What does "Supporting the Troops" mean?

[Billo_Really]

Do you think you deserve anything else, with your moonbat talking points?

Re-calling historical events that are a matter of public record, are not a "moonbat talking points".

 

[Billo_Really]

Uh huh. Suuuuure you did, boy.

Of coarse I did. And you know I did.

You're just too immature to admit you were wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

I suppose you never heard of the First Barbary Wars (which was so popular it was followed up by the Second Barbary Wars), where the President sent forces (primarily US Marines and Navy) to seize Tripoli, and then put in place a government more friendly to our own.

Which did not last, so it had to be repeated 10 years later. The funny thing is, you are saying that he was wrong to have done that as well.

That is the funny thing about history, it often works very well for those that know it.

Although I don't support actions such as that, technically, it was not illegal at the time. Everything changed in regards to IHL after WWII. Regime change has been outlawed. A "war of aggression" has been codified. But what is really frustrating, is the fact that the laws we broke, we happened to have "co-authored".

 

[Billo_Really]

The thing is, in such things I really am rather neutral in such things. I do not concern myself as much with things I can't influence (like why we go to war), but instead concern myself with what actually happened.

And in doing so, I also look back to things that were similar that happened in the past.

But you can influence it, that's how the Vietnam War ended.

Now Thomas Jefferson is an interesting President, and also the "Spiritual Father" of the Democratic Party. However, I seperate the man into 2 phases of his career, pre-Presidential and post-Presidential.

Prior to becoming President, he screamed about individual rights, limiting the power of Government, following the Constitution strictly and resolutely, not getting involved with any overseas Governments or conflicts.

Then he became President, and basically got smacked upside the face with reality. Got us loosely involved with things in France and England, got us involved in our first real war (the aforementioned Barbary Wars), far exceeded his powers by purchasing a huge chunk of French Territory, and a lot of other things. He even admitted that what he did exceeded his powers and violated the Constitution, but needed to be done for the benefit of the nation.

So here we have a great example. A President that most Democrats revere, who did the exact same thing that President Bush did. But for some reason, they never want to talk about that.

And I really am neutral here, that is the funny thing. I have castigated Conservatives and Republicans for also using false logic and forgetting history. However, I expect to be called wrong and a puppet, that's ok. History does not lie.

No, history does not. And re-calling history is not wrong and does not make you a puppet. It's only when people who try to re-write it, is where they get into trouble.

 

[Mushroom]

Do you think you deserve anything else, with your moonbat talking points?

Re-calling historical events that are a matter of public record, are not a "moonbat talking points".

OK, now how about I prove that you are wrong? That there were indeed WMDs in Iraq?

And no, I will not use some "Conservative Thinktank", I will not use FoxNews as a reference. I will in fact use a reference that a lot of people in here claim is 100% truthfull, honest, and correct. A source that never lies and gets everything right.

Wikileaks.

Imagine That: Wikileaks Docs Show There Were WMDs in Iraq | NewsBusters

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Wikileaks is full of such documents, stretching back to the first push into Iraq in 2003.

I will have to try and bring up the actual source documents another time. I wanted to actually use the actual WL posting, but that site is blocked by firewalls where I am now, so will have to try and access it from work.

But yes, there were WMDs found, and chemical labs (and even WMDs used). True it was not the number they expected, but they did exist.

In fact, I can give you specifics of another WMD that was even used. In early 2003, the UN declared that the Al-Samoud 2 missile exceeded allowed limits, and classified it as a WMD. Iraq then claimed that they were all destroyed.

Yet during the invasion, approximately 40 Al-Samoud 2 missiles were fired at coalition forces, and caches of up to 20 missiles were found all over Iraq. This was a WMD by UNSC declaration, prohibited, and Iraq claimed that all were destroyed.

CNN.com - Iraqi missile targeted coalition HQ during war - May. 29, 2003

Shall we continue to play this game? I can prove you wrong all day long if you wish.

 

[Mushroom]

But you can influence it, that's how the Vietnam War ended.

No, history does not. And re-calling history is not wrong and does not make you a puppet. It's only when people who try to re-write it, is where they get into trouble.

No, the Vietnam War ended when a country that could not be trusted violated a peace treaty, and invaded and annexed another country. That is how the war ended.

No, history does not lie. However, I do not try to contort history to follow my own beliefs. Such as so many people do with Vietnam.

To many on the Left, it was a victory because they "ended an unjust war". Myself, I see it as a disgrace. We caved into a peace treaty that we knew would not be enforced, and when it was finally violated we sat back and did nothing as an allied nation was destroyed.

So stop rewriting history. The Vietnam War did not end in 1973 when the US finally pulled out completely. It ended in 1975 with the destruction of South Vietnam.

Period.

 

[daveman]

Do you think you deserve anything else, with your moonbat talking points?

Re-calling historical events that are a matter of public record, are not a "moonbat talking points".

Your revision of them is.

 

[daveman]

Uh huh. Suuuuure you did, boy.

Of coarse I did. And you know I did.

You're just too immature to admit you were wrong.

Kid, I do admit when I'm wrong. But it takes a little more than you jumping up and down to make someone wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

OK, now how about I prove that you are wrong? That there were indeed WMDs in Iraq?

I'm all ears!

And no, I will not use some "Conservative Thinktank", I will not use FoxNews as a reference. I will in fact use a reference that a lot of people in here claim is 100% truthfull, honest, and correct. A source that never lies and gets everything right.

I don't play the source game. If you want to use Fox, use Fox. You only consider the source to be prudent, you don't put all your eggs in that basket. I address the claims made from the source.

Wikileaks.

