Reflections on the Iraq War

Iraq War y/n?


  • Total voters
    66
So he was a bigger beneficiary of grade inflation than Gore or Kerry? Good to know, he's clearly not stupid. All the empirical evidence to the contrary is wrong, his grades were good. It's also pretty obvious bathsheba (or pretty much any critic of his) thinks W is some evil mastermind. That label was usually attached to Cheney.

If you think from my posts that I regard him as any kind of mastermind, you have severe comprehension problems.

I just get tired of the silly arguments where people try to label him an idiot or whatever. GWB was always a lot smarter than people give him credit for.

Still pretty stupid though. Witness the thread subject.

Bush made better grades in school than either democrat that ran against him. To continually allege he was not intelligent meanwhile making him out to be the evil mastermind pulling all the strings only makes you look dumb, not him.

Another one with severe comprehension problems.
Then again, that is congruent with thinking that I look dumb.
 
Heaven forbid we actually stay neutral in ANYTHING. But I suppose since we attacked them, they must have hated us for our freedom:rolleyes:

That worked well in WW2.
 
They are also irritating. Which is the worst variety of irrelevant.

They're sodomized by so many (or in the example given, exactly one) sources of information which are hand-picked to never spark a critical thought of their own, that the bollocks that is injected into their arse immediately comes out of their mouth. No digestive process involved.
As a fringe nutter, I have to point out that the same phenomenon happens perfectly often with mainstream bollocks.
 
And ladies and gentlemen this is why fringies (be they extreme left or right) are irrelevant.
Discussing others instead of the topic again?

And where do you consider yourself to be on many of the topics in this forum, such as this one? :crazyeye:

Thank you for making my point for me. Like I said, there will always be the rabid anti-Bush crowd that foams at the mouth and croaks such things. Nothing will dissuade them otherwise. Nothing.
What about the "rabid" pro-Bush "crowd" of 22% who still rationalize and defend his gross incompetence and complete failure as a diplomat even today?


Link to video.

"Nothing will dissuade them otherwise. Nothing."
 
Thank you for making my point for me. Like I said, there will always be the rabid anti-Bush crowd that foams at the mouth and croaks such things. Nothing will dissuade them otherwise. Nothing.

Going back and changing history would, effectively, dissuade me. But the facts of the case are that his Admin made absolutely enormous blunders - "blunders" is being very kind - and no amount of non-blunders will make the mistakes go away. That isn't the way things work.

If a cop pulls you over for a deadly hit-and-run a valid defense - in either a legal or ethical sense - is NOT "But I drove all day, both before and after the accident, quite well!"

But that's pretty much the last defense you offered.

Well, right before ignoring my point and shooting right to your over-wrought characterizations defense.

That, though, is a nice example of the demonization *I* was talking about. Would you like me to tell you why so many of GWB's critics are demonized? It's because his Admin and his supporters were very publicly, very expensively, very, very wrong. And when you're that wrong - when the facts are so far in the other side's camp that people start making jokes like "Reality has a liberal bias" - then you find personal attacks are simply the best tool left you. They're often pretty much matters of emotion and personal opinion, and those are venues where you've actually got a chance.

Sort of literally, it's a retreat to a defensible position.
 
As a fringe nutter, I have to point out that the same phenomenon happens perfectly often with mainstream bollocks.

The difference between the mainstream and the fringe in this regard is that the mainstream-fools tend to not think they're geniuses. There are too many of them for that to seem credible. *Instead* they say that the other side are all dumb. That's quite possible for very large groups of people. Alternatively, the other side are "bad". America-haters, for example.

But otherwise... yeah.

Every large group will have a bunch of knee-jerk adherents. Though some groups seem prone to very high percentages of them. I suspect the key factor is whether or not group membership the result of genuine political or social stances or because it's an identity you want to project. If you come to your political "tribe" because it supports your sense of identity you're going to want media that supports that sense of identity (which likely isn't very strong), and you're going to take political criticisms personally. Both factors are opposed to critical thought.
 
If you think from my posts that I regard him as any kind of mastermind, you have severe comprehension problems.

It's pretty flippin' obvious I missed a word in there. Context clues.

They are also irritating. Which is the worst variety of irrelevant.

They're sodomized by so many (or in the example given, exactly one) sources of information which are hand-picked to never spark a critical thought of their own, that the bollocks that is injected into their arse immediately comes out of their mouth. No digestive process involved.

And when they notice that they're the only one who take that bollocks serious, they must be some sort of genius who can see and channel the trooth while others who disagree are just using those devious rhetorical tricks as facts and reasoning to obfuscate.

So what exactly do you consider beyond the bounds of polite discussion? What makes something extreme versus something "moderate" or "centrist"? How do those terms have any more legitimacy just because they happen to be in the middle of a contemporary political spectrum?

I mean, there is nothing exclusive to "extremists" in your second and third paragraphs. Your opening sentence doesn't follow at all.
 
