Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
A lot fewer people would have died, had we not invaded Germany during The Second World War, too. Was FDR a war criminal? Oh...wait...he was a Libbo...of course he wasn't.
Uhhh...why would I want to do that? You seem very defensive.
Yeah. When I said that about insurgents in Iraq being responsible for the people they killed, you just said it was the responsibility of Americans. This would be an opportunity to correct that.
Yeah...no, I don't think that has any basis in logic whatsoever.
So if the US accidentally went to war....?
Ahh. Your subjective judgment is proper. One of those guys, I see.
Right, so inconsistency.
Do you think there's any chance that you're quicker to ascribe responsibility for all things negative in Iraq on the US because you disagreed with the war? Any chance at all?
I mean, as we have this conversation, you're having a very difficult time separating those two concepts (responsibility as an idea and the Iraq war) . I wouldn't be surprised at all if in your next post you say you can't separate them because they're part of the same issue. But we were talking about people/organizations being responsible for the acts they do in a general sense, and had gotten away from the specifics. The topic of people/organizations being responsible for the acts they do is something that can be discussed without mentioning Iraq, the US, or even the idea of war at all, you know.
You seem to have extremely strong feelings for this, and I'm gonna have to suggest that maybe your feelings tint your analysis here. Much like Iraqis I've talked to that blamed everything on Saddam; they hated Saddam, so they found ways to justify in their minds that anything bad ultimately came back on him, and was his responsibility. The similarity is striking.
A "poor tactic" is tying John McCain to George Bush. An even poorer tactic is saying Sarah Palin lacked experience, when Hussein's resume was just as sparse.No one's crying. Yet another poor tactic.
Lots and lots more. Liberals live for this kind of thing, especially since your guy is such a crappy president.The threat asked a question. I answered it. Others responded. Nothing more.
And Benghazi will forever be Hussein's. The only difference is, we won't be hammering you guys with it four years from now.And while I note things I disagree with ths president concerning the two wars, Iraq will forever be Bush's, even when a republican finally regains office. There's no way around that.
A "poor tactic" is tying John McCain to George Bush. An even poorer tactic is saying Sarah Palin lacked experience, when Hussein's resume was just as sparse.
Lots and lots more. Liberals live for this kind of thing, especially since your guy is such a crappy president.
And Benghazi will forever be Hussein's. The only difference is, we won't be hammering you guys with it four years from now.
The Left did, and you're part of that group.I didn't bring these two up.
That's what the liberal media fed you.But if your asking me about n them, MCCain ran a poor campaign. Selecting Palin was perhaps his largest mistake, not because she was inexperienced, but because she came across poorly, bordering on ignorant.
The Left did, and you're part of that group.
That's what the liberal media fed you.
I think you do. You just don't like reading it.I have idea what your saying here.
Only because I think he's responsible.If you could you would.
It's just a matter of time...Remember how long Clinton was blamed. But you're going to actually have to she something real with Benghazi. Bush's act was real.
All liberals deserve to be treated equally. When I speak to one of you, I speak to the entire collective.No, I'm an individual. Treat me as such.
I'm telling it like it is, and you know it.And no, that's what happened. You're just trying to excuse it away.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061935839 said:How many died in LBJ's (Democrat) Vietnam?
More than 1 million Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans.
No wonder he didn't run for reelection. Washed his hands, sealed his fate.
Touting the 1 million figure, years after it has been debunked, is willful ignorance.
No invasion, no insurgents. Do you understand the concept of shared responsibility?
But, the fact is, no no invasion, no insurgents.
I disagree with the war because of the negative things I mention. If we had not invaded on a pretext, I would have been opposed. If we hadn't been reckless, there would be nothing for me to object over. If we had told the truth, I couldn't criticize the honest. Do you understand this?
BTW, pretending ignorance to what I said doesn't make you accurate about consistency.
No invasion, no insurgents. Do you understand the concept of shared responsibility?
But, the fact is, no no invasion, no insurgents.
I disagree with the war because of the negative things I mention. If we had not invaded on a pretext, I would have been opposed. If we hadn't been reckless, there would be nothing for me to object over. If we had told the truth, I couldn't criticize the honest. Do you understand this?
BTW, pretending ignorance to what I said doesn't make you accurate about consistency.
While he inherited the war, Nixon continued it and twice the number of servicemen died while he was President as under Johnson. No wonder he resigned.
I'm not inclined to see the wars as LBJ's war or Reagan's war but realistically as "War is good business, and let's get some going." I see it as the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex's war or for example, Iraq, as the Well-Oiled Corporate Military/Industrial Complex's war. Now we acknowledge the very capitalist push to profit from war and, of course, if you are in the armaments or military supply line, then war is good business and let's gin up more of it. That's not some subliminal force, it's the real world of profit and loss. Syria, War is good business, and business is lookin' good." Eh? By the same measures, Republicans seem to be owned by more War corporations than Democrats, but both are bought and sold. We don't have any business being involved in Syria, just as we had no real business being involved in Iraq, excepting the OIL that is.
Why don't they tell us about the deaths anymore like they used to when Bush was the president?
The Bush administration started the policy of flying dead US soldiers into Dover Air Force Base in the middle of the night so no one would notice. The Bush Admin was the creator of "We don't do body counts" by the Military. The Bush admin worked non stop to prevent any real body counts and spread ambiguity instead. That is why there is so much dispute because they were real masters of misinformation. Sorta like Obama on NSA.
I must have. They are comparable, because war is war. You can't throw aside the historical facts that don't agree with your argument. THAT is what they call "revisionist history".Did you missed the part where I showed those two are not comparable?
A picture of a coin with .01 - .02 Cents scrap value. Clad copper. Supposed to be worth a quarter dollar. Imagery sells. Is that the message. Nothing is what it seems. Fiat money now referred to as a medium of exchange because it has no intrinsic value. It's all sort of like grabbing a handful of smoke. You might be able to smell it, but there ain't nothin' there.
I asked a specific question. Why aren't they giving us the body count anymore? None of what you stated above addresses this problem. Why are they hiding the deaths now? Are the deaths of our soldiers any LESS important because of who the president happens to be?
What are you talking about? Not only is there no "hiding" of the death count, there is no ban on photos of the dead returning home either. You must be reading right wing garbage.
I think you do. You just don't like reading it.
Only because I think he's responsible.
It's just a matter of time...
All liberals deserve to be treated equally. When I speak to one of you, I speak to the entire collective.
I'm telling it like it is, and you know it.
Did you even read the list given for why we invaded Iraq? It was very large and extensive and it was passed through a democratic congress here in the good ole' USA so why don't people stop skirting the responsibility for the Iraqi invasion (if that's what we want to call it since what the **** is his name brought it upon himself). There were MULTIPLE reasons given for why we went into Iraq, the US as a whole gave its support for it. You cannot get around that. It is edged in stone. So why don't we as Americans finally take responsibility for something we (for the most part) were all behind? We supported it. There weren't too many people here who didn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?