Then and Now: Same, Yet Somehow Different.

Post by **GORDON** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:02 pm

From here.

Edited By GORDON on 1143600239

Post by **Leisher** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:23 pm

Well written, but it'll fall on deaf ears.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:50 pm

I guess the real question is: How much did Chimpy McHalliburton's Propaganda Squad pay you to write that?

Reality Checker · Post by **Reality Checker** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:11 am

Interesting opinion.

Thing is, this is about as far from WW2 as you can get.

We didn't start WW2 and at least Japan had attacked us first. Perhaps Hawaii was a territory but they attacked OUR Navy there. And Japan had a treaty with Germany and Italy, which is a heck of a lot more than the non-existent connections between Iraq and Al Queda. (pre-invasion)

WW2 was a real, declared war, unlike the police action we are involved in now.

The simple fact is that many Americans disagree on a philisophical level with the policy of "preemtive attacks".

Many people consider that policy highly immoral.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:02 am

The only thing immoral was that we allowed Saddam to continue filling mass graves for 10 years too long.

Mommy Dearest · Post by **Mommy Dearest** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:18 am

The only thing immoral was that we allowed Saddam to continue filling mass graves for 10 years too long.

more like 20

Post by **Leisher** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:58 am

Interesting opinion.

Thing is, this is about as far from WW2 as you can get.

We didn't start WW2 and at least Japan had attacked us first. Perhaps Hawaii was a territory but they attacked OUR Navy there. And Japan had a treaty with Germany and Italy, which is a heck of a lot more than the non-existent connections between Iraq and Al Queda. (pre-invasion)

WW2 was a real, declared war, unlike the police action we are involved in now.

The simple fact is that many Americans disagree on a philisophical level with the policy of "preemtive attacks".

Many people consider that policy highly immoral.

So why did we attack Germany in WW2? After all, they didn't attack us, Japan did.

Was it simply because they were allies of Japan? If that's the case, then we were right here since it was proven that Saddam did have links to terror groups including the payments he made to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Maybe it was because they attacked our allies? Iraq invaded Kuwait. They were paying terrorists to attack our ally Israel. They threatened our allies Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe we fought Germany because they were killing so many innocents? If that's the case then we had to invade Iraq to save the Kurds. Or don't you think a Middle Easterner's life is as important as a European's or Jew's?

The fact is that the attack on Germany wasn't just about liberating the Euros. It was also about putting Germany in check and keeping them from becoming even more of a threat to the world.

It was a preemptive strike. We hit Germany before they became a threat to us.

The real sad part of WW2 is how many innocents had to die before the American public was ready to enter the war.

That's what pisses me off so much about certain (not all) anti-war folks. They forget the most crucial element to all events, human beings. Not all of them will sit at a negotiation table. Not all of them are good inside as many people believe. Sometimes force is the only language people understand.

And believe it or not, wars have saved lives.

As for Iraq, G.W. is taking a lot of heat for it, but I think the real blame lies with his father. Saddam should have been removed from power way back in the early 90s. That was Bush Sr.'s critical error and many lives have been lost because of it. On top of that, Clinton had a chance to take out Osama and didn't because he was afraid an innocent might get hit in the process. One could argue that many more innocents have died because he saved a handful.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:43 am

And we've been over the "immoral/lies" part over and over. Only the most rabid of the Bush haters still think he straignht-up lied, when it has been shown time and again that EVERYONE thought there were wmd's.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:05 am

You forget: liberals are at their very core incapable of rational thought in any form.

If they were, they would not be liberals.

realitycheck · Post by **realitycheck** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:27 am

The only thing immoral was that we allowed Saddam to continue filling mass graves for 10 years too long.

10 years? Thats it?

So all the mass graves he made during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s (when he was our buddy and Rummy and Cheney were doing business with him)... those were ok with you?

And the last big mass killing was from 1991 when he put down the Shiite rebellion that we fostered during Desert Storm, which was more then 10 years before we invaded, so that must have been ok with you too?

Edited By realitycheck on 1136366856

realitycheck · Post by **realitycheck** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:34 am

So why did we attack Germany in WW2? After all, they didn't attack us, Japan did.

We did not declare war on Germany first.