I have provided many metrics that can only be interpreted as success. On the flip side nobody claiming failure can point to one metric that supports that conclusion.

Here's one metric indicating failure:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Your link is very interesting. Clearly WW2 was the most expensive in terms of GDP, but it was a world war. To compare, you'd need to scale the other conflicts up to global levels too.
 
And ladies and gentlemen this is why fringies (be they extreme left or right) are irrelevant.

Thank you.

So am I extreme left or extreme right? Your stupid spectrum is just that. I bet you can't even answer that question.

That worked well in WW2.

First of all, using one extreme case to make your point isn't really a good argument. Just because Hitler and Tojo may have been a threat so serious that we had to get involved doesn't mean that every single conflict going on anywhere in the world is something we have to get involved in. I will note that the Soviet Empire was still around when all was said and done and we didn't get militarily involved there. While there was tension, USSR never attacked us.

Second of all, the Hitler comparison is stupid because of World War I, where we did indeed get involved in an imperial war that ended in serious punishment for Germany, creating the circumstances under which a radical such as Hitler could have attained power in the first place. The war was a draw without US (Pun intended) involved and would likely have never led to Hitler's spawn.

Third of all, even taking as a given that we got involved in WWI, we STILL did not have to get involved in World War II. The reality is that we were already involved economically and politically with the Allies (Read: Including STALIN) and against the Axis, long before the Pearl Harbor attack. While nobody can be certain what would have happened had we not embargoed Japan, I do not think they would have had any reason to attack us.
 
This would be a more interesting discussion if we could stick to the Iraq War and not repeat the exact same WWII discussion we've had multiple times before.
 
Orly?
Actually I can. Stalin.
...
I do, in fact think the existance of WMDs are evil but as the only ones who have used them, the American government hardly has a right to police who gets to own them and who doesn't.
...

100,000 people murdered. What could be simpler? I can't think of an answer that doesn't violate Godwin's Law.

Further, just because someone brings something up doesn't mean you have to spam about it the way I spam about every spam Dommy3k post.
 
So am I extreme left or extreme right? Your stupid spectrum is just that. I bet you can't even answer that question.

I dont have to. Political belief is rather like the shape of a horseshoe. Notice how the ends of the horseshoe are closest together? Well, thats how the extreme fringe is - they actually have more in common with each other than they do the moderates (i.e. the middle of the horseshoe).

The point being, Fringies, be they left or right, all act pretty much the same.
 
That's kind of interesting. I'm not sure it's true though.

I'd much rather talk to someone from the extreme left than the extreme right.

Still...Pol Pot...hmm... you may have a point.
 
I dont have to. Political belief is rather like the shape of a horseshoe. Notice how the ends of the horseshoe are closest together? Well, thats how the extreme fringe is - they actually have more in common with each other than they do the moderates (i.e. the middle of the horseshoe).

The point being, Fringies, be they left or right, all act pretty much the same.

Cute, but completely inaccurate. The reality is that terms like "Left" and "Right" are really meaningless. I could almost completely agree with what someone on the "Far left" (Assuming they are actually far enough in that direction to not be stuck with the hypocritical center) says about aggressive war being wrong but yet be as different with them on economics as night is different from day.

The reality is that those you decry as "Extremists" hate the imperial neo-Roman Empire system which both parties worship as their God. As such, you hate them.
 
That's kind of interesting. I'm not sure it's true though.

I'd much rather talk to someone from the extreme left than the extreme right.

Still...Pol Pot...hmm... you may have a point.

Saloth Sar was a peasant fetishist. I don't think a spectrum exists for that.
 
Given that those that still think the Iraq War was a good idea are now on the fringe, are they really relevant?

Considering how overrepresented that small group of people are in the more radically bloodthirsty party (The politically correct term for this party is "The Republican Party" or "The GOP"), its unfortunate, but yes they do matter...

Granted, they're EVIL, but that's not the same thing as saying they don't matter.
 
I dont have to. Political belief is rather like the shape of a horseshoe. Notice how the ends of the horseshoe are closest together? Well, thats how the extreme fringe is - they actually have more in common with each other than they do the moderates (i.e. the middle of the horseshoe).

The point being, Fringies, be they left or right, all act pretty much the same.
What you have in common with most real far-left "fringies", instead of the absurd ones you continue to fabricate from those who merely disagree with your own personal opinions, is that you are both staunch authoritarians.
 
Cute, but completely inaccurate.

Oh..its not inaccurate at all. I think its cute you'd deny it of course.

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

What you have in common with most real far-left "fringies", instead of the absurd ones you continue to fabricate from those who merely disagree with your own personal opinions, is that you are both staunch authoritarians.

I'm not a far-right fringie. In fact, Id say your absolutely further left than I am further right.

I'm not nearly the foaming mouth conservative radical you claim I am Form. Never have been.

But then again, to you, anyone that is even remotely conservative or religious is defined as radical, so /oh well.
 
Back
Top Bottom