Imagine That: Wikileaks Docs Show There Were WMDs in Iraq | NewsBusters

Decaying cans of sarin found buried (and forgotten) in the Iraqi desert...

From your link:
Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal

...do not constitute WMD's.

From your link:
Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians.

This is not entirely accurate. Hussein didn't shut them down because of cost, his infrastructure for making them, was destroyed during the first Persian Gulf War. By 1993, according to Hans Blix, Iraq had no ability to make any.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Wikileaks is full of such documents, stretching back to the first push into Iraq in 2003.

I will have to try and bring up the actual source documents another time. I wanted to actually use the actual WL posting, but that site is blocked by firewalls where I am now, so will have to try and access it from work.

But yes, there were WMDs found, and chemical labs (and even WMDs used). True it was not the number they expected, but they did exist.

Weapons that you cannot use...

From your link:
the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

...are not WMD's.

In fact, I can give you specifics of another WMD that was even used. In early 2003, the UN declared that the Al-Samoud 2 missile exceeded allowed limits, and classified it as a WMD. Iraq then claimed that they were all destroyed.

Yet during the invasion, approximately 40 Al-Samoud 2 missiles were fired at coalition forces, and caches of up to 20 missiles were found all over Iraq. This was a WMD by UNSC declaration, prohibited, and Iraq claimed that all were destroyed.

CNN.com - Iraqi missile targeted coalition HQ during war - May. 29, 2003

Launch vehicles are not WMD's, it depends on the particular warhead they are armed with.

And in the case of your link, they were not.

Shall we continue to play this game? I can prove you wrong all day long if you wish.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you prove I'm wrong, unlike daveman, I'll admit it!

But until then, let's keep the rest of the day out of the discussion.



BTW, after everything that has been said about them,
if WMD's were ever found in Iraq, this is the first thing you'd see the next day!

 

[Billo_Really]

Kid, I do admit when I'm wrong. But it takes a little more than you jumping up and down to make someone wrong.

Providing the corroborative citations to back up my claim, is not "jumping up and down".

 

[Billo_Really]

Your revision of them is.

I didn't revise anything!

I posted the quotes from Bush verbatum and you provided the link for the timeline.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, the Vietnam War ended when a country that could not be trusted violated a peace treaty, and invaded and annexed another country. That is how the war ended.

No, history does not lie. However, I do not try to contort history to follow my own beliefs. Such as so many people do with Vietnam.

To many on the Left, it was a victory because they "ended an unjust war". Myself, I see it as a disgrace. We caved into a peace treaty that we knew would not be enforced, and when it was finally violated we sat back and did nothing as an allied nation was destroyed.

So stop rewriting history. The Vietnam War did not end in 1973 when the US finally pulled out completely. It ended in 1975 with the destruction of South Vietnam.

Period.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie and no reason to go to war over.

And the war ended because of the anti-war demonstrations by the left.

 

[daveman]

OK, now how about I prove that you are wrong? That there were indeed WMDs in Iraq?

I'm all ears!

And no, I will not use some "Conservative Thinktank", I will not use FoxNews as a reference. I will in fact use a reference that a lot of people in here claim is 100% truthfull, honest, and correct. A source that never lies and gets everything right.

I don't play the source game. If you want to use Fox, use Fox. You only consider the source to be prudent, you don't put all your eggs in that basket. I address the claims made from the source.

Decaying cans of sarin found buried (and forgotten) in the Iraqi desert...

​

...do not constitute WMD's.

​

This is not entirely accurate. Hussein didn't shut them down because of cost, his infrastructure for making them, was destroyed during the first Persian Gulf War. By 1993, according to Hans Blix, Iraq had no ability to make any.

Weapons that you cannot use...

​

...are not WMD's.

In fact, I can give you specifics of another WMD that was even used. In early 2003, the UN declared that the Al-Samoud 2 missile exceeded allowed limits, and classified it as a WMD. Iraq then claimed that they were all destroyed.

Yet during the invasion, approximately 40 Al-Samoud 2 missiles were fired at coalition forces, and caches of up to 20 missiles were found all over Iraq. This was a WMD by UNSC declaration, prohibited, and Iraq claimed that all were destroyed.

CNN.com - Iraqi missile targeted coalition HQ during war - May. 29, 2003

Launch vehicles are not WMD's, it depends on the particular warhead they are armed with.

And in the case of your link, they were not.

Shall we continue to play this game? I can prove you wrong all day long if you wish.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you prove I'm wrong, unlike daveman, I'll admit it!

But until then, let's keep the rest of the day out of the discussion.



BTW, after everything that has been said about them,
if WMD's were ever found in Iraq, this is the first thing you'd see the next day!

Remind me again...how it is you claim to NOT be supporting a tyrant?

You keep making excuses for Saddam having proscribed weapons and launch platforms.

 

[daveman]

Kid, I do admit when I'm wrong. But it takes a little more than you jumping up and down to make someone wrong.

Providing the corroborative citations to back up my claim, is not "jumping up and down".

I'm sure you enjoy believing that.

 

[daveman]

Your revision of them is.

I didn't revise anything!

I posted the quotes from Bush verbatum and you provided the link for the timeline.

And you know what? NONE of that changes the simple fact that Saddam had things he wasn't supposed to have.

 

[Mushroom]

Period.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie and no reason to go to war over.

And the war ended because of the anti-war demonstrations by the left.[/QUOTE]

But we were not talking about the start of US involvement, but nice attempt at distraction.

And no, the war ended years after the US pulled out. Tell me, in your history what year did the war end?

It did not end because of "demonstrations", it ended with an invasion and oppression and slaughter and the destruction of a soverign nation.

Why do so many freaking revisionists try to claim that the war ended in 1973?