|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 24, 2009 17:04:39 GMT -8
The extreme left have never agreed with Afghanistan, but most of us on the left considered it a necessary war. Iraq is pretty much winding down so there's not the outrage that there was when Bush invaded and pretty much screwed everything up until Patraeus saves his ass. Surely even you can see the difference. =Bob Oh, gimme a break. When Johnson was run out of office, the left quickly dubbed Viet Nam to be "Nixon's War". I can remember the chants from your ilk... "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win". There are still some 130,000 troops in Iraq. You posted on the old ".org" site, about a year ago, that you wanted the troops out NOW!! NOW, NOW, NOW! Well? Now that Iraq is "Obama's War", the "moral urgency" doesn't seem to be so urgent, does it? No outrage anymore? Of course not. Bogus argument. Try again. Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, "Obama's War" - he inherited it from Bush. There is no comparison between Obama and LBJ because LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam while Obama is trying to get us out of Iraq. No, there is no outrage any more because Iraq is winding down after far too many years of fighting in a war that we should have never engaged in. The one point you've never been able to address is why in the Hell we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Address that and then we can talk. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 25, 2009 9:00:17 GMT -8
Oh, gimme a break. When Johnson was run out of office, the left quickly dubbed Viet Nam to be "Nixon's War". I can remember the chants from your ilk... "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win". There are still some 130,000 troops in Iraq. You posted on the old ".org" site, about a year ago, that you wanted the troops out NOW!! NOW, NOW, NOW! Well? Now that Iraq is "Obama's War", the "moral urgency" doesn't seem to be so urgent, does it? No outrage anymore? Of course not. Bogus argument. Try again. Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, "Obama's War" - he inherited it from Bush. There is no comparison between Obama and LBJ because LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam while Obama is trying to get us out of Iraq. No, there is no outrage any more because Iraq is winding down after far too many years of fighting in a war that we should have never engaged in. The one point you've never been able to address is why in the Hell we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Address that and then we can talk. =Bob If one really wants to address this issue candidly and completely, one must grapple with this question: What would have been the consequences of our not having invaded Iraq? I am not saying that I, had I been President, would have invaded. I suspect that I would not have (though it's a pointless speculation, since I have never come within a parsec of occupying any position more lofty than that of classroom teacher). Oh, yes, you might want to ask a few Iraqis, especially Shias, whether they would turn back the clock and reinstate Saddam if they could. Just what do you think their answer would be? The point is this. The Left, ever eager to pounce on anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, seems to assume that leaving Saddam in place would have been cost-free. That argument, it seems to me, is patently false. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, the West would have gotten tired to imposing sanctions. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs. And the brutal repression of everyone in Iraq, including athletes who did not perform up to the expectations of Saddam's psychopathic sons, would have gone on. So would the raping of the Iraqi patrimony by Saddam and his cronies. Those issues reflect a thoughtful, nuanced consideration of all aspects of a question. That, I thought, was a characteristic of those brainy, intellectually superior liberal thinkers, as opposed to the knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectuals on the right. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 25, 2009 10:12:31 GMT -8
Bogus argument. Try again. Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, "Obama's War" - he inherited it from Bush. There is no comparison between Obama and LBJ because LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam while Obama is trying to get us out of Iraq. No, there is no outrage any more because Iraq is winding down after far too many years of fighting in a war that we should have never engaged in. The one point you've never been able to address is why in the Hell we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Address that and then we can talk. =Bob If one really wants to address this issue candidly and completely, one must grapple with this question: What would have been the consequences of our not having invaded Iraq? I am not saying that I, had I been President, would have invaded. I suspect that I would not have (though it's a pointless speculation, since I have never come within a parsec of occupying any position more lofty than that of classroom teacher). Oh, yes, you might want to ask a few Iraqis, especially Shias, whether they would turn back the clock and reinstate Saddam if they could. Just what do you think their answer would be? The point is this. The Left, ever eager to pounce on anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, seems to assume that leaving Saddam in place would have been cost-free. That argument, it seems to me, is patently false. