wow, just wow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and
> terrorism as the reasons for going to war. Te
> Downing Street memo should have been your first
> clue as to the real reason for going to war, and
> what the fake reason really was. You Brian,
> ignored it.

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban war fighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

Downing Street Memo, p. 2.

If the Downing Street Memo is the "smoking gun" proving that evidence of WMDs was fabricated, why then does the memo contemplate and worry about Saddam using WMDs?

You think that an MSNBC docudrama represents 'fact.'

wow, just wow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From off topic
>
> Brian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >Iraq because of the incorrect
> > belief that Saddam had WMDs and could give them
> > too terrorists.
> >
>
>
> No, Brian. Recently uncovered documents show
> clearly the reason Bush/Cheney went to war in Iraq
> was to get control of their under-utilized oil
> reserves. Cheney's secret "energy summit" in early
> 2001 actually carved out the Iraqi oil fields for
> the big oil companies. Getting rid of Saddam would
> lift the oil restrictions and allow Iraqi oil to
> flow freely.
>
> But these recently uncovered documents show really
> nothing new.
>
> The British newspapers reported on May 1, 2005,
> the "Downey Street Memo." The memo recorded the
> head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as
> expressing the view following his recent visit to
> Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove
> Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified
> by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
> intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
> policy." Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and
> terrorism as the reasons for going to war. Te
> Downing Street memo should have been your first
> clue as to the real reason for going to war, and
> what the fake reason really was. You Brian,
> ignored it.
>
> Did you not see the documentary "Why We Did it."
> Of course you didn't. It showed interviews from
> people in the CIA, and in the George W. Bush
> administration clearly citing the reasons for war
> and how the facts were manipulated so we could
> justify war. It showed a clear time line from the
> secret "Energy Summit" to the invasion itself on
> how under-utilized oil reserves were he driving
> force in the Bush administration, not WMD's. You
> ignored that report.
>
> Actually, when the invasion started, The
> Washington Post reported the evidence of WMD's was
> "flimsy." You ignored that report as well, even
> though it turned out to be absolutely true. Oh,
> but that is just the liberal media, right, Brian?
>
> The books "Bushwhacked" and The Greatest War ever
> Sold" also told of oil being the driving force for
> war. You didn't read those, either, did you?
>
> Until you, Brian, get out of the "Conservative"
> bubble, you will have no respect in my view. You
> here cited BS talking points here in 2011, and you
> should have known better. To come here now and try
> to defend your BS, is unconscionable.
>
> Go watch Why We Did it" and you can then make an
> informed opinion.

There is zero reason for me to waste any time doing any if the things you've suggested here. It's a decade later, the President has declared the war over. There is no point wasting any more bandwidth on Iraq arguments.

Thank God, or for the OP -- Allah, that we have reached a 2nd page on this discussion.

What has not been said here yet is that Iraq went to great lengths to convince the world that they had these chemical and biological weapons in order to enhance their standing in that corner of the world.

Until ISIS came roaring through in the past month, the world was still at work cleaning up some of those chemical sites.

Wonder how this discussion would be different if the US had left a credible defensive force in Iraq instead of the unilateral withdrawal, or if we hit ISIS while they were still moving across the desert before they reached the cities.

And now, back to Brian bashing.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> There is zero reason for me to waste any time
> doing any if the things you've suggested here.
> It's a decade later, the President has declared
> the war over. There is no point wasting any more
> bandwidth on Iraq arguments.


In other words, there is no point wasting any of your time learning the truth, are you serious?


Brian, do you enjoy spouting off crap as factual in an argument, and then sticking your head in the sand when you are given facts and correct information. It appears you do.

If you don't understand history, you are destined to repeat it. Therefore, Brian, by his own words, is comfortable with the next president starting another war under false pretenses, causing 4,500 American troops to die.

Why do you hate our military so much you want thousands of them to be killed in another propaganda game?

Why do you disrespect our falling members of the service, Brian?

hard to ignore this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wow, just wow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and
> > terrorism as the reasons for going to war. Te
> > Downing Street memo should have been your first
> > clue as to the real reason for going to war,
> and
> > what the fake reason really was. You Brian,
> > ignored it.
>
> "For instance, what were the consequences, if
> Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not
> collapse and urban war fighting began? You said
> that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or
> on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
>
> Downing Street Memo, p. 2.
>
> If the Downing Street Memo is the "smoking gun"
> proving that evidence of WMDs was fabricated, why
> then does the memo contemplate and worry about
> Saddam using WMDs?


You need to understand language here. The Downing Street memo had a basis that Saddam had WMD "capabilities," meaning he could build, now, WMD's. He had the technology and the brain power, but not any finished product, or product in production. He was not building or storing now, but he could.

Just because someone has a blueprint for a building, doesn't mean the building is built, or ground has been broken for its construction. In Saddam's case, the "blueprints" were all 10 years old at best.

language Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hard to ignore this Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > wow, just wow Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and
> > > terrorism as the reasons for going to war. Te
> > > Downing Street memo should have been your
> first
> > > clue as to the real reason for going to war,
> > and
> > > what the fake reason really was. You Brian,
> > > ignored it.
> >
> > "For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did
> not
> > collapse and urban war fighting began? You said
> > that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait.
> Or
> > on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
> >
> > Downing Street Memo, p. 2.
> >
> > If the Downing Street Memo is the "smoking gun"
> > proving that evidence of WMDs was fabricated,
> why
> > then does the memo contemplate and worry about
> > Saddam using WMDs?
>
>
> You need to understand language here. The Downing
> Street memo had a basis that Saddam had WMD
> "capabilities," meaning he could build, now,
> WMD's. He had the technology and the brain power,
> but not any finished product, or product in
> production. He was not building or storing now,
> but he could.
>
> Just because someone has a blueprint for a
> building, doesn't mean the building is built, or
> ground has been broken for its construction. In
> Saddam's case, the "blueprints" were all 10 years
> old at best.

