Fairweather Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 starting a war of aggression under false pretense to control resources puts a lot more responsibility on the perpetrators for the conduct of the war since wars pretty much always result in war crimes. I agree. Quote
j_b Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Lincoln started the civil war? Just yesterday, you were acting as if you were an history expert or something. Quote
Fairweather Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Please tell me you're not referring to that so-called CSA attack on CSA territory at Fort Sumter where nobody died. Quote
j_b Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Hum, whatever, I am not here to split hair about what you think constitute aggression and whether firing cannons at someone while blockading them qualifies. Anyway, nobody that I can see here is putting Roosevelt or Lincoln for that matter on pedestals despite your gratuitous affirmations to the contrary. But your insistence that the way they conducted murderous wars they were forced into is equivalent to Cheney and co lying to start an unnecessary war of aggression for resources that resulted in numerous death of innocents is a clear symptom of your sick mind. Quote
Doug Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Don't you get it? FW appears to be telling people to lay of off the Bush/Cheney Administration, because our grandparents democrats were bad. Jeezus Fairweather, Cheney to FDR?, Iraq to WWII? Lame, if not convenient comparisons. Quote
Stonehead Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Didn't Congress give the President a blank check with passage of the Iraqi War Resolution (Oct 16, 2002)? Was there some reason that Congress did not immediately declare war but instead left it to the Executive branch to wage war without a formal declaration? If I understand correctly, select members of Congress were briefed on many of the actions undertaken by the administration. So isn't that body also complicit? Didn't Congress welsh on its responsibility? Quote
billcoe Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Didn't Congress give the President a blank check with passage of the Iraqi War Resolution (Oct 16, 2002)? Was there some reason that Congress did not immediately declare war but instead left it to the Executive branch to wage war without a formal declaration? If I understand correctly, select members of Congress were briefed on many of the actions undertaken by the administration. So isn't that body also complicit? Didn't Congress welsh on its responsibility? No. They voted based on the lies they were fed. Yellow cake etc etc, although an investigation might figure out who knew what and when, by all accounts, it appears that a small clique at the top was doctoring or suppressing info so as to obtain the outcome they desired. Quote
Stonehead Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 I don't know if I'm correct on this or not, but wasn't the stage set back in the early 90's with the First Gulf War (which BTW also had its provocative "evidence" such as the incubator story), that essentially there was a long stretch of simmering hostilities (no fly zone, etc) so you could almost say the war began then and continued at varying degrees until present? Quote
prole Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 I don't know if I'm correct on this or not, but wasn't the stage set back in the early 90's with the First Gulf War (which BTW also had its provocative "evidence" such as the incubator story), that essentially there was a long stretch of simmering hostilities (no fly zone, etc) so you could almost say the war began then and continued at varying degrees until present? Yes. And you're right about Congress, too. All these people had access to the same information as the broad spectrum of aid workers, academics, journalists, intelligence workers and the rest that had been calling bullshit on each and every plank of the Bush Administration's march to Iraq since the rumor or an invasion first surfaced. Those in the State as well as their apologists have no excuse whatsoever in denying that the contrary evidence and information was fully available (and plentiful), only that they were wrong in either denying its existence and/or discrediting the sources ("left wing anti'mericans) or they were just willing sheep lulled by the narrative of American Empire they were all to eager to hear. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 You guys are such a nice bunch... since you seem to like him so much, why don't you go hunting with him? at least you wouldn't be posting bullshit on this bb, while in the ER. Quote
j_b Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Didn't Congress give the President a blank check with passage of the Iraqi War Resolution (Oct 16, 2002)? Was there some reason that Congress did not immediately declare war but instead left it to the Executive branch to wage war without a formal declaration? If I understand correctly, select members of Congress were briefed on many of the actions undertaken by the administration. So isn't that body also complicit? Didn't Congress welsh on its responsibility? You are completely right. There were millions of Americans in the street who knew Bushco were lying. Dems in congress demonized Nader for his saying they weren't very different from Republicans, then they promptly proceeded to prove him exactly right. Quote
RuMR Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 somehow, i don't quite lump Hitler's threat into the same category as Saddam...Saddam was actually [insert dripping sarcasm here] quite a bit more dangerous to our world peace than hitler or japan... fucking moron... You're clueless--I wasn't talking about Germany. (The RAF bears most of the responsibility for the mass murder in Dresden) FDR wasn't burning Japan's paper and wood cities fast enough with high explosives--so he had LeMay start pouring kerosene from B-29's instead. As for your thesis, well, I don't think you even really have a clue what you're trying to say. Run along. From the perspective of the American left, FDR's support for the National Labor Relations Act--and Social Security--nullify his absolutely horrifying tally of civilian dead, I guess. Pathetic. Yes; I believe I have this pretty much right. If you're willing to "overlook" a few million dead, then please at least have the decency to admit it before you spew the standard nonsense. hey assmunch, if we had it to do over again would you invade Iraq? this is an easy Y or N question...don't hurt yourself thinking too much... Quote
ZimZam Posted February 25, 2010 Author Posted February 25, 2010 tick, tick, tick, tick. Hello. Anybody home? Quote
Hugh Conway Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 you guys are mean, dick is my friend dick is only your friend as long as it can get something from you Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.