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, the West would have gotten tired to imposing sanctions. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs. And the brutal repression of everyone in Iraq, including athletes who did not perform up to the expectations of Saddam's psychopathic sons, would have gone on. So would the raping of the Iraqi patrimony by Saddam and his cronies. Those issues reflect a thoughtful, nuanced consideration of all aspects of a question. That, I thought, was a characteristic of those brainy, intellectually superior liberal thinkers, as opposed to the knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectuals on the right. AzWm Sorry William, still a bogus argument. Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. To Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey maybe. To Iran, for sure. The primary reason GWB took out Saddam was that he attempted to kill junior's daddy. One could argue that that was enough reason to kill Saddam (you probably wouldn't get much argument from me), but it sure wasn't reason to invade the country. I could even argue that daddy's reason for invading was bogus as Saddam was just attempting to collect a debt that Kuwait welshed on. (You know, that Iraq / Iran war where we sold Saddam so many weapons.) Personally, I think that whole mess should have been handled regionally. We were nothing more than the Saudis Hessians. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 25, 2009 12:58:44 GMT -8
If one really wants to address this issue candidly and completely, one must grapple with this question: What would have been the consequences of our not having invaded Iraq? I am not saying that I, had I been President, would have invaded. I suspect that I would not have (though it's a pointless speculation, since I have never come within a parsec of occupying any position more lofty than that of classroom teacher). Oh, yes, you might want to ask a few Iraqis, especially Shias, whether they would turn back the clock and reinstate Saddam if they could. Just what do you think their answer would be? The point is this. The Left, ever eager to pounce on anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, seems to assume that leaving Saddam in place would have been cost-free. That argument, it seems to me, is patently false. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, the West would have gotten tired to imposing sanctions. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs. And the brutal repression of everyone in Iraq, including athletes who did not perform up to the expectations of Saddam's psychopathic sons, would have gone on. So would the raping of the Iraqi patrimony by Saddam and his cronies. Those issues reflect a thoughtful, nuanced consideration of all aspects of a question. That, I thought, was a characteristic of those brainy, intellectually superior liberal thinkers, as opposed to the knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectuals on the right. AzWm Sorry William, still a bogus argument. Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. To Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey maybe. To Iran, for sure. The primary reason GWB took out Saddam was that he attempted to kill junior's daddy. One could argue that that was enough reason to kill Saddam (you probably wouldn't get much argument from me), but it sure wasn't reason to invade the country. I could even argue that daddy's reason for invading was bogus as Saddam was just attempting to collect a debt that Kuwait welshed on. (You know, that Iraq / Iran war where we sold Saddam so many weapons.) Personally, I think that whole mess should have been handled regionally. We were nothing more than the Saudis Hessians. Your positions on the two Gulf Wars is simply left-wing loony fantasy. In fact, the reasons for both, while not necessarily admirable in all cases, were much more complex than what you suggest. And your suggestion that the Saddam problem should have been handled regionally? Well, I guess the invasion of Poland by Germany should have been handled regionally. Let's see, how about the Soviet Union? Nope, that wouldn't work, since the Reds invaded Poland from the east as Hitler moved in from the west. How about Czechoslovakia? Ooops! No more Czechoslovakia, since that country had been incorporated into the Reich. How about Latvia? No good, either, since Latvia had already been conquered by Stalin. Back to the Middle East. Just which country or countries in that area should have or could have forced Iraq to retreat from Kuwait? Oh, I get it now. Handling the Saddam problem regionally perhaps, in your mind, means a testy diplomatic memorandum followed by a sigh and a shrug. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 25, 2009 13:08:05 GMT -8
