of the continuation of Saddam's regime I feel that these also deserve mention.
-
1990-1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Casualties
The exact number of Iraqi combat casualties is unknown, but is believed to have been heavy. Some estimate that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000 fatalities.[126] A report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force, estimated 10,000–12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign, and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war.[129] This analysis is based on Iraqi prisoner of war reports.
......................
The DoD reports that U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths (35 to friendly fire[139]), with one pilot listed as MIA (his remains were found and identified in August 2009). A further 145 Americans died in non-combat accidents.[130] The U.K. suffered 47 deaths (9 to friendly fire, all by U.S. forces), France 2,[130] and the other countries, not including Kuwait, suffered 37 deaths (18 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 6 UAE, and 3 Qataris).[130] At least 605 Kuwaiti soldiers were still missing 10 years after their capture.[140]
The number of Coalition wounded in combat seems to have been 776, including 458 Americans.
According to the Project on Defense Alternatives study, between 20,000 and 26,000 Iraqi military personnel were killed in the conflict while 75,000 others were wounded.[125]
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
2003 till present.
Estimates of Iraqi casualties due to this war are very imprecise.
Ranging from one million to only one hundred thousand. "only" can be a ridiculous word in this context.
As of 23 October 2011, hostile-fire deaths accounted for 3,777 of the 4,799 total coalition military deaths.
Yes this is a lot of hurt , but in terms of warfare not especially so.
-
I am going to call it .
Saddam Hussein was responsible for more deaths during the times that he was not actively at war with the US than he was during the time that he was actively at war with the US.
Combining the casualties of US action altogether does not enter the same order of magnitude of the toll required to keep Saddam in power.
Even though the numbers are hazy , there is so much difference that there is no doubt that Saddam was so destructive that the price paid to keep him would be higher than the price paid to depose him.
If he is indeed replaced with worse , there would be good reason to over throw that too, wouldn't there be?
-
We did not, by the way, invade Iraq to save Iraqi lives. It was all about the WMD's, you know, the ones no one ever found.
I do not think this true.
WMDS were one justification of several.
It may be the only one critics can remember, and it was important .
But Saddam was participating in the misinformation, there were a lot of very creditable people who thought Saddam had plenty of WMD already.
And everyone that knows anything about Saddam would guess that when the sanction was lifted , the Iraqi WMD machine would resume right where it had left off.
Other stated reasons for the invasion included Iraq's financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers,[65] Iraqi government human rights abuses,[66] and an effort to spread democracy to the country.[67][68]
......................................................................................
After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.?led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[58] Only degraded remnants of misplaced and abandoned chemical weapons were found.[59] Paul R. Pillar, the CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, said "If prewar intelligence assessments had said the same things as the Duelfer report, the administration would have had to change a few lines in its rhetoric and maybe would have lost a few member's votes in Congress, but otherwise the sales campaign—which was much more about Saddam's intentions and what he "could" do than about extant weapons systems—would have been unchanged. The administration still would have gotten its war." Even Dick Cheney later cited the actual Duelfer report as support for the administration's pro-war case.[60]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
-
Great support of links and facts to back up the claims, Plane. We could all take a lesson and learn
-
Juniorbush wanted to invade, no matter what the facts were. It was not a rational decision, and the facts were fudged.
Americans were killed and maimed for no good reason.
The US does not have any obligation to depose evil dictators by force. The American people will not abide this again.
The war was fought for emotional, not rational reasons, poorly managed and with no plans for withdrawal.
-
Your opinion on this matter keeps getting squashed by facts to the contrary, unfortunately.
for instance, and subtracting the notion of it supposedly being an irrational decision, when it was nothing of the sort:
- What factual support is there to make a claim that Bush was going to invade, no matter what?
- What facts were "fudged", and the corroborating proof they were "fudged"
Plane just demonstrated how well his word can be taken, because he was able to back up his commentary/opinion with actual facts. Can you?
-
Great support of links and facts to back up the claims, Plane. We could all take a lesson and learn
Wicipedia has one fault here, detail and length , there is just so much it would make a book.
But of course it is the nature of the internet .
-
Juniorbush wanted to invade, no matter what the facts were. It was not a rational decision, and the facts were fudged.
Americans were killed and maimed for no good reason.
The US does not have any obligation to depose evil dictators by force. The American people will not abide this again.
The war was fought for emotional, not rational reasons, poorly managed and with no plans for withdrawal.
I think dictators should feel at risk because of our nature, the people of the US are really seldom eager for war, but they can be persuaded to fight for good reason.
So rulers should try to avoid looking like villains while we are around.
That is how to be a good influence.
There have been examples of US power exercised for aggrandizement and this has to be avoided , I would join the opposition if I thought the main reason for a war was benefit to plutocracy.
But I don't join the crew when the call is for the US to become less strong, that is really moving backwards into war.
-
Recent wars have benefited the oligarchy more than anyone else. The secondary benefits have gone to military officers, who have gained actual combat experience sand some promotions. Other than that, the tertiary beneficiaries are people making and selling flags and desert camo. Civilians seemed to have stopped buying actual Humvees, which are quite useful for their intended purpose, but not really all that useful for taking Becky Sue to ballet class. People who make and sell guns probably would have done okay anyway, since so many were frightened by President Obama that they felt a need to triple their number of firearms.
