I've heard the argument, McG, that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan "saved lives" by shortening the war. The lives lost by that action were, apparently, of less value than the ones that would have been lost had the war continued.
More to the point, I don't think that was a great analogy, if you intended it to be. We were in a war with Japan started by that country's attack on Pearl Harbor. Saddam never attacked us.
We invaded a sovereign country on the alleged premise that they had WMD's which posed an imminent threat to our security, and that they had been complicit in the 911 attack against us. Bush et al received information from several sources suggesting reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of either of those premises, but his mind was made up, probably long before 911. The agenda had been set, and nothing was going to stop them.
That they could send American soldiers to die in a war for oil (and revenge) and lie to them by saying, as soldiers, they were protecting Americans against another 911 is despicable. Bush lovers will never see that, which is why I often feel as if I'm wasting my time dialoguing on this issue. The next four years, however, should erase any doubt as to the dire consequences of Bush's extremist agenda.
Au, thanks for the links.
So many long-time allies, allies who have fought and died alongside Americans, allies who believe in freedon and democracy but are opposed to unwarranted aggression, so many are so strongly opposed to this current American regime. It should make people wonder why, but for some it's preferable to just demonize them and dismiss their criticism rather than face the truth.
Angie, you demonstrated an utter lack of reading comprehension. You answered a suggestion that a comparison you'd made was absurd, by rattling on about why you think the war was wrong.
Why bother quoting my words, if you're just going to pick out individual words for launching points to hysterical hyper-partisan blathering?
Whatever.
As much as I try to avoid personal insults, it's YOU who obviously cannot read/comprehend.
But I do agree with your closing comment, and I'll offer my own"whatever."
Congratulations to OCCOMBILL! That was the one-millionth time you've used the word "hyper-partisan!" The term is now officially meaningless! Everyone please give Bill a round of applause! I'll present you with your brand new Thesaurus at the Society for Stale Hackneyed Expressions Award Banquet next week. I hope you'll put it to good use.
why yes, bill. try something new...
from now on, use "uber-partisan". that wood bookend quite nicely with my over use of "uber-patriot".
cjhsa wrote:I wonder what the Democrats would have done if Kerry had won. I'll go on record to say it probably would have been about the same.
Memo to cj's children:
The next time your dad tries to punish you for misbehaving, remember that "Everyone else does it!" is now considered to be an appropriate defense.
angie wrote:I've heard the argument, McG, that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan "saved lives" by shortening the war. The lives lost by that action were, apparently, of less value than the ones that would have been lost had the war continued.
More to the point, I don't think that was a great analogy, if you intended it to be. We were in a war with Japan started by that country's attack on Pearl Harbor. Saddam never attacked us.
We invaded a sovereign country on the alleged premise that they had WMD's which posed an imminent threat to our security, and that they had been complicit in the 911 attack against us. Bush et al received information from several sources suggesting reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of either of those premises, but his mind was made up, probably long before 911. The agenda had been set, and nothing was going to stop them.
That they could send American soldiers to die in a war for oil (and revenge) and lie to them by saying, as soldiers, they were protecting Americans against another 911 is despicable. Bush lovers will never see that, which is why I often feel as if I'm wasting my time dialoguing on this issue. The next four years, however, should erase any doubt as to the dire consequences of Bush's extremist agenda.
Angie.
Why did we drop the atom bombs on Japan?
Our intelligence at the time suggested that an invasion of Japan would
probably end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Our intelligence showed that the Japanese were ready to fight to the death. Their kamikaze pilots demonstrated that repeatedly in the Pacific.
We decided on a course of action based on the intelligence we had. The same as what we did in Iraq. We based our actions on the intelligence we had.
I'm rather partial to hyper-partisan and do not intend to abandon it as long as it continues to by appropriate. While I long for the day it won't be appropriate, I harbor little hope it's coming. Uber-partisan just won't roll off my tongue the same way, sorry.
PDiddie wrote:Memo to cj's children:
The next time your dad tries to punish you for misbehaving, remember that "Everyone else does it!" is now considered to be an appropriate defense.
That's just stupid and inappropriate.
We all have favored terms of endearment. I'm partial to uber-dickwad myself. To each his own.
