4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:01 am
See?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:03 am
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Kosovo is not Iraq. Perhaps you noticed that?

nor is Iraq WW II, perhaps you noticed that?


That's probably why I didn't make that comparison.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 01:26 pm
McGentrix wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Kosovo is not Iraq. Perhaps you noticed that?

nor is Iraq WW II, perhaps you noticed that?


That's probably why I didn't make that comparison.


Good that even you have recognized that, by now. It's still interesting to see how, shortly after the 2003 invasion, you did think that Iraq and WWII were quite comparable:


[URL=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=360533#360533]McGentrix, on September 15th 2003, [/URL] wrote:

Anyways...I don't think anyone is comparing the actual countries of Iraq and Germany so much as they are comparing the time and money that it will take. But, to address your points:

Quote:
Firstly: The ethnic strife that exists in Afghanistan and Iraq were absent in Japan and Germany.
There was a period of ethnic cleansing in Germany if I recall...Maybe the tribalisation found in each place is different, but the animosity that one group felt towards the other was surely present.

Quote:
Secondly: Both Japan and Germany had been been bled of resources by their wartime regimes.
As opposed to the 12 years of economic sanctions and theft from the Hussein regime? I would think that Iraq's economy was quite ruined.

Quote:
Thirdly: Both Japanese and German citizenry had been subject to a punishing campaign of aerial bobardment that provided incotrovertable evidence that they had "lost" the war.

It was quite clear to the majority of Iraqis. If you asked an Iraqi, I will bet you that they would say that we shocked and awed them...

Quote:
Fourthly: Both nations had grown weary of war and were more than ready for rebuilding and peace.
and the Iraqi's aren't? You don't think they were tired of being afraid of saddam and his regime? Tired of fearing for thier lives? They were ready for intervention.

Vietnam took place in a jungle where the MAJORITY of people hated the US. Iraq is a desert where the MAJORITY of people appreciate the US. Completely uncomparable... Rolling Eyes



I especially like that " Iraq is a desert where the MAJORITY of people appreciate the US" statement. Did you really believe that back then?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 02:24 pm
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Kosovo is not Iraq. Perhaps you noticed that?

nor is Iraq WW II, perhaps you noticed that?


That's probably why I didn't make that comparison.


Good that even you have recognized that, by now. It's still interesting to see how, shortly after the 2003 invasion, you did think that Iraq and WWII were quite comparable:


[URL=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=360533#360533]McGentrix, on September 15th 2003, [/URL] wrote:

Anyways...I don't think anyone is comparing the actual countries of Iraq and Germany so much as they are comparing the time and money that it will take. But, to address your points:

Quote:
Firstly: The ethnic strife that exists in Afghanistan and Iraq were absent in Japan and Germany.
There was a period of ethnic cleansing in Germany if I recall...Maybe the tribalisation found in each place is different, but the animosity that one group felt towards the other was surely present.

Quote:
Secondly: Both Japan and Germany had been been bled of resources by their wartime regimes.
As opposed to the 12 years of economic sanctions and theft from the Hussein regime? I would think that Iraq's economy was quite ruined.

Quote:
Thirdly: Both Japanese and German citizenry had been subject to a punishing campaign of aerial bobardment that provided incotrovertable evidence that they had "lost" the war.

It was quite clear to the majority of Iraqis. If you asked an Iraqi, I will bet you that they would say that we shocked and awed them...

Quote:
Fourthly: Both nations had grown weary of war and were more than ready for rebuilding and peace.
and the Iraqi's aren't? You don't think they were tired of being afraid of saddam and his regime? Tired of fearing for thier lives? They were ready for intervention.

Vietnam took place in a jungle where the MAJORITY of people hated the US. Iraq is a desert where the MAJORITY of people appreciate the US. Completely uncomparable... Rolling Eyes



I especially like that " Iraq is a desert where the MAJORITY of people appreciate the US" statement. Did you really believe that back then?


Did you read only that post in that thread? I stand by that post at that time, yes.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 02:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Did you read only that post in that thread? I stand by that post at that time, yes.


I actually read the whole thread... all six pages of it. I read the Ann Coulter article that you posted, too. I especially liked the part where she claimed that

Quote:
After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.


The main thrust of the article was, if America only handled Iraq unilaterally and without getting other nations or <gasp> the UN involved, we would see a peaceful, democratic Iraq within a matter of years.

You kind of seemed to agree with her article (or at least you titled the thread "Insightful article").

Now, I don't blame you for comparing Iraq and WWII in 2003. That was at a time when a majority of Americans still believed in Iraqi WMD, in democratisation and in the Falling Dominoes in the Middle East. And people did talk a lot about how nice Iraq would be after the violence would have ceased, Iraqis would have had free elections and American companies would be paid for rebuilding Iraq by the kickbacks from all that Iraqi oil that would soon start flowing.

In short, many people were saying that Iraq was just like WWII. And that the Iraqis really wanted the US army in their country.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 03:32 pm
revel,
From John McCains speech that you posted...

Quote:
In 1993, McCain's straight talk sounded much different. Then, he argued that "the orderly way" to stop the U.S. campaign in Somalia was to set a timeline and cut off funds after March 31, 1994, unless the President secured authorization from Congress. From his floor speech:


Notice the part about the President securing authorization?
Clinton didnt have that in Somalia.