-
Let's try this again, to see if we can't transition it from mere hard core liberal opinion to an actual reality
- What factual support is there to make a claim that Bush was going to invade, no matter what?
- What facts were "fudged", and the corroborating proof they were "fudged"?
-
...in which an apparent disclaimer must be provided in that this isn't any "demand" that any question be answered. Merely trying to assist the poster in joining the realm of debate, by backing up their claims.
or by all means, don't, and keep said claims in the realm of leftist opinion, devoid of any actual facts to back them up. I'm fine with either option
-
There was no uranium purchase, there were no WMD's, there was no threat of mushroom clouds, there was no weaponized bacteria, there was no poison gas, but every newscast had extensive reports on how horrible all those things really are. It was all unfounded speculation drummed up in the press for maximum heebie jeebies. Polls show that a huge number of people thought that invading Iraq was retribution for 9-11.
I knew it was crap. But the American public was seriously indoctrinated.
-
...........
I knew it was crap.
How?
Saddam and his regime and his labs and his military machine had really done each and all of these things in the past, proof being plentiful that in 91 he had a massive WMD effort underway.
When Saddam and his cronies had a curtain drawn how was it safe and sure that total innocence alone was occurring behind the curtain?
-
I knew it was crap. But the American public was seriously indoctrinated.
When you can demonstrate that the vast majority of the Democrats, and nearly every other intelligence agency was equally indoctrinated, and how so, then you might have a credible leg to stand on
-
...........
I knew it was crap.
How?
There is no answer to that question, Plane. In fact, you might even be accused of demanding an answer. There's the Professor's say so, supported by "obviously".....and that's pretty much it
-
...........
I knew it was crap.
How?
There is no answer to that question, Plane. ..................
Credit where it is due, even if it was entirely instinct , the truth popped up squarely in the middle of it.
If there was a logic involved < at the time> I completely missed it.
So "how" seems like a legitimate question to me.
If it is just always being against the Republican position , that is right like a stopped clock, Republicans are human and will be wrong now and then, so being always contrary will result in the twice a day variety of right.
If I missed something that I should have caught , perhaps I should be examining my own prejudices, I hate to think that I always agree with Republican official platform, that is just as "stopped clock" as any other means of avoiding real thought.
-
Oh, it's absolutely a legitimate question. Only that any answer will be either an opinion, devoid of any facts to support it, or a non-answer.
But it's definitely a legitimate question....one I've been asking many a time, when asking for even 1 supportive fact to support the claim that the WMD was all a hoax and/or how all these other countries, their leaders, their intel agencies, and the majority of the political Democrats in this country, most of whom hated Bush to begin with, were all duped by this supposed blockhead
All I get in return is spin, "well it's obvious", or my favorite, "I could present you with the facts, but you'd just ignore them anyways"
-
I realize that it is difficult to avoid making it personal when there are so few of us involved in this discussion.
But it really is not personal.
XO is not the only guy that thinks exactly this, he is one of millions.
Unfortunately for us , only one of them exhibits enough tolerance and persistence to be here and now discussing this with us.
There may be others , but until we find them lets be appreciative of what we have.
XO is not just remarkably persistent, he is also generous.
-
I agree with your take on the Professor, but my comments are not specific to him. It's a consistent pattern I see in most every hard core liberal I come across, both friend, and not so much a friend
So, in other words, its not personal to me. It just is, what it is.....or should I say, "obvious" ;)
-
I knew it was crap because of the way that various people in the administration spoke about it. Their stories did not line up, but their conclusions did.
Rather than say that Saddam was offering to buy yellowcake ore from Niger, they all said "Uranium ore from Africa". No one dared to be precise, because the pe=recision could have sent reporters off to that one single country, where all the wheelers and dealers are well known. There are, on the other hand, 57 nations in Aftica, counting the island nations, and there are several types of Uranium ore.
I lived in Mexico during the late 60s, when the government lied all the time. To know what was going on, you had to read between the lines, paying special attention to exactly what they din NOT say. They phrased things so they could later claim that they were misquoted.
It is like when you are buying a used car, and the owner is obviously covering up a bunch of stuff. You know he is lying, because things jest do not line up.
I find this is useful when deciding which mutual funds to buy. I read very carefully what is being left out.
When Duracell says that no battery has a longer life than Duracell, for example. Most people hear this and think that it means that Duracell is better than all the others. But that is not what they are saying. What they are saying is in reality that there is one or more competing brands that is equal in longevity. This means that you find out which the other equal performing brands are (Everready and Rayovac) and you buy the cheapest (Rayovac).
Liars try very hard to try not to sound like liars, and by listening carefully, you know when they are lying and where to look for the truth.
-
and yet....in this apparent ocean of liars, still not one supported proof of anyone actually lying.