McG wrote: "We decided on a course of action based on the intelligence we had. The same as what we did in Iraq. We based our actions on the intelligence we had. "
This is exactly what the Bushies want and need you to believe. After all, how could they ever be at fault about anything? Let's blame the CIA. (Or better yet, let's blame Clinton.)
I believe, as do many, that Bush fully intended to invade Iraq before 911, and after 911, he actively SOUGHT a way to connect the two. Richard Clark et al clearly expressed their doubts to Bush, but one way or another, Bush was going to have his "reason" to invade. There was never any definitive proof of the existence of WMD's, which there ought to have been before he sent our young people off to die.
I think it's despicable, but not surprising, that the Bushies are blaming their "mistake" re WMD's on faulty intelligence. But consider this: now that the reason for the invasion has been adjusted from "WMD's/imminent threat" to "nation building", are we supposed to assume that, if Bush had known for certain that there were no WMD's (and had chosen not to outright lie and say there were), that he would STILL have invaded Iraq in order to "spread freedom"?
Bush needed his excuse, he sold the WMD thing to the American public, he grossly miscalculated vis a vis "mission accomplished", and because of his arrogant, unilateral, agenda-driven, ill-planned invasion, Iraq has been utterly destabilized and we are left with a serious, expensive, long-term quagmire.
McG, I know you sincerely believe in Bush's good intentions (perhaps at this point you have to), and nothing I or anyone else says here will change your mind, but IMO, everything points to those intentions not being sincere or honorable, I and millions here and abroad trust absolutely nothing he says, and my mind will certainly not be changed either.
p.s. I don't know much about the intelligence reports re Japan during WWII. But, as I said, we were attacked by and at war with Japan, so I don't think the analogy works.
Anyway, always "fun".
Now I'm off to shovel the seemingly endless white stuff in front of my house for the third time tonight.
Uberdickwad is kind of catchy.
Angie, do you know that the intelligence about Iraq was just as faulty in 1991? It turned out they were MUCH closer to having an atomic bomb than anyone thought.
Yeah, but let's not kid ourselves. They wanted this war before they had any excuses for it. Everything else is just post-war rationalizing.
FreeDuck wrote:Yeah, but let's not kid ourselves. They wanted this war before they had any excuses for it. Everything else is just post-war rationalizing.
It was really nice of Mr. Hussein to cooperate with their plans.
All he had to do was keep being the uberdickwad that he was. Do you think there is something he could have done that would have prevented war? I mean in 2002-2003, so don't come out swinging with "he could have destroyed his weapons, not gassed his own people, etc..."
You mean like give the UN inspectors unfettered access to ALL the places in Iraq they wanted?
That probably would have worked.
Well, he hadn't kicked them out, and they were reporting improved access.
FreeDuck wrote:Yeah, but let's not kid ourselves. They wanted this war before they had any excuses for it. Everything else is just post-war rationalizing.
Only if you consider 9-11 an excuse for it... and you don't. Do you mean since before they took office? Like, perhaps since 1998 when Iraq stopped complying with her obligations completely, threw out the inspectors so it became impossible to know if she was building WMD and started firing on our planes? No, that would justify it and that's certainly not post-war rationalizing... so I guess I don't follow you. I would agree with you if you said Bush& Co did a lousy job of overselling this war, but you won't settle for that and want to believe that's why I back it, too. NO. That is simply not true.
I can tell you I, for one, wanted the war resumed when it became clear that Iraq wasn't living up to their obligations in the early 90's... You are mistaken if you think that everyone who is pro-war, is so because they're absorbing or have absorbed Bush Press releases. Many of us had read more justification for the war before Bush was elected than Bush's speechwriters have produced since. It is this type of elitist condescension that incises thinking republicans. Surely you could argue your points without assuming your opposition was spoon-fed their argument by the "Second Rate Caesar" in the Oval Office.
O'Bill, it's pretty clear that your reasons for being for the war and this admin's reasons are not one in the same. And I would elaborate as to what I meant by my post, but you've already decided that not only do you know what I meant but you completely understand my position and that I've insulted you and whoever else with those three sentences. So, keep on spinning. I'm just enjoying your creativity.