Oh, gimme a break. When Johnson was run out of office, the left quickly dubbed Viet Nam to be "Nixon's War". I can remember the chants from your ilk... "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win". There are still some 130,000 troops in Iraq. You posted on the old ".org" site, about a year ago, that you wanted the troops out NOW!! NOW, NOW, NOW! Well? Now that Iraq is "Obama's War", the "moral urgency" doesn't seem to be so urgent, does it? No outrage anymore? Of course not. Bogus argument. Try again. Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, "Obama's War" - he inherited it from Bush. There is no comparison between Obama and LBJ because LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam while Obama is trying to get us out of Iraq. No, there is no outrage any more because Iraq is winding down after far too many years of fighting in a war that we should have never engaged in. The one point you've never been able to address is why in the Hell we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Address that and then we can talk. =Bob Now seriously, I don't believe you are this stupid. I was plainly comparing how the left made Viet Nam "Nixon's War" after he inherited it from Johnson. So, by using the left's own standard, Iraq is now "Obama's War". But you knew that. This part of your post is an astonishing hoot: " No, there is no outrage any more because Iraq is winding down after far too many years of fighting in a war that we should have never engaged in." And yet, when Viet Nam was "winding down" under Nixon (inaugurated in January of 1969) - wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_War- the left's "outrage" even intensified: faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.htmlWith the amoral left, it's all about defeating and destroying the opposing political party. But you know that, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 25, 2009 17:29:49 GMT -8
Now seriously, I don't believe you are this stupid. I was plainly comparing how the left made Viet Nam "Nixon's War" after he inherited it from Johnson. Oh really? Seems to me I remember a lot of "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"? during that time. Apparently you were somewhere out at sea during that time and don't remember that Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. Apparently you have no awareness of how many kids died in Vietnam after Nixon took office. Apparently you are a fool. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 25, 2009 22:30:03 GMT -8
Now seriously, I don't believe you are this stupid. I was plainly comparing how the left made Viet Nam "Nixon's War" after he inherited it from Johnson. Oh really? Seems to me I remember a lot of "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"? during that time. Apparently you were somewhere out at sea during that time and don't remember that Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. Apparently you have no awareness of how many kids died in Vietnam after Nixon took office. Apparently you are a fool. =Bob Nixon was nothing if not very intelligent. He knew that we had to somehow disengage from Vietnam. And we did, though not on the schedule that many would have preferred. Had Nixon not acted stupidly after the Watergate fiasco became public, he would have finished two terms with a pretty high rating. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2009 12:48:16 GMT -8
Now seriously, I don't believe you are this stupid. I was plainly comparing how the left made Viet Nam "Nixon's War" after he inherited it from Johnson. Oh really? Seems to me I remember a lot of "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"? during that time. Apparently you were somewhere out at sea during that time and don't remember that Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. Apparently you have no awareness of how many kids died in Vietnam after Nixon took office. Apparently you are a fool. =Bob No, you are the fool... or you are just deliberately playing one. The left didn't quit their anti-war crusade when Nixon succeeded to office. This time it is obviously different. Why? Because of partisanship. As for a "secret plan", I don't know what that was. When I was there, the "plan" involved training and turning over assets to the RVN. The turnover of the Swift Boats and Coast Guard patrol boats (WPBs) plus two of ultimately five WHECs was completed while I was there (1970). I didn't know it was a secret though. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2009 12:53:44 GMT -8
Oh really? Seems to me I remember a lot of "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"? during that time. Apparently you were somewhere out at sea during that time and don't remember that Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. Apparently you have no awareness of how many kids died in Vietnam after Nixon took office. Apparently you are a fool. =Bob Nixon was nothing if not very intelligent. He knew that we had to somehow disengage from Vietnam. And we did, though not on the schedule that many would have preferred. Had Nixon not acted stupidly after the Watergate fiasco became public, he would have finished two terms with a pretty high rating. AzWm This is true. My point is simple. The =Perfesser was screaming that he wanted all troops out of Iraq NOW, from the start. Of course he's pretty quiet about that now, because the One is seeing to it that Iraq is "winding down" (the =Perfesser's own words above). So it's okay now. Pure partisan hypocrisy. |
|