Bush does have it for Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is the difference.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Apr, 2007 07:27 am
mysteryman wrote:
revel,
From John McCains speech that you posted...

Quote:
In 1993, McCain's straight talk sounded much different. Then, he argued that "the orderly way" to stop the U.S. campaign in Somalia was to set a timeline and cut off funds after March 31, 1994, unless the President secured authorization from Congress. From his floor speech:


Notice the part about the President securing authorization?
Clinton didnt have that in Somalia.

Bush does have it for Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is the difference.


I am short on time and will get to this later. However, from this website, it appears that troops were already in Somalia on a humanitarian mission but something broke out so Clinton sent some more troops over there.

http://hnn.us/articles/35816.html

However, regarding past republican statements and their statements now, it don't make a difference, I'll try to explain sometime later either today or tomorrow (or thereabouts). Excuse spelling.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Apr, 2007 11:24 am
Like I said in my previous post, troops were already in the area by the time Clinton was in office. Because of the deaths of the Pakistani peacekeepers. Clinton "decided to crush the perpetrator, the Somali warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed," who had been causing the trouble.

Quote:
Somalia (1992-1994)
At the end of his administration in 1992, President Bush sent American troops to assist in the delivery of food aid for famine-ravaged Somalia. The nature of the humanitarian mission became more orientated towards combat after the deaths of twenty-three Pakistani peacekeepers in June 1993. President Clinton, who by then had assumed office, decided to crush the perpetrator, the Somali warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed. By September 1993, with the mission becoming increasingly unpopular, Congress drafted legislation requiring the President to remove troops within a fixed period of time unless he received the legislature's approval. A compromise between the executive and legislative branches was worked out. It was agreed that funding for the war would cease after March 31, 1994 and the troops would be withdrawn. Furthermore, American troops were not to be put under UN command.


http://hnn.us/articles/35816.html

McCain called to withhold funds for the troops in Somalia because "I think we all realize that we have drifted from the use of force to secure humanitarian relief to an open-ended effort at peace enforcement and nation building." The congress at that time voted to cut and run and leave the Somalias in the lurch. The mission in Iraq was to destroy WMD, there are no WMD, so there is no need to be there unless we want to "nation build and enforce peace."

If it was ok for McCain and other republicans to micromanage Clinton in Somalia, it is ok for this congress to micromanage Bush in Iraq which btw is costing tons more in lives and money than any of the Clinton's wars.

Quote:


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/mccain-date-certain/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 07:51 am
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070329/allie.jpg
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 03:34 pm
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2007/po070402.gif
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2007 06:32 pm
President Bush wanted to use a local church for a
> photo op. His advance man said to the pastor, "We will
> make a $10,000 contribution to your church if, during
> your introduction of the president, you say he is a
> saint."
>
>
> The pastor agreed and accepted the $10,000
> contribution.
>
>
> In introducing the President before a nationally
> televised audience, the pastor began, "George Bush is
> a nitwit and a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite. He
> stole the 2000 election and probably the 2004 election
> as well," the reverend continued.
>
>
> "He has polarized the country.
> He has politicized science.
> He lied about his military record.
> He invaded a country on totally false pretenses and
> had the gall to land on an aircraft carrier and pose
> before a banner proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
> He continues to blur the line between church and
> state.
> Cronyism and corruption are rampant in his
> administration.
> He is the worst example of a Christian I've ever
> known!
>
>
> But compared to Dick Cheney, George Bush is a saint."
>
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2007 03:33 am
Good one, raised a smile.

I still can't believe GWB as President. Was he REALLY the best the system could come up with? Time to look at the system.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 11:06 am
Back on English as the official language theme, I thought the following piece to be especially good. I do have a friendly side bet going re the comments it will generate, however.

Want to pursue happiness? Learn EnglishLA TIMES SDOURCE
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 06:19 am
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/jh/2007/jh070408.gif
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 06:43 am
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpnan/2007/wpnan070401.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 09:11 am
xingu, hello from barcelona. that´s a very good cartoon, but the neocons won´t understand the meaning behind it. LOL
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 02:48 pm
Sunday: 4 GIs, 32 Iraqis Killed; 67 Iraqis Wounded http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10786 How many more?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:01 am
How many more, you ask? At the current rate, we can expect 60+ GIs and 1200 Iraqis for every month of Bush´s War. That doesn´t say anything about the two billion dollars every week of taxpayer money Bush uses to fund this stupid war. All Conservatives love it, because they´re not in the middle class or the poor.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:44 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
All Conservatives love it, because they´re not in the middle class or the poor.


Question

Vacation must be rotting your brain.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 05:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
How many more, you ask? At the current rate, we can expect 60+ GIs and 1200 Iraqis for every month of Bush´s War. That doesn´t say anything about the two billion dollars every week of taxpayer money Bush uses to fund this stupid war. All Conservatives love it, because they´re not in the middle class or the poor.


And you accuse me of making sweeping generalities,yet now you do the same.

EVERY conservative I know wishes the war was over,and that we had no troops in Iraq.
That includes me,and I have been there.

BUT,most conservatives realize that sometimes wars have to be fought,whether you want to or not.

For you to make the sweeping generalization you made is akin to me saying that every liberal ants to kill as many babies as is possible,using the most barbaric methods possible.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/23/2024 at 05:26:15