Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
I missed this yesterday.
I don't want you to think you made some kind of point I could not argue with, and that is the reason I did not respond.
You know how you can tell when you are losing an argument?
When you resort to name calling and profanity.
Really?
Let me get this straight.
When the Nez Perce attempted to leave the country and move to Canada because the people that were invading their land where killing them, that was the definition of atrocity.
Glad to know where you stand.
Why was it immoral? Just because you did not like it, or was it immoral because Bush lied, even though he didn't? By the way, even if it was immoral, it was both legal, and justified, under the UN imposed terms after the first Gulf War.
You need a tissue?
I could make up a quote if I wanted to, but why bother? That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Would you have felt better seeing videos of Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people? Is the problem here that we are so good at killing, or that he was?
I suppose you think that is witty.
Yep, they were so much better off under a government that was arbitrary, existed only to line the pockets of a single family, and routinely tortured anyone who disagreed with it.
Maybe we should institute a dictatorship rather than being handicapped by a democracy where the foreign policy changes based on who sits in the Oval Office. Would a consistent hatred of everyone who offends you be more palatable?
I don't want you to think you made some kind of point I could not argue with, and that is the reason I did not respond.
Listen you phony 'classic liberal' lying sack of shit. I was saying the same things back in 2002 and 2003, from the beginning of Bush's lying intel run-up to his Hirohito sneak attack in 2003, before anyone knew who Barack Obama was.
You know how you can tell when you are losing an argument?
When you resort to name calling and profanity.
Condemning atrocities are not enough. It's TOO LATE. Intelligent people understand that atrocities IS the definition of war.
Really?
Let me get this straight.
When the Nez Perce attempted to leave the country and move to Canada because the people that were invading their land where killing them, that was the definition of atrocity.
Glad to know where you stand.
Yea, this is just like NOW all the 'conservatives' SAY they spoke out against Bush spending like a drunken sailor. Many, many, many more liberals than conservatives were against the immoral invasion of Iraq, Gitmo and torture.
Why was it immoral? Just because you did not like it, or was it immoral because Bush lied, even though he didn't? By the way, even if it was immoral, it was both legal, and justified, under the UN imposed terms after the first Gulf War.
I spent many a nights arguing with conservatives and Republicans on other message boards all during the war, I was called every name in the book, from anti-American, bleeding heart, liberal wimp, to being a traitor because I was against the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo and torture & I spoke out against atrocities that occurred. I can count on one hand the conservatives over all those years who were against the war.
You need a tissue?
Here is something I posted a number of years ago after 'Shock & Awe' and then the 'Mission accomplished' fiasco...why don't you show me how YOU spoke out you fucking windbag?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Just shock, no awe
The people of America looked on in AWE from the comfort of their homes.
The people of Iraq sought comfort from the SHOCK and grief of searching the rubble for remnants of their homes and loved ones!
America’s billion dollar war machine annihilated Iraq’s military; sons and fathers forced to serve under a man they had no allegiance to. But, we gave them a choice; their executioner: the US war machine or Saddam.
But even with billion dollar war machines, there are the residuals: innocent mothers, children, infants, nieces and nephews, neighbors, teachers, store owners and bus drivers. Every Iraqi lost someone they loved or knew.
NOW Americans wonder WHY the people of Iraq didn’t place flowers in the end of our rifles. We were told this would be a “cakewalk” and we would be welcomed as liberators!
We destroyed ANY chance of success in Iraq when we wiped out the Iraq Army. THEY WERE the trained security the government of Iraq can not provide.
I could make up a quote if I wanted to, but why bother? That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.
I recall the sickening images of human beings being blown to 1000 pieces by helicopter cannons. AWE!! America says. WE ARE good at this killing stuff. Americans wondered if X-BOX 360 will come out with THIS game in time for junior’s Christmas.
Would you have felt better seeing videos of Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people? Is the problem here that we are so good at killing, or that he was?
Maybe the President can send his mother to smooth things over. "They're underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them"
I suppose you think that is witty.
Now a million good citizens of Iraq flee at a rate of 3,000 per day!!! (AP)
This horrible war and conditions that were BETTER under Saddam drive them from their homeland!
”Mission accomplished?”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, they were so much better off under a government that was arbitrary, existed only to line the pockets of a single family, and routinely tortured anyone who disagreed with it.
I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)
Maybe we should institute a dictatorship rather than being handicapped by a democracy where the foreign policy changes based on who sits in the Oval Office. Would a consistent hatred of everyone who offends you be more palatable?
Last edited: