Obama: Bush Senior “did an excellent job when it came to the Gulf War"

1…89111314…16

Comments

  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    quick someone tell us how killing millions of people accomplishes the task of making the world a safer place.
    How about just making Kuwait a safer place? to make the world a safer place would possibly require more (see WWII).

    now i have answered your question. now you may not agree with me, and i may even be wrong, but i answered rather than deflected your question.

    now its your turn. what should have happened once Iraq invaded Kuwait?


    or let me rephrase: what should have happened once America ignored the problem and selfishly only cared about its own interests, and Iraq invaded Kuwait?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    MrSmith wrote:

    now its your turn. what should have happened once Iraq invaded Kuwait?


    give up, they can't and won't answer it
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    How about just making Kuwait a safer place? to make the world a safer place would possibly require more (see WWII).

    now i have answered your question. now you may not agree with me, and i may even be wrong, but i answered rather than deflected your question.

    now its your turn. what should have happened once Iraq invaded Kuwait?

    We, the US, should have applied pressure instead of leading Iraq to believe we would look the other way and then turn around and jump in once they did what we wanted them to.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    give up, they can't and won't answer it


    who would bother with answering you? it's pointless to try.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    who would bother with answering you? it's pointless to try.

    speaking of republicans, you sound like that guy on Chris Matthews trying to deflect why he couldnt explain who Chamberlain was.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    speaking of republicans, you sound like that guy on Chris Matthews trying to deflect why he couldnt explain who Chamberlain was.


    why is that? you won't read anything anyone posts that states a different opinion but then you also dismiss my own opinion as inferior to yours...what would be the point of me bothering here?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    1. military action was authorized by the United Nations

    2. military action was carried out by a 34 nation coalition force. and not of the current iraq war variety. this coalition is listed below with the number of troops provided. i bolded a few that may suprise you folks, considering they are nearly every country in the middle east... arab states and iraq's neighbors... i guess they were in on the grand conspiracy as well... or maybe they just relaized the threat as REAL


    United States 575,000 - 697,000
    Saudi Arabia 52,000 - 100,000
    United Kingdom 43,000 - 45,400
    Egypt 33,600 - 35,000
    France 14,600
    Syria 14,500 (thats right, fucing syria)
    Morocco 13,000
    Kuwait 9,900
    Oman 6,300
    Pakistan 4,900
    United Arab Emirates 4,300
    Qatar 2,600
    Bangladesh 2,200
    Canada 2,700
    Italy 1,200
    Australia 700
    Netherlands 600
    Niger 600
    Senegal 500
    Spain 500
    Bahrain 400
    Belgium 400
    Afghanistan 300
    Argentina 300
    Czechoslovakia 200
    Greece 200
    Poland 200
    South Korea 200
    Philippines 200[
    Denmark 100
    Hungary 50
    Norway 50



    but what do they know, the actual countries of the middle east AND the United nations. you guys have it all figured out and never see any reason to rethink your almighty ideals on how the world SHOULD be. situations arise that must be dealt with, and they will be ugly. that is reality.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    MrSmith wrote:
    speaking of republicans, you sound like that guy on Chris Matthews trying to deflect why he couldnt explain who Chamberlain was.

    yup


    it becoems very obvious when someone is arguing something they know nothing about
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    what do you mean apply pressure? as in threaten military action or sanctions? because both of those forms of pressure have already been rejected by great society of pacifists here. so what exactly? write an angry letter to the UN? the dreaded condemnation!?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    why is that? you won't read anything anyone posts that states a different opinion but then you also dismiss my own opinion as inferior to yours...what would be the point of me bothering here?

    oh, i read it. i enjoy varrying aopinions. but i dont value and say "good post" when wht someone is posting is absolute non sense and they cleary dont knwo what they are talking about


    i just prefer not to read the 600 links you post. you could at least preface it by saying "this is that this is about and it is a good read" and maybe even paraphrase it?

    but no, you just post a link that you did a google search for and expect people to just read it and take it as your stance. speak for yourself, then use it to back your shit up.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    what do you mean apply pressure? as in threaten military action or sanctions? because both of those forms of pressure have already been rejected by great society of pacifists here. so what exactly? write an angry letter to the UN?


    they may have been rejected by pacifists but they sure as hell beat killing millions of people. I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.