Perhaps it is you who needs a lesson in language. For starters, you may want to look at how the British use the term "fixed around." It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Secondly, this hogwash you just posted doesn't hold water. If the British were worried about use of WMDs upon invasion, it means that they believed that weapons were either built or could be built immediately. Either way, they posed an immediate threat.

ff dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > There is zero reason for me to waste any time
> > doing any if the things you've suggested here.
> > It's a decade later, the President has declared
> > the war over. There is no point wasting any
> more
> > bandwidth on Iraq arguments.
>
>
> In other words, there is no point wasting any of
> your time learning the truth, are you serious?
>
>
> Brian, do you enjoy spouting off crap as factual
> in an argument, and then sticking your head in the
> sand when you are given facts and correct
> information. It appears you do.
>
> If you don't understand history, you are destined
> to repeat it. Therefore, Brian, by his own words,
> is comfortable with the next president starting
> another war under false pretenses, causing 4,500
> American troops to die.
>
> Why do you hate our military so much you want
> thousands of them to be killed in another
> propaganda game?
>
> Why do you disrespect our falling members of the
> service, Brian?


I'm still pissed that Kennedy and Johnson killed +60,000 of our boys and a couple of million gooks.

Dems = death Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ff dude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > There is zero reason for me to waste any time
> > > doing any if the things you've suggested
> here.
> > > It's a decade later, the President has
> declared
> > > the war over. There is no point wasting any
> > more
> > > bandwidth on Iraq arguments.
> >
> >
> > In other words, there is no point wasting any
> of
> > your time learning the truth, are you serious?
>
> >
> >
> > Brian, do you enjoy spouting off crap as
> factual
> > in an argument, and then sticking your head in
> the
> > sand when you are given facts and correct
> > information. It appears you do.
> >
> > If you don't understand history, you are
> destined
> > to repeat it. Therefore, Brian, by his own
> words,
> > is comfortable with the next president
> starting
> > another war under false pretenses, causing
> 4,500
> > American troops to die.
> >
> > Why do you hate our military so much you want
> > thousands of them to be killed in another
> > propaganda game?
> >
> > Why do hard Ni pissed that Kennedy and Johnson killed
> +60,000 of our boys and a couple of million gooks.

Put Richard Nixon on that list.

historical accuracy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Put Richard Nixon on that list.


Good point.

Nixon wound down the Democratic death machine.


1959 4
1960 5
1961 16
1962 53
1963 122
1964 216
1965 1,928
1966 6,350
1967 11,363
1968 16,899
1969 11,780
1970 6,173
1971 2,414
1972 759
1973 68
1974 1

hard to ignore this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> language Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hard to ignore this Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > wow, just wow Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and
> > > > terrorism as the reasons for going to war.
> Te
> > > > Downing Street memo should have been your
> > first
> > > > clue as to the real reason for going to
> war,
> > > and
> > > > what the fake reason really was. You Brian,
> > > > ignored it.
> > >
> > > "For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > > Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did
> > not
> > > collapse and urban war fighting began? You
> said
> > > that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait.
> > Or
> > > on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
> > >
> > > Downing Street Memo, p. 2.
> > >
> > > If the Downing Street Memo is the "smoking
> gun"
> > > proving that evidence of WMDs was fabricated,
> > why
> > > then does the memo contemplate and worry
> about
> > > Saddam using WMDs?
> >
> >
> > You need to understand language here. The
> Downing
> > Street memo had a basis that Saddam had WMD
> > "capabilities," meaning he could build, now,
> > WMD's. He had the technology and the brain
> power,
> > but not any finished product, or product in
> > production. He was not building or storing now,
> > but he could.
> >
> > Just because someone has a blueprint for a
> > building, doesn't mean the building is built,
> or
> > ground has been broken for its construction. In
> > Saddam's case, the "blueprints" were all 10
> years
> > old at best.
>
> Perhaps it is you who needs a lesson in language.
> For starters, you may want to look at how the
> British use the term "fixed around." It doesn't
> mean what you think it does.
>
> Secondly, this hogwash you just posted doesn't
> hold water. If the British were worried about use
> of WMDs upon invasion, it means that they believed
> that weapons were either built or could be built
> immediately. Either way, they posed an immediate
> threat.

According the Sunday Times (Who actually saw the minutes (Memo)), "[T]he minutes explicitly state that the [Iraq WMD] capability was less than that of Libya, Iran, and North Korea, and that Saddam was not threatening his neighbours."


From the BBC

"eing fixed around" used "fix" in the sense of "fraudulently arrange the result",a common British usage (sense 12(b) of "fix" in the printed Concise Oxford English Dictionary, given as sense 7, "deviously influence the outcome of" in the Compact OED online version). The argument has also been made that this view is supported by negative qualification implied by the presence of the word "But" at the start of the relevant sentence: 'But the intelligence and facts were being (innocently) agreed upon around the policy' is, it is said, an implausible reading because there is nothing negative, per se, about agreement, whereas "But the intelligence and facts were being fraudulently arranged ...", it is argued, appears to make perfect sense, because it fulfills the negative expectation set up by the word "but".

