No comment necessary

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I think that you can chalk that up to the fact that Bush's "intentions" were doubted, Jack.

If Bush’s intentions were doubted, then so were the intentions of 373 members of Congress. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he was the only one who was forced to accept the blame.

The Resolution on Iraq was passed in October 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You talk as if we invaded the next day. That's not what happened, Jack. If you want to reopen a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But let's not pretend that nothing at all happened between the AUMF and the invasion.

This lays it all out pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: If Bush’s intentions were doubted, then so were the intentions of 373 members of Congress. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he was the only one who was forced to accept the blame.

The Resolution on Iraq was passed in October 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You talk as if we invaded the next day. That's not what happened, Jack. If you want to reopen a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But let's not pretend that nothing at all happened between the AUMF and the invasion.

This lays it all out pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded

No, actually it doesn't, because once again, it ignores the events that happened during the run-up to the invasion., specifically the events between the vote and the invasion. Like I said, if you want to have a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But I don't think that you really want that, do you?

That would require you to leave the comfort zone of partisan talking points, and actually discuss how and why Bush lost the trust of a large portion of the American public, especially in the 5 months leading up to the invasion. But IMHO, it would be good for you, Jack.

BTW - For what it's worth, I did find the video to be mildly amusing.

Posts : 6988

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263449/obamas-amazing-achievements-victor-davis-hanson

Iraq was just a prequel to Libya: Conservatives have complained that opposition — especially in the cases of then-senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden — to George W. Bush’s antiterrorism policies and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was more partisan than principled. Obama ended that debate by showing that not only can he embrace — or, on occasion, expand — the Bush-Cheney tribunals, preventive detentions, renditions, Predator attacks, intercepts and wiretaps, and Guantanamo Bay, but he can now preemptively attack an Arab oil-exporting country without fear of Hollywood, congressional cutoffs, MoveOn.org “General Betray Us”–type ads, Cindy Sheehan on the evening news, or Checkpoint-like novels. In short, Obama has ensured that the antiwar movement will never be quite the same.
……….
Stuff happens: Many supporters of the Iraq War condemned Abu Ghraib as the poorly supervised, out-of-control prison it was. Lax American oversight resulted in the sexual humiliation of detained Iraqi insurgents. It was a deplorable episode, in which, nonetheless, no one was killed, and yet it took an enormous toll on the credibility of Bush-administration officials. But while the media were covering the Libyan bombing and the Middle East uprisings, a number of Afghan civilians allegedly were executed by a few rogue American soldiers. That was a far worse transgression than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib during Bush’s tenure — but it was apparently an incident that, in the new media climate, could legitimately be ignored. Obama made “stuff happens” an acceptable defense for those doing their best to run a war from Washington.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263449/obamas-amazing-achievements-victor-davis-hanson
[/i]

Another whining wingnut op-ed by someone who can't get over the fact that Obama did everything right. Sleep

Mr Hanson is also a huge Caribou Barbie fan and has been carrying water for her on a regular basis. Rolling Eyes

Why Do We Like Palin? September 3, 2008 12:42 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson
:rolfcry:

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Another whining wingnut op-ed by someone who can't get over the fact that Obama did everything right.

Can you point out any untruths in the article?
Thanks.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Another whining wingnut op-ed by someone who can't get over the fact that Obama did everything right.

Can you point out any untruths in the article?
Thanks.

First of all, it's not an article. It's an opinion piece. I haven't bothered to read the whole thing, but yeah, I can spot something right away...

Quote :: But while the media were covering the Libyan bombing and the Middle East uprisings, a number of Afghan civilians allegedly were executed by a few rogue American soldiers.

I thought those murders happened a year ago. This is one of the problems with Op-Ed pieces. The columnist was so anxious to make his political points that he didn't even bother to check something as basic as that. If a columnist doesn't take the time to fact check his work, then why the hell should we care about what else he has to say?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: This lays it all out pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded

Ugh... Those are the worst things to happen to the internet since that "leave Brittany alone" guy.

