Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
on a handful of installations (ships)
Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....
Could hardly be called war according to you morons....
stupid analogy. It was the first in a lengthy list of attacks that had been planned as part of a greater land/sea war in the Pacific.
Clinton knocked out a few radar and communications sites.
but DO keep spewing irrelevance and strutting around as if you actually knew your ass from a hole in the ground.... it is SO like you!
Talking stupid again, are you? Lengthy list of attacks????
The US DECLARED WAR on Japan the very next day asshole....because we could....
and if Saddam could, he would have done something similar....the fact that he had nothing with which to fight a war, might have had something to do with it...
Talking stupid again, are you? Lengthy list of attacks????
The US DECLARED WAR on Japan the very next day asshole....because we could....
and if Saddam could, he would have done something similar....the fact that he had nothing with which to fight a war, might have had something to do with it...
Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
on a handful of installations (ships)
Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....
Could hardly be called war according to you morons....
Are you suggesting that, prior to attacking Pearl Harbor on 12/07, Japan had not already fully planned and staged their attacks on the Philippines and Guam (12/10), Burma (12/11), Borneo (12/16), Hong Kong (12/18), Luzon (12/22), Wake Island (12/23), Bataan, (1/7), Solomons (1/23) and Singapore (1/30) or would you NOT call that a "lengthy list of attacks"?
again... our bombing a few selected weapons emplacements in Iraq is not synonymous with WWII, and it is not synonymous with the War in Iraq.
Face it. First of all, Clinton did not declare war on Saddam. Did Saddam even communicate to anyone that he considered Clintons actions an act of war? I doubt it. He could have declared war. That does not mean that he could win a war.
If you don't understand the topic of the thread...butt out....OMFG...an Imperial Japan Apologist, and an apologist for the sneak attack on America. Who's side are you on?
I'm suggesting that 'lobbing' bombs on another country is a fuckin' act of war.....an act of war...the number of casualties is irrelevant and the response of the attacked country is irrelevant.....that you call it limited, tactical airstrikes is convoluted nonsense in the extreme....
not you getting hit with those "limited, tactical air strikes...
Now he'll try to spin this thread into confusion so he don't come off looking as stupid
his post suggests....
I would think that a grown man who cannot conjugate the present tense of the verb "to do" looks pretty fucking stupid!
Exactly !
But that doesn't negate the fact that lobbing bombs on another country is an act of war.....and the attacked country is well within its international rights to view it as such.....
Well, first according to you Cons the 1991 state of hostilities never technically ended. So we were free to bomb them when they didn't kow tow to us. So which is it? Was the 1991 War technically over, or not. Choose.
Second, everyone including Saddam knew in 1998 that these airstrikes were limited and would not be followed up with a land invasion. When the Japanese attacked us, they were in full war mode, and within days of pearl harbor, were attacking us and invading in the Phillipines, at Guam, at Wake, and Alaska.
It was never over, just a cease fire. Same situation in Korea, we are still technically at War with N Korea and can LEGALLY go in, militarily at any time, and the congressional sanction to use force in Korea from 1950 is STILL valid, as is the UN resolution, so the President could order troops to cross the 38th parallel at any time, on his own, WITHOUT additional congressional approval, 100% legally. Of course it would be political suicide, but it would 100% legal both domestically and internationally.
so... do you agree with Alpha that Clinton conducting a handful of surgical airstrikes against Iraq is exactly the same thing as Bush starting a major ground offensive lasting five years, and costing 32K dead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars? Six of one, half a dozen of the other?
who said that Bush was the first to use those lies and false impressions? not me.
Bush is simply the first to use them - post 9/11 - for the purpose of starting a major, costly, time consuming, counterproductive, bloody ground war.
Are you sure democrats didn't suggest Iraq had chemical, biological weapons and inspired to have nukes in post 9/11?
I would have made the same decision at that time regardless of whether or not I believed George Bush had lied or not. Their voting the way they did does not prove that George Bush did NOT make statements designed to convey a false impression about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles. I say, quite simply, that when Team Bush conveyed the false impression that there was absolute certainty about the existence and location of Saddam's stockpiles, that those statements were, in fact, lies simply because they conveyed that false impression. That is one of the definitions of the word "lie".
And I have never suggested that Team Bush conveyed those false impressions to prevent Congress from independent fact gathering. Never. I have always only suggested that those false impressions were conveyed for the purpose of gaining support from the American people... and they clearly served their purpose.
some did. they were wrong when they thought it and wrong when they expressed it.
but as we know, a majority of them in congress voted against starting Bush's war.