Dems = death Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> historical accuracy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Put Richard Nixon on that list.
>
>
> Good point.
>
> Nixon wound down the Democratic death machine.
>
>
> 1959 4
> 1960 5
> 1961 16
> 1962 53
> 1963 122
> 1964 216
> 1965 1,928
> 1966 6,350
> 1967 11,363
> 1968 16,899
> 1969 11,780
> 1970 6,173
> 1971 2,414
> 1972 759
> 1973 68
> 1974 1

At best, Kennedy had 191, and made your list. Nixon had 21,000 or so, and didn't make your list. Partisan?

Nixonian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dems = death Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > historical accuracy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > Put Richard Nixon on that list.
> >
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > Nixon wound down the Democratic death machine.
> >
> >
> > 1959 4
> > 1960 5
> > 1961 16
> > 1962 53
> > 1963 122
> > 1964 216
> > 1965 1,928
> > 1966 6,350
> > 1967 11,363
> > 1968 16,899
> > 1969 11,780
> > 1970 6,173
> > 1971 2,414
> > 1972 759
> > 1973 68
> > 1974 1
>
> At best, Kennedy had 191, and made your list.
> Nixon had 21,000 or so, and didn't make your list.
> Partisan?


Kennedy put us there and set the stage for Johnson's massive build up.

The troops were there when Nixon walked in the door. He began the draw-down.



I was one of the people who egged Nixon's inaugural motorcade in 73 so, yeah, I guess that counts as being partisan.

Almost twice as many American soldiers died under Democrat LBJ than Republican Richard Nixon.

Korea, Japan, Germany, Rear gaurd to protect victory, Fixed.

>At best, Kennedy had 191, and made your list. Nixon had 21,000 or so, and didn't make your list. Partisan?

Shithead.. Johnson (D) was the one who built up the war.No President can step in and just quit a war, not even Obama the Great as we have seen despite his promises. Nixon got the grunt body count down and turned the war over to the Navy and Airforce aviators to bomb the shit out of the NVA to get America out of the war at the peace table with as much respect as we could. I and many others are alive because of Nixon.

I should add the heroism and sacrifice of those aviators who took the war to the NVA got the USA out of Vietnam.

The Young Stupid Liberals Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >At best, Kennedy had 191, and made your list.
> Nixon had 21,000 or so, and didn't make your list.
> Partisan?
>
> Shithead.. Johnson (D) was the one who built up
> the war.No President can step in and just quit a
> war, not even Obama the Great as we have seen
> despite his promises. Nixon got the grunt body
> count down and turned the war over to the Navy and
> Airforce aviators to bomb the shit out of the NVA
> to get America out of the war at the peace table
> with as much respect as we could. I and many
> others are alive because of Nixon.

Actually, in a political dirty trick, in 1968, Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks.

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/12/lbj-white-house-tapes-reveal-nixon.html

Correction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hard to ignore this Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > language Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hard to ignore this Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > wow, just wow Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and
> > > > > terrorism as the reasons for going to
> war.
> > Te
> > > > > Downing Street memo should have been your
> > > first
> > > > > clue as to the real reason for going to
> > war,
> > > > and
> > > > > what the fake reason really was. You
> Brian,
> > > > > ignored it.
> > > >
> > > > "For instance, what were the consequences,
> if
> > > > Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad
> did
> > > not
> > > > collapse and urban war fighting began? You
> > said
> > > > that Saddam could also use his WMD on
> Kuwait.
> > > Or
> > > > on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
> > > >
> > > > Downing Street Memo, p. 2.
> > > >
> > > > If the Downing Street Memo is the "smoking
> > gun"
> > > > proving that evidence of WMDs was
> fabricated,
> > > why
> > > > then does the memo contemplate and worry
> > about
> > > > Saddam using WMDs?
> > >
> > >
> > > You need to understand language here. The
> > Downing
> > > Street memo had a basis that Saddam had WMD
> > > "capabilities," meaning he could build, now,
> > > WMD's. He had the technology and the brain
> > power,
> > > but not any finished product, or product in
> > > production. He was not building or storing
> now,
> > > but he could.
> > >
> > > Just because someone has a blueprint for a
> > > building, doesn't mean the building is built,
> > or
> > > ground has been broken for its construction.
> In
> > > Saddam's case, the "blueprints" were all 10
> > years
> > > old at best.
> >
> > Perhaps it is you who needs a lesson in
> language.
> > For starters, you may want to look at how the
> > British use the term "fixed around." It doesn't
> > mean what you think it does.
> >
> > Secondly, this hogwash you just posted doesn't
> > hold water. If the British were worried about
> use
> > of WMDs upon invasion, it means that they
> believed
> > that weapons were either built or could be
> built
> > immediately. Either way, they posed an
> immediate
> > threat.
>
> According the Sunday Times (Who actually saw the
> minutes (Memo)), "[T]he minutes explicitly state
> that the [Iraq WMD] capability was less than that
> of Libya, Iran, and North Korea, and that Saddam
> was not threatening his neighbours."

Does it not say: "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."?

