@okie,
okie wrote:I do not think the arguments about creating more terrorists have to depend upon the chosen causes of entering a war, oe, as I have pointed out, it hinges upon whether the populace there perceives the actions of war to be taken against innocent people, or not even innocent people necessarily, it hinges upon the idea that waging war makes those people more angry, and the people that support them more angry.
I agree.
okie wrote:True, and do not mistake me for agreeing with the left, I am simply using their past arguments of logic against their own positions, which includes you.
It doesn't.
However, if you feel that I've held, in the past, the position you're presenting here, feel free to link to a post where I have made those statements.
okie wrote:That is the point, and it creates more terrorists, that according to your side's argument against Bush, and I repeat, I am simply turning the same reasoning onto Obama. I am encouraging lefties to be consistent.
Very nice of you. Well, to honor your request, I assume I'm going to criticize the Obama administration similar to the Bush administration if it ends up implementing a similar policy in Pakistan that Bush implemented in Iraq.
However, I can also point you to my posts where I have said that, in my opinion, now that Iraq has been invaded and occupied, the United States are largely responsible for the reconstruction. I have the same opinion in regard to Afghanistan, with the caveat that invading and occupying Afghanistan was more of an international effort to begin with, and the reconstruction effort should be structured in a similar way.
okie wrote:Quote:You'll certainly be able to point out which contradiction you're referring to. So far, I haven't seen you even trying to make that case.
That is a subject in itself, but just a couple for starters. [unrelated stuff]
I'm sorry, that wasn't clear enough. Let me rephrase it: You'll certainly be able to point out which contradiction in regard to the policy Obama is implementing in Afghanistan and Pakistan you're referring to. So far, I haven't seen you even trying to make that case.
okie wrote:I understand it perfectly. It was political, it was because they did not want Bush to succeed. They did not like the man, and they began to build a case against Bush from the time he was elected in his first term.
Maybe true in America. I'm not entirely sure, but it's my impression that the rest of the world is less obsessed with which political party is in charge of the White House. The opposition to Bush grew as it became apparent that the neocons were bent on invading Iraq, in spite of the fact that Saddam was not connected to the 9/11 attacks.
I understand, though, that every opposition to a specific politician can be interpreted as merely political opposition, no matter how seriously he actually messes things up.
okie wrote:It is hypocrisy when the criticisms leveled against Bush are not used against Obama for doing the very same thing.
That is certainly true. You'll certainly be able to back up those claims.
okie wrote:I think Obama himself criticized Bush for innocent people dying in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and he is going to pretend that drones are not going to have collateral damage.
Well, by all means, present your evidence...
okie wrote:The man is a joke, and always has been, but people fail to see the phoniness.
That's maybe because you're not very good at pointing out the phoniness.
okie wrote:I can't know all the posts you have made, but I think you largely come down on the left pretty consistently.
And all people who largely come down on the left think alike, right? Is that the extent of the point you're making here?
okie wrote:I have never claimed a conspiracy. It is just what they do because the vast majority are liberal minded, more so than the general population, and this is supported by the data.
Then present the data.