For an equally amusing vid, here's the "global warming is a conspiracy" one. Or creationism. Real easy to win an argument if your opponent is a retarded robot reading a script.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I thought those murders happened a year ago.

You're right- the chronology was off.
The author's premise, however, was right on.

Scorpion wrote:: I haven't bothered to read the whole thing ...

You can't just read it - you have to watch it.
For Chrissakes, don't you know anything?!?!?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I thought those murders happened a year ago.

You're right- the chronology was off.
The author's premise, however, was right on.

The "premise" is frickin' absurd. I know that you believe this juvenile tripe, but that doesn't make it accurate. I'll give you just one example of why this kind of thinking is fundamentally flawed, and then I'm done with this nonsense.

I don't know anyone who didn't support the war in Afghanistan. Yet your "author" even goes so far as to claim that Biden and Obama opposed it. I can't ask your "author" for a supporting statement for that ridiculous claim, but since it's so obvious to you that his premise is "right on," the responsibility to find supporting evidence falls to you. (Which is another reason that opinion pieces should not be used to make an argument)

Good luck with that.

Hell, Obama actually campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and that is exactly what has happened since he took office.

Posts : 1328

Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

Posts : 289

KarenT wrote:: Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

:woot:

Posts : 9728

KarenT wrote:: Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

No comment.

Posts : 6988

KarenT wrote:: Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

Your comment is completely unnecessary.

Posts : 1328

So -- it fits right in, right! Teehee!

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama! cheers

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama! cheers

Why would I need a crystal ball, and what was I wrong about?
My point in starting this thread was clear - to lay out the difference in perception and spin by the media and the Democrats concerning an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
Pay attention.

happy jack wrote:: …. to attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.

happy jack wrote:: Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

happy jack wrote:: Why are they attacking Libya?
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?

Posts : 9728

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama! cheers

Why would I need a crystal ball, and what was I wrong about?
My point in starting this thread was clear - to lay out the difference in perception and spin by the media and the Democrats concerning an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
Pay attention.

I'm referring to your remark that I quoted. It's clear that you believed that we were laying the groundwork for a possible invasion when it's obvious that we weren't. Just admit that were dead wrong and we can move on. Thanks.

Posts : 6988

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama!

Why would I need a crystal ball, and what was I wrong about?
My point in starting this thread was clear - to lay out the difference in perception and spin by the media and the Democrats concerning an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
Pay attention.

I'm referring to your remark that I quoted. It's clear that you believed that we were laying the groundwork for a possible invasion when it's obvious that we weren't. Just admit that were dead wrong and we can move on. Thanks.

I will admit that I am wrong when you can point out anything in my quote that is false.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: [b]I will admit that I am wrong when you can point out anything in my quote that is false.

Quote :: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Looks to me that you think that an invasion is just a matter of time.

Quote :: And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.

Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I will admit that I am wrong when you can point out anything in my quote that is false.

Quote :

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Looks to me that you think that an invasion is just a matter of time.

Quote :

And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.

Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

happy jack wrote:

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.

Indisputably true.

happy jack wrote:: So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Indisputably true.

happy jack wrote:: And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Indisputably true.

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?
Please.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?

So no actual evidence of such, then...

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?

So no actual evidence of such, then...

Is my statement false?

Posts : 3520

Have any evidence?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Have any evidence?

Evidence that the military takes into consideration every contingency when undertaking a mission?
No, no evidence. I just kind of assumed that everyone realized that intuitively. Guess I overestimated you and Artie.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

[b]Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?
Please.

Show me where our troops were being positioned for a possible invasion? That includes our ships at sea which would also have to be repositioned. It takes a lot of time to get everything into position. When Chimpy decided it was a good idea to invade Iraq he couldn't do it at a drop of a hat. You were speculating on an invasion when there clearly wasn't any evidence.