> From the BBC
>
> "eing fixed around" used "fix" in the sense of
> "fraudulently arrange the result",a common British
> usage (sense 12(b) of "fix" in the printed Concise
> Oxford English Dictionary, given as sense 7,
> "deviously influence the outcome of" in the
> Compact OED online version). The argument has also
> been made that this view is supported by negative
> qualification implied by the presence of the word
> "But" at the start of the relevant sentence: 'But
> the intelligence and facts were being (innocently)
> agreed upon around the policy' is, it is said, an
> implausible reading because there is nothing
> negative, per se, about agreement, whereas "But
> the intelligence and facts were being fraudulently
> arranged ...", it is argued, appears to make
> perfect sense, because it fulfills the negative
> expectation set up by the word "but".


Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, has said it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.[

Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, has said it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.
-----
-----

It means the same thing in either case -- a pre-selected conclusion being used to drive the data rather than the other way around. The rigged and phony nature of the alleged data is of course a long and well established fact.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for
> Strategic and International Studies, a Washington
> think tank, has said it would be easy for
> Americans to misunderstand the reference to
> intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. "
> 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted
> on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he
> says. This view was seconded by Christopher
> Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.
> -----
> -----
>
> It means the same thing in either case --

No, which is why there is still debate about it. I know you have been told to think this way, so I won't hold it against you.

> a pre-selected conclusion being used to drive the
> data rather than the other way around. The rigged
> and phony nature of the alleged data is of course
> a long and well established fact.

And yet.....

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

Downing Street Memo, p. 2.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A more savvy individual would wonder why you are
> so desperate to win an argument that can't be won.

Learn to fact-check yourself. By your intellectual laziness, you invite the ridicule you receive.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of the time I post here I get told I don't
> have any kind of status, so this is kind of funny.

How's that clampdown on political party signage in the median coming along?

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most of the time I post here I get told I don't
> > have any kind of status, so this is kind of
> funny.
>
> How's that clampdown on political party signage in
> the median coming along?


Man in the shadows, is Brian the only man you obsess over, or are there others?

chuckhoffmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is the way things are done here.

The way things are done everywhere is that serious people put the kibosh on the nonsense claims of waste-of-time partisan liars and shills.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chuckhoffmann Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is the way things are done here.
>
> The way things are done everywhere is that serious
> people put the kibosh on the nonsense claims of
> waste-of-time partisan liars and shills.


If that were the case, you'd have been shown the door long ago.

hard to ignore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, which is why there is still debate about it.
> I know you have been told to think this way, so I
> won't hold it against you.

Stooge. The words mean quite precisely that the "facts" were being cherry-picked and arranged to fit around an already-drawn policy, rather than that policy was being drawn from an unbiased study of the actual facts. Bush had already decided on regime change through military invasion. That's the whole point.

> "For instance, what were the consequences, if
> Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not
> collapse and urban warfighting began? You said
> that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or
> on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
> Downing Street Memo, p. 2.

Hmmm. This is speculation over hypotheticals. There is no necessary basis in fact for speculation or for hypotheticals. There was in fact no available evidence for WMD existing in Iraq in the summer of 2002 while there was much in the papers and classified debriefings of Hussein Kamel and elsewhere to suggest that the stocks of WMD Iraq was known to have had at the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War had been destroyed by Iraq itself to keep them from falling into western hands or subsequently discovered and destroyed by UNSCOM in its postwar sweeps. Iraq's residual capacity for eventually reconstituting actual stocks of such weapons had also been decimated by Operation Desert Fox in December of 1998. The country had of course been and would continue to be under heavy surveillance by satellite and through daily overflights in the no-fly zones.

Man is the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hard to ignore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, which is why there is still debate about it.
>
> > I know you have been told to think this way, so
> I
> > won't hold it against you.
>
> Stooge. The words mean quite precisely that the
> "facts" were being cherry-picked and arranged to
> fit around an already-drawn policy, rather than
> that policy was being drawn from an unbiased study
> of the actual facts. Bush had already decided on
> regime change through military invasion. That's
> the whole point.

Says the parrot. Your squawks are getting old and tired.

> > "For instance, what were the consequences, if
> > Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did
> not
> > collapse and urban warfighting began? You said
> > that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait.
> Or
> > on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
> > Downing Street Memo, p. 2.
>
> Hmmm. This is speculation over hypotheticals.
> There is no necessary basis in fact for
> speculation or for hypotheticals. There was in
> fact no available evidence for WMD existing in
> Iraq in the summer of 2002 while there was much in
> the papers and classified debriefings of Hussein
> Kamel and elsewhere to suggest that the stocks of
> WMD Iraq was known to have had at the conclusion
> of the 1991 Gulf War had been destroyed by Iraq
> itself to keep them from falling into western
> hands or subsequently discovered and destroyed by
> UNSCOM in its postwar sweeps. Iraq's residual
> capacity for eventually reconstituting actual
> stocks of such weapons had also been decimated by
> Operation Desert Fox in December of 1998. The
> country had of course been and would continue to
> be under heavy surveillance by satellite and
> through daily overflights in the no-fly zones.

If all this was know, there would be no need for "speculation over hypotheticals." And yet, there it is in black and white right there in the Downing Street Memo undercutting your entire contention. Sucks to be you.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is zero reason for me to waste any time
> doing any if the things you've suggested here.