Japan struck Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th as a Preemptive strike. That is the precident you are looking for. They declared war on us Dec 7th, we declared war back on Dec. 8th.

Germany and Italy declared war on us on the morning of December 11th, 1941 because of the mutual protection pact between Japan, Germany and Italy (the "axis").

We, in turn, declared war back later that day.

Read it here.

There is the true example of your oh-so-moral "preemptive attack" policy.

Edited By realitycheck on 1136370250

realitycheck · Post by **realitycheck** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:35 am

And we've been over the "immoral/lies" part over and over. Only the most rabid of the Bush haters still think he straignht-up lied, when it has been shown time and again that EVERYONE thought there were wmd's.

Can you show me where I ever said Bush "lied"?

Are you making up my own arguments for me now?

realitycheck · Post by **realitycheck** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:36 am

You forget: liberals are at their very core incapable of rational thought in any form.

If they were, they would not be liberals.

Bah.

Meaningless rhetoric without a shred of truth to it.

realitycheck · Post by **realitycheck** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:39 am

As for Iraq, G.W. is taking a lot of heat for it, but I think the real blame lies with his father. Saddam should have been removed from power way back in the early 90s. That was Bush Sr.'s critical error and many lives have been lost because of it. On top of that, Clinton had a chance to take out Osama and didn't because he was afraid an innocent might get hit in the process. One could argue that many more innocents have died because he saved a handful.

I agree about George Sr.'s mistake. He should have taken Saddam out back in 1991.

As for Clinton, he tried and failed multiple times to kill Osama.

At least he tried.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:17 am

As for Iraq, G.W. is taking a lot of heat for it, but I think the real blame lies with his father. Saddam should have been removed from power way back in the early 90s. That was Bush Sr.'s critical error and many lives have been lost because of it. On top of that, Clinton had a chance to take out Osama and didn't because he was afraid an innocent might get hit in the process. One could argue that many more innocents have died because he saved a handful.
I agree about George Sr.'s mistake. He should have taken Saddam out back in 1991.

As for Clinton, he tried and failed multiple times to kill Osama.

At least he tried.

?!?

Clinton just lobbed bombs into Afganistan, hoping to hit Osama. Bush has effectively crippled Osama. The pentagon has said that Osama is no longer in charge of Al Qaeda (however it's spelled).

I'm willing to bet that with democracy being installed in Afganistan and Iraq, these terrorist cells aren't going to be as well sheltered.

I'm sooo tired of every Democrat putting Clinton on a pedistal. He was a slimy ineffectual liar who rode economic policy and finanical trends that were started prior to his Presidency. What Clinton has given us is the phrase 'Define is', a health care system devised by lawyers, skyrocketing health care costs, and the DMCA.

I'm not a big fan of this administration or Congressional session, but at least Bush took a stand and is willing to see it through.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:38 am

As for Clinton, he tried and failed multiple times to kill Osama.

This reminds me of the time somebody claimed Bush wasn't serious about getting Osama, because we only had 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, whereas Clinton WAS serious about it, because he had a submarine stationed in the Indian Ocean.

Whatever. You can try to elevate Clinton over Bush in the area of Osama-chasing, but we'll just all sit here and laugh at you.

Post by **Leisher** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:02 am

And the last big mass killing was from 1991 when he put down the Shiite rebellion that we fostered during Desert Storm, which was more then 10 years before we invaded, so that must have been ok with you too?

Well, it was apparently ok with Clinton. He took office a year later and didn't do a thing about it.

Oh, no wait, he did do something about it. He helped to make sure thousands of Iraqis would die due to starvation, lack of medicine, and oppression by Saddam while people in the UN and linked to the UN would profit from their deaths.

We did not declare war on Germany first.

Japan struck Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th as a Preemptive strike. That is the precident you are looking for. They declared war on us Dec 7th, we declared war back on Dec. 8th.

Germany and Italy declared war on us on the morning of December 11th, 1941 because of the mutual protection pact between Japan, Germany and Italy (the "axis").

We, in turn, declared war back later that day.

Read it here.

There is the true example of your oh-so-moral "preemptive attack" policy.

No, it's an example of someone trying to skew facts to fit his argument.

If we just stick to the those facts, Germany did draw us into the war by declaring on us first. However, Mr. Reality Check (or should I say Dharma?) if we look at all the other facts of that time period, the picture changes.