You do realize that not finding WMD that most everyone & every intelligence agency thought was there isn't the same as lying, right?? Lying is KNOWING one thing, but doing/saying something to the contrary......like..."If you like your Dr. or if you like your insurance, you can keep it...period"
-
Yeah sirs, unless they are forced to take the stand and break down in tears and admit they were lying morons, then they were not really lyiong. It is not my gfault that you lack the ability to recognize bullshit.
I do not give a flying fuck whether admit that you and the repulsive Republicans all have shit smeared all over your faces or not. All I am saying is that I know it it there, I knew it from the start. I knew Dick Cheney was a lying thief from the get go.
-
To know what was going on, you had to read between the lines, paying special attention to exactly what they din NOT say. They phrased things so they could later claim that they were misquoted.
This is very interesting.
I try to weight what I hear with experience also, but my experiences are quite different from yours .
Sometimes I might fail because I have weighted wrongly , but I can't just accept what I hear without coloring it .
I like to think I am giving evaluation and independent thought to the news , then I like to get your take on it .
Not because I will agree with your thought, that would waste our time , I already agree with myself, seeking people I agree with to affirm myself is just avoiding a deep look into the subject.
Getting a well thought out disagreement is golden, firstly it makes it less likely that I will simply indulge my prejudices and accept a stupidity without examining it.
(Obviously it doesn't become impossible , less likely is all I dare claim.)
Because I am planning to present an idea to a contrarian, I am more prone to examine it critically myself , then if it still has a glairing error, an opponent will pry it out to my embarrassment and benefit.
Secondly , a differing point of view opens ideas I might never have for myself at all without the assist. Or if I did think of the idea , I might assign a totally different importance to the array of facts and opinions so that the same information can support a reversed conclusion.
Someone with a different skillset a different experience base and a different means of thought doesn't affirm my thinking , he hones it.
In this group XO seems to disagree with me the most, isn't this a gem I should treasure?
Ok , I love to be agreed with also, that is just not what I am talking about now.
-
Yeah sirs, unless they are forced to take the stand and break down in tears and admit they were lying morons, then they were not really lyiong. It is not my gfault that you lack the ability to recognize bullshit.
I do not give a flying fuck whether admit that you and the repulsive Republicans all have shit smeared all over your faces or not. All I am saying is that I know it it there, I knew it from the start. I knew Dick Cheney was a lying thief from the get go.
Oh, I recognize BS quite well. I'm usually having to bring my broom with me, following one of your epic accusatory rants...devoid of any reason, but lots of passion, I'll grant you that.
Words mean things. Lying has a specific definition to it. To lie, means one must know something but say/do the opposite, with intent to deceive.
Your propaganda theory is complete BS, as it you've produced nothing but your say, and lacks not a shred of logic, given the amount of folks, outside the U.S. that also supported the notion that Iraq still had their WMD.
Your Bush/Cheney lied accusation is equally lacking in both facts and logic. Made all the more so, when you and others perseverate about Iraq being unable to attack the U.S., demonstrating how desperate you are to debunk a claim never made
Your "Bush would have invaded regardless" is also sadly lacking any sense of credible support to bolster such a hyperbolic accusation. Just your apparent know-better than others, say so
You can say anything you want, have any opinion you want, proclaim that the sky is green all you want. None of that makes any of that, or claims of massive lying by Bush & co. accurate or true. H was close to what was really going on....that Bush weighed the intel he was given, and although there was some question with contrary intel, the overwhelming predominance of intel won out, and that's what they used to go into Iraq. He at least could support that position with facts. You have yet to produce....ANYTHING, outside of your "obvious" say so
-
I am happy with the quality of XOs answer.
There are times when it is the minority that is right.
I think Saddam did what he could to maintain the illusion that he was hyperpotent with WMD, had me snowed and a majority of my government and a majority of the world actually.
XO being right in a big way may seem strange, but he was.
I am going to get tired of arguing that I was wrong for better reasons than he was right.
-
Your "Bush would have invaded regardless" is .........................
I am not certain and I have no evidence .
But I hope he would have.
Would you turn your back on an enemy to fight a smaller enemy?
Saddam was ordering his AA batteries to fire at our aircraft months after we had demonstrated that this was not working.
I think that it would have been stupid to attack Afghanistan without reducing the threat on the flank that Saddam represented.
If he was so eager to stab at us in ways that cost him trained AA radar operators and expensive missile launchers , I imagine him not passing up a chance to truly cost us by cutting our extended lines of supply that would be running within his reach.
-
You definitely make the case for justification, but without authorization from Congress, all he would have likely done was a repetitive, if not ramped-up, air campaign
-
I am happy with the quality of XOs answer.
Oh, don't get me wrong....I am too. They so often validate points others have been making, present company included 8)
-
I am happy with the quality of XOs answer.
Oh, don't get me wrong....I am too. They so often validate points others have been making, present company included 8)
Well channel Dr. Skinner and positively reinforce !
-
You definitely make the case for justification, but without authorization from Congress, all he would have likely done was a repetitive, if not ramped-up, air campaign
Clinton kept air superiority, and Bush did also.
That has to be the minimum.
-
Yea, that would have been the minimum, but minus the events of 911, my bet is that would have been the maximum as well