Here's a possible reason: You might learn something about how you were so easily misled on such an important matter. Too late for the other matters you've also been completely bamboozled over since, but perhaps some steps could be identified and taken to prevent this sort of things happening on such a routine basis in the future.

Just Another Voice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wonder how this discussion would be different if
> the US had left a credible defensive force in Iraq
> instead of the unilateral withdrawal, or if we hit
> ISIS while they were still moving across the
> desert before they reached the cities.

Pretty uppity. You talk about Iraq as if it were New Jersey. The US has no independent right to be in Iraq. None at all. It is not our country. We were led into an illegal war there on the basis of deliberate lies and false allegations. In the face of a disastrous outcome in that war, there was no course remaining but to avoid further senseless death and destruction by seeking an orderly withdrawal under agreed terms. Under those terms, Iraq could have requested that a residual US force be left behind, but it did not do so. In fact, the Iraqis were adamant that no US soldiers remain in-country after 12/31/2011.

Just Another Voice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Wonder how this discussion would be different if
> the US had left a credible defensive force in Iraq
> instead of the unilateral withdrawal, or if we hit
> ISIS while they were still moving across the
> desert before they reached the cities.
>
> And now, back to Brian bashing.

We couldn't. Bush signed away that right after the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to immunity for American troops or contractors.

history-good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just Another Voice Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Wonder how this discussion would be different
> if
> > the US had left a credible defensive force in
> Iraq
> > instead of the unilateral withdrawal, or if we
> hit
> > ISIS while they were still moving across the
> > desert before they reached the cities.
> >
> > And now, back to Brian bashing.
>
> We couldn't. Bush signed away that right after
> the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to immunity
> for American troops or contractors.


Still not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Dems = death Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nixon wound down the Democratic death machine.

As ever, it was the right-wing that championed the "death machine", and the left that called for it to be dismantled.

Nixon had campaigned in 1968 on the basis of having a "secret plan" to end the war. So secret that even HE didn't know what it was. The war ended up lasting longer than his crooked administration did.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dems = death Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nixon wound down the Democratic death machine.
>
> As ever, it was the right-wing that championed the
> "death machine", and the left that called for it
> to be dismantled.
>
> Nixon had campaigned in 1968 on the basis of
> having a "secret plan" to end the war. So secret
> that even HE didn't know what it was. The war
> ended up lasting longer than his crooked
> administration did.

Bullshit. It was Democrats who pushed the war. Kennedy to 'make a stand' against communism and Johnson in particular who massively built up troop levels there. With the support of hawk Dems (and Republicans) in Congress.

Fact is, secret plan or not, Nixon did walk us back out of it. As troop levels show. It was only because more moderate Dens shifted over with guys like Church and McCarthy leading up to and following '68 (you might remember that Dem convention thing) that they substantially swung 'left.'

Dems = death Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kennedy put us there and set the stage for
> Johnson's massive build up.

Kennedy inherited Eisenhower's programs. These had provided increasing aid and support first to the French, and then to the dictator Ngo Dinh Diem once the French were ousted in 1954.

> The troops were there when Nixon walked in the
> door. He began the draw-down.

Nixon at first expanded the war and the bombing. As he began to realize that the cause was simply lost, US troops were slowly replaced by Vietnamese troops. The death and the spending however carried right along until Congress finally began denying funding for it. Nixon was gone by that time, so Ford just let the inevitable finally happen. Nixon's crime was his "peace with honor" nonsense that kept on with the death and destruction merely in hopes of delaying the fall of South Vietnam long enough to push it off his personal balance sheet. He was a crude, vain, and often venal man.
.
Attachments:

do tell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man in the shadows, is Brian the only man you
> obsess over, or are there others?

I don't give two shits about Brian. He is just another over-stuffed right-wing peacock whose phony bubbles need to be popped. The invasion of Iraq was a miserable disgrace and failure on all counts. Brian's latter-day attempts to put lipstick on a pig are just that.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do tell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Man in the shadows, is Brian the only man you
> > obsess over, or are there others?
>
> I don't give two shits about Brian.

Your two pages of this thread tell a different story.

http://youtu.be/hIs5StN8J-0

ya know? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that were the case, you'd have been shown the
> door long ago.

All talk, no show. How typical of the Band of Losers! The point of the Downing Street memo is that it starkly reveals that as early as the summer of 2002, Bush was already set and committed to military intervention in Iraq. Not because of any facts, but simply because he (as The Decider) wanted to. The rest of the memo as cited above is what-if supposition and wondering. For perhaps obvious reasons, it appears that many of you clucks have never been invited to a "brain storming" session. There simply were no facts suggesting the actual existence of WMD in Iraq in 2002. This is why Bush had to rely on lies and fakery in making his ignoble case, ultimately rushing poorly equipped troops into an invasion before Hans Blix could conclusively prove that one was not necessary to begin with.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dems = death Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kennedy put us there and set the stage for
> > Johnson's massive build up.
>
> Kennedy inherited Eisenhower's programs. These
> had provided increasing aid and support first to
> the French, and then to the dictator Ngo Dinh Diem
> once the French were ousted in 1954.


Eisenhower's involvement was trivial and on a tertiary basis as was the case in many other places during that stage of the Cold War era where we did not go to war. Kennedy was the one who began direct US troop involvement as the staging for the place to stop the 'dominoes' from falling. Johnson was the one who took it to a full-blown US war with +500K troops involved.