    Also the Iraqi people could have overthrown Saddam as they did dictators before him had we, the US, not propped him up and aided him in his brutality when it suited our purposes against Iran. We weren't too worried about humanitarianism then....what a crock of shit you people eat up.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    oh, i read it. i enjoy varrying aopinions. but i dont value and say "good post" when wht someone is posting is absolute non sense and they cleary dont knwo what they are talking about


    i just prefer not to read the 600 links you post. you could at least preface it by saying "this is that this is about and it is a good read" and maybe even paraphrase it?

    but no, you just post a link that you did a google search for and expect people to just read it and take it as your stance. speak for yourself, then use it to back your shit up.


    so you do read now?

    but you want me to paraphrase it for you even though you're fully aware of what topic we're posting about? okay sweetie, next time I'll paraphrase it for you. Better?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.


    hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


    thats a good one!


    we were one of the leading countries pushing the UN to act, apply pressure, and apply sacntions. i thin our opinion on the matter was well known and that they had "lost the support of us as an ally"... and that didnt persuade them to leave. fucking bush was on TV everyday stating clearly that "this aggression will not stand"

    by the way, when you say "apply pressure" wht do you mean? what kind of pressure?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    my2hands wrote:
    1. military action was authorized by the United Nations

    2. military action was carried out by a 34 nation coalition force. and not of the current iraq war variety. this coalition is listed below with the number of troops provided. i bolded a few that may suprise you folks, considering they are nearly every country in the middle east... arab states and iraq's neighbors... i guess they were in on the grand conspiracy as well... or maybe they just relaized the threat as REAL


    United States 575,000 - 697,000
    Saudi Arabia 52,000 - 100,000
    United Kingdom 43,000 - 45,400
    Egypt 33,600 - 35,000
    France 14,600
    Syria 14,500 (thats right, fucing syria)
    Morocco 13,000
    Kuwait 9,900
    Oman 6,300
    Pakistan 4,900
    United Arab Emirates 4,300
    Qatar 2,600
    Bangladesh 2,200
    Canada 2,700
    Italy 1,200
    Australia 700
    Netherlands 600
    Niger 600
    Senegal 500
    Spain 500
    Bahrain 400
    Belgium 400
    Afghanistan 300
    Argentina 300
    Czechoslovakia 200
    Greece 200
    Poland 200
    South Korea 200
    Philippines 200[
    Denmark 100
    Hungary 50
    Norway 50



    but what do they know, the actual countries of the middle east AND the United nations. you guys have it all figured out and never see any reason to rethink your almighty ideals on how the world SHOULD be. situations arise that must be dealt with, and they will be ugly. that is reality.


    i am not going to let this one slide by
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    they may have been rejected by pacifists but they sure as hell beat killing millions of people. I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.

    Also the Iraqi people could have overthrown Saddam as they did dictators before him had we, the US, not propped him up and aided him in his brutality when it suited our purposes against Iran. We weren't too worried about humanitarianism then....what a crock of shit you people eat up.
    you still havent answered what pressure is. you mean like physical pressure? should we somehow push against them with our overweight girth? Force push?

    So because we backed them against Iran, we shouldn't have fought them after Kuwait was invaded? I'm not sure i follow the logic there. Even granting that we did everything wrong for helping Iraq fight Iran and our hopelessly corrupt leaders only care about whats best for them (how much more can i give you here), how does that suddenly make us in the wrong for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait?

    Because we weren;t concerned with humanitarianism then we shouldnt be concerned with humanitarianism now?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    you still havent answered what pressure is. you mean like physical pressure? should we somehow push against them with our overweight girth? Force push?

    So because we backed them against Iran, we shouldn't have fought them after Kuwait was invaded? I'm not sure i follow the logic there. Even granting that we did everything wrong for helping Iraq fight Iran and our hopelessly corrupt leaders only care about whats best for them (how much more can i give you here), how does that suddenly make us in the wrong for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait?

    Because we weren;t concerned with humanitarianism then we shouldnt be concerned with humanitarianism now?

    okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.


    there's really no point in going any further in this...
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    another thing you havent realized here (i assume because you were too young to remember) is that the US went through all the proper diplomatic channels AFTER Iraq invaded Kuwait. MONTHS of time went by before we attacked, and during that time we had repeatedly and publicly condemned and threatened (applied pressure!) the Iraqis to pull out.

    It is INCONCIEVABLE that any informed person could say that we did not, in no uncertain terms, demand that the Iraqis leave Kuwait. Its simply not a point of debate. Everyone on the planet knew at that point that we were not friends with Iraq, and that, even if we were completely joined at the hip and actually desiring them to go into Kuwait, it is a fact that we werent on their side after the invasion. Iraq had MONTHS of time to leave. and they did not.

    so knowing that, what should we have done once they had invaded adn refused to leave?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.


    there's really no point in going any further in this...


    becasue you dont have an answer


    just saying "i am anti-war" is not an answer. it is a cute little way of getting out of any type of intelligent discussion of when and how military intervetion can be just and useful and needed
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    becasue you dont have an answer


    just saying "i am anti-war" is not an answer. it is a cute little way of getting out of any type of intelligent discussion of when and how military intervetion can be just and useful and needed


    so an anti-war stance is unintelligent?

    and the only intelligent way to think is to see that war is unavoidable?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.


    there's really no point in going any further in this...

    and once again you have failed to define pressure

Categories