The American public was tired of war as World War I was still in their memories. They did not want to go to Europe to fight another war despite the Germans conquering country after country and killing countless innocents.

Our leaders at the time knew that "opening a dialogue" with Hitler wasn't going to bring peace and were desperate to figure out a way to enter the war without pissing off the American people.

Then December 7th, 1941 happened and their big break came. The American people were outraged and wanted war and they got it.

The funny thing is that our troops were all ready to go to Europe and fight.

As for Clinton, he tried and failed multiple times to kill Osama.

At least he tried.

Prove it.

The night Clinton was to admit that he did have sexual relations with that woman, he had Air Force bombers hit "terrorist training camps" somehwere in Northern Africa or the Middle East. As it turns out, we wound up bombing a hospital. (On a side note, nobody in the media said shit about this event. Imagine if this happened under Bush's watch.) Anyway, at no point was Osama mentioned as a target.

Let's not forget the "lobbed bombs" in Afghanistan that Doctor Chaos brings up.

Also, as a recent documentary on the events that lead up to 9/11 made public, Clinton had a single chance to kill Osama back in the mid to late 90s. The Air Force was in position and Osama was sitting in the open in a small camp made up of tents. Clinton saw a satelitte image of Osama's camp and saw that there was a swing set there and called off the attack. I really do respect the fact that he would be concerned with kids dying, but that decision hasn't worked out too well for the U.S. has it? On top of that, if the documentary crew got all their facts straight, there weren't any kids, just a swing set that was there to fool anyone watching.

What did Clinton do after the first Trade Center bombings? I honestly don't remember. Was that a time when he "tried to kill Osama?"

Maybe he was trying to kill Osama when he sent troops to Bosnia? Which happened to be another military action that he commanded that got no reaction from the extreme left.

I'm not trying to bash Clinton so much as I'm pointing out the bullshit point of view that you and the extreme left have taken towards this current war in Iraq.

Every president makes mistakes and every president kills people via military action, so why does Bush get blasted so badly by the same folks who ignored all the mistakes and kills that Clinton was directly responsible for?

I mean Carter showed incredible weakness in the face of the enemy, Reagan dealt them weapons, Bush Sr. attacked Iraq and left Saddam in power, Clinton bombed innocents and missed a chance to kill Osama, but somehow, that's all Bush's fault.

My point is that your post is obviousyl an attack on Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush isn't perfect, not by a looooooooooong shot, but c'mon you've got to admit that every decision he makes is under more scrutiny than any other president in history.

I mean, imagine if Mogadishu happened under his watch.

There is the true example of your oh-so-moral "preemptive attack" policy.

I know I'm quoting this one twice, but I wanted to ask you who said preemptive attacks were "moral"? Not that they aren't and/or don't serve a purpose, but are you making up our arguments for us?

Oh and, by the way, do you know what insurance is? How about pre-school? Seat belts? Safety laws? Contracts? Earthquake springs in buildings? Tornado watches? Early warning detection systems? Laws? etc. etc. etc.

They are all forms of "preemptive strikes".

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:37 pm

You forget: liberals are at their very core incapable of rational thought in any form.

If they were, they would not be liberals.
Bah.

Meaningless rhetoric without a shred of truth to it.

I used to provide evidence and prove the truth behind such statements, but that's sort of pointless, since the people I was proving it to were unable to comprehend the logic necessary to understand the proof. Wasted effort.

If you are a liberal, you won't understand. If you aren't, you already do. No point in trying to convince you of anything.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:12 pm

You either get it, or you don't.

It's like 9/11 never happened.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:00 pm

And the last big mass killing was from 1991 when he put down the Shiite rebellion that we fostered during Desert Storm, which was more then 10 years before we invaded, so that must have been ok with you too?

You are in-fucking-sane. Are you attempting to say that we shouldn't be pissed off at that cos we alledgedly started it?

Fuck the mass killings & graves that we know about. How about the slow, persistent, cloak-&-dagger style executions & torture that happened? There was some dude that was hiding in a wall for a decade or so cos he was scared Saddam would find him. His son tortured Iraqi Olympians when they failed to win gold medals.

The fucker is deserving of a double-tap to the head, nothing more.