> > The troops were there when Nixon walked in the
> > door. He began the draw-down.
>
> Nixon at first expanded the war and the bombing.
> As he began to realize that the cause was simply
> lost, US troops were slowly replaced by Vietnamese
> troops. The death and the spending however
> carried right along until Congress finally began
> denying funding for it. Nixon was gone by that
> time, so Ford just let the inevitable finally
> happen. Nixon's crime was his "peace with honor"
> nonsense that kept on with the death and
> destruction merely in hopes of delaying the fall
> of South Vietnam long enough to push it off his
> personal balance sheet.


Bombs are not troops (kind of like drones are not troops as a more contemporary analogy). Troop deployments stopped and the vast majority were pulled long before he left office.


> He was a crude, vain, and
> often venal man.
>

As are you.

hard to ignore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Says the parrot. Your squawks are getting old and tired.

And your grammar school attempts at response become only more foolish and feeble. It's YOUR FAULT that you don't understand the context of the Downing Street memo. I'm sure that context is not one of your string suits to begin with. Brush up or something maybe.

> If all this was know, there would be no need for
> "speculation over hypotheticals." And yet, there
> it is in black and white right there in the
> Downing Street Memo undercutting your entire
> contention. Sucks to be you.

No, it's quite rewarding to be me. In every sense of the word. Bush's arguments were meanwhile pinned to a notion of reptilian lingering doubt. Sure, there was no evidence anywhere to be found to suggest that there were still WMD in Iraq. But what if there were some anyway? The only way to rule out that last level of logic-free doubt was the Hans Blix method -- drive all over the place and inspect. And that's why Bush had to push the launch button early -- before Blix could pull back the curtain and reveal Bush's claims as the complete pack of lies that they always were. The supposed intent of all this of course was to assure the world that Iraq was disarmed. It already was and Bush knew that. He launched a hugely expensive, destructive, and totally pointless war anyway.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hard to ignore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Says the parrot. Your squawks are getting old
> and tired.
>
> And your grammar school attempts at response
> become only more foolish and feeble. It's YOUR
> FAULT that you don't understand the context of the
> Downing Street memo. I'm sure that context is not
> one of your string suits to begin with. Brush up
> or something maybe.
>
> > If all this was know, there would be no need
> for
> > "speculation over hypotheticals." And yet,
> there
> > it is in black and white right there in the
> > Downing Street Memo undercutting your entire
> > contention. Sucks to be you.
>
> No, it's quite rewarding to be me. In every sense
> of the word. Bush's arguments were meanwhile
> pinned to a notion of reptilian lingering doubt.
> Sure, there was no evidence anywhere to be found
> to suggest that there were still WMD in Iraq. But
> what if there were some anyway? The only way to
> rule out that last level of logic-free doubt was
> the Hans Blix method -- drive all over the place
> and inspect. And that's why Bush had to push the
> launch button early -- before Blix could pull back
> the curtain and reveal Bush's claims as the
> complete pack of lies that they always were. The
> supposed intent of all this of course was to
> assure the world that Iraq was disarmed. It
> already was and Bush knew that. He launched a
> hugely expensive, destructive, and totally
> pointless war anyway.

Brian, is that you over there with your fingers in your ears singing "La, la, lalala la?

No, I'm right here laughing that somebody told me I should fact check posts on Fairfax Underground.

Like I said, I'm not going to waste time arguing about the Iraq war anymore. As for my fan, I'm used to it. I'm very happy it's a liberal complaining about me for a change instead of another Republican.

history-good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We couldn't. Bush signed away that right after
> the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to immunity
> for American troops or contractors.

We didn't actually have a right that could have been signed away to begin with. The only way we could have obtained such a right is if the Iraqis had agreed to extend one, and they didn't.

You need a flashlight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit. It was Democrats who pushed the war.
> Kennedy to 'make a stand' against communism and
> Johnson in particular who massively built up troop
> levels there. With the support of hawk Dems (and
> Republicans) in Congress.

How quickly they forget. The only anti-war effort came from the left. The right as usual was all commie-phobia and bomb them back to the Stone Age. As the usual corporatists reaped the copious profits along the way.

Do these people look to you like they were from Young Americans for Freedom?
.
Attachments:

You need a flashlight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fact is, secret plan or not, Nixon did walk us
> back out of it. As troop levels show.

Actual history shows that Nixon never intended to "end the war" at all. It was McCarthy and Kennedy who demanded that -- a negotiated peace and immediate troop withdrawal. Nixon's "secret plan" on the other hand was to prolong the war through expansions, provocations, and endless foot-dragging and folderol. Nixon saw any end of the war as a national defeat, something he did not want on his record. So he kicked that can along, ultimately thanks to Watergate onto the hapless Gerald Ford.

> It was only because more moderate Dens shifted over
> with guys like Church and McCarthy leading up to and
> following '68 (you might remember that Dem convention
> thing) that they substantially swung 'left.'

The Chicago convention was driven by LBJ and Richard Daley. Huge majorities of Democratic primary voters had cast their ballots for "peace" candidates, but the stay-the-course, happy warrior, non-peace candidate got the nomination. As for shifting to the left, it was ordinary people realizing that the war was a fraud who were doing that. I guess you weren't one of them.

Animotion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your two pages of this thread tell a different story.
>
> http://youtu.be/hIs5StN8J-0

Yeah, that was a nice cover of the song back in the day. But it has nothing to do with Brian or any of his nincompoop claims and statements. Those departures from reality are what get him into trouble here, something no off-point appeals will be able to undo.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need a flashlight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fact is, secret plan or not, Nixon did walk us
> > back out of it. As troop levels show.
>
> Actual history shows that Nixon never intended to
> "end the war" at all. It was McCarthy and Kennedy
> who demanded that -- a negotiated peace and
> immediate troop withdrawal. Nixon's "secret plan"
> on the other hand was to prolong the war through
> expansions, provocations, and endless
> foot-dragging and folderol. Nixon saw any end of
> the war as a national defeat, something he did not
> want on his record. So he kicked that can along,
> ultimately thanks to Watergate onto the hapless
> Gerald Ford.
>

Actual history shows that he was the one who began the withdrawals very shortly after entering office, along with 'Vietnamization,' ended the draft, changed strategy, and backed us out honor or not. By the time Ford was there it was a long done deal.


> > It was only because more moderate Dens shifted
> over
> > with guys like Church and McCarthy leading up to
> and
> > following '68 (you might remember that Dem
> convention
> > thing) that they substantially swung 'left.'
>
> The Chicago convention was driven by LBJ and
> Richard Daley. Huge majorities of Democratic
> primary voters had cast their ballots for "peace"
> candidates, but the stay-the-course, happy
> warrior, non-peace candidate got the nomination.
> As for shifting to the left, it was ordinary
> people realizing that the war was a fraud who were
> doing that. I guess you weren't one of them.


As I said versus the warmongering Dem establishment.

Actually I was one of them and not a fan of Nixon. There's more than enough things that you can blame on him. But the Vietnam war isn't one of them.

You need a flashlight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eisenhower's involvement was trivial and on a
> tertiary basis as was the case in many other
> places during that stage of the Cold War era where
> we did not go to war.

Please. The backing for Diem was the linchpin. Without it, there would have been no follow-on story. Had the scheduled 1956 elections been allowed to take place, the Viet Minh would have won in a cakewalk and colonialism would have come to a peaceful end. But Ike couldn't stand that thought, so he pushed Diem into the vacuum of the South and tried to prop him up. Made him an "ally", and of course, the US could not turn its back on "allies" in the region.

Kennedy for his part was somewhat more realistic. He sent in Green Berets and trainers in hopes of teaching the ways of counter-insurgency to local forces. The flaw in that plan was that there was nothing there for these local forces to defend. We'll never know of course, but history might have been very different had JFK lived to be re-elected in 1964.

Johnson meanwhile got reeled in by hawks at the Pentagon. Like Kennedy, he was sensitive to the knee-jerk "soft on Communism" blather from the right, and nobody in any case thought a bunch of backwards peasants could hold out for long against the might of the US military. Lessons on asymmetric warfare were yet to be learned. And the public at the time simply didn't care.

All in all, Kennedy and Johnson had a very flawed view of the situation, but that situation began not with them, but with Eisenhower. You could look it up.

> Bombs are not troops (kind of like drones are not
> troops as a more contemporary analogy). Troop
> deployments stopped and the vast majority were
> pulled long before he left office.

Dropping endless tons of bombs is not ending a war. Dropping them on additional countries is not ending a war. Troop deployments meanwhile continued under Nixon. Their pace was exceeded by the pace of troops who survived being shipped back home to be reviled by the likes of the American Legion and VFW.

> As are you.

Grow a pair. Learn to face your failures.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, I'm right here laughing that somebody told me
> I should fact check posts on Fairfax Underground.

The advice was not limited in that way.

> Like I said, I'm not going to waste time arguing
> about the Iraq war anymore. As for my fan, I'm
> used to it. I'm very happy it's a liberal
> complaining about me for a change instead of
> another Republican.

You could well be justified in simply dismissing the critiques of "another Republican". After all, how much would any of them be likely to know about anything? Your inability to counter statements from more knowledgeable sorts is however well and widely noted.

Hyper-partisan idiot in the spot Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Actual history shows that he was the one who began
> the withdrawals very shortly after entering
> office, along with 'Vietnamization,' ended the
> draft, changed strategy, and backed us out honor
> or not. By the time Ford was there it was a long
> done deal.

Your actual posts show that you don't know very much about actual history. Vietnam was a long arc and your focus is very short and shallow.

> As I said versus the warmongering Dem establishment.

Party affiliation doesn't always mean so much, you know. The racists all used to be Democrats, and now they are all Republicans. But they have always been racists. It was the left who raised the alarms against the racists, as well as against the warmongers of every party. Some more actual history for you to learn about there.

> Actually I was one of them and not a fan of Nixon.
> There's more than enough things that you can blame
> on him. But the Vietnam war isn't one of them.

Your Shylock impersonation is a failure. Just as bad as Brian's. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all played a role in Vietnam. For that matter, so did Harry Truman. But like George W Bush, Nixon cannot escape responsibility for the things he was actually responsible for, and one of those things was deliberately expanding and prolonging the war, resulting in much unnecessary death and destruction. If there were a Hell, there would be every reason to believe that Nixon would be rotting in it today as the result. Might have been other indictments involved as well of course.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, I'm right here laughing that somebody told
> me
> > I should fact check posts on Fairfax
> Underground.
>
> The advice was not limited in that way.
>
> > Like I said, I'm not going to waste time
> arguing
> > about the Iraq war anymore. As for my fan, I'm
> > used to it. I'm very happy it's a liberal
> > complaining about me for a change instead of
> > another Republican.
>
> You could well be justified in simply dismissing
> the critiques of "another Republican". After all,
> how much would any of them be likely to know about
> anything? Your inability to counter statements
> from more knowledgeable sorts is however well and
> widely noted.

No, it's pretty much only noted by you. Most folks are immediately turned off by your obnoxious style and blind partisanship, even if you have actual facts to back up some of your arguments.

I'm sure this is cheaper than therapy, so you're welcome.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hyper-partisan idiot in the spot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > Actual history shows that he was the one who
> began
> > the withdrawals very shortly after entering
> > office, along with 'Vietnamization,' ended the
> > draft, changed strategy, and backed us out
> honor
> > or not. By the time Ford was there it was a
> long
> > done deal.
>
> Your actual posts show that you don't know very
> much about actual history. Vietnam was a long arc
> and your focus is very short and shallow.


Here's the arc again:




>
> > As I said versus the warmongering Dem
> establishment.
>
> Party affiliation doesn't always mean so much, you
> know. The racists all used to be Democrats, and
> now they are all Republicans. But they have
> always been racists. It was the left who raised
> the alarms against the racists, as well as against
> the warmongers of every party. Some more actual
> history for you to learn about there.
>


It does when we're talking about warmongering Democrats. And there are plenty of racist Democrats now. Your dumb drone talking points don't change the reality of either.


> > Actually I was one of them and not a fan of
> Nixon.
> > There's more than enough things that you can
> blame
> > on him. But the Vietnam war isn't one of them.
>
> Your Shylock impersonation is a failure. Just as
> bad as Brian's. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and
> Nixon all played a role in Vietnam. For that
> matter, so did Harry Truman. But like George W
> Bush, Nixon cannot escape responsibility for the
> things he was actually responsible for, and one of
> those things was deliberately expanding and
> prolonging the war, resulting in much unnecessary
> death and destruction. If there were a Hell,
> there would be every reason to believe that Nixon
> would be rotting in it today as the result. Might
> have been other indictments involved as well of
> course.


Trying to stretch some related role for moral equivalence just doesn't work in this case. Sorry. Vietnam was Kennedy and Johnson's baby. That Nixon had to take over their Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't make it his any more than you'd assign the latter to Obama. Yeah, yeah, I know... but that's different. lol

Nice shot Brian. Gerry in the shadows is an easy, slow wit target, It takes real skill to hit him as he runs to another thread.

9YtDD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > And I make mistakes, just like anybody else.
>
>
> Like this one:
>
> in 2011, Brian Schoememan wrote here on FFXU;
> "Iraq did result in one major success – that does not support terror and is a US
> ally. Sounds like a victory to me."
>
> Just admit you were, and are still, wrong or join
> the GOP line of useless unaccountable liars.
>
> I mean, only the FUCKING REAL FACTS PROVE YOU WERE
> WRONG. I would guess ignoring reality is just a
> character trait of the GOP.


You posted that you were not wrong and then some irrelevant bullshit afterwards.

Lets makes it even simpler, since you try to spin reality to fit your agenda.

Answer this question:


Is there a "viable democracy in the heart of the middle east"? (Iraq)


These are your words - if you answer Yes, well you are admitting to be ignorant and dishonest. If you answer No, then you will be admitting that you were wrong.

Have fun spinning some more ignorant crap.

Only a politician can believe they are never wrong - amazing the ignorance of people who elect anyone from one of our two shitty, corrupt and useless political parties.

b4xMn Wrote:

> Answer this question:
>
>
> Is there a "viable democracy in the heart of the
> middle east"? (Iraq)

There was in 2011.


> These are your words - if you answer Yes, well you
> are admitting to be ignorant and dishonest. If you
> answer No, then you will be admitting that you
> were wrong.
>
> Have fun spinning some more ignorant crap.
>
> Only a politician can believe they are never wrong
> - amazing the ignorance of people who elect anyone
> from one of our two shitty, corrupt and useless
> political parties.

I am the last person to believe that I am never wrong. I make mistakes just like anybody else and I am more than willing to admit when I am incorrect. I am not like those other politicians who can't admit mistakes. Never have been.

You guys found a post I wrote in 2011 and are trying to apply the current situation in Iraq to that post. That's intellectually dishonest.

Summary of thread:

last throws, man in the shadows, or whatever else name he wants to go by has a hard on for Brian Schoeneman. Said tool is too pussy to put his real name out there while taking unfounded, uninformed and petty pop shots at Brian.

Beyond the stale talking points repeated ad nauseam by every mindless parrot, the tool has no intellectual discourse to offer.

Tool boy is still talking about Bush six years later. Who knew that desperate Democrats would hold onto this weak tactic for so long?

Hey Brian, Nice parting shot. Brian doesnt call Gerry a Commie, even though he knows he's a libtard. Brian seems honest, Gerry not. We can see you in the shadows Gerry.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it's pretty much only noted by you. Most folks
> are immediately turned off by your obnoxious style
> and blind partisanship, even if you have actual
> facts to back up some of your arguments.

As you know, the only important people here are you and me. One of us very much needs to up his game, and it isn't me. There are meanwhile facts behind all my arguments. Fact and reason are what shape my world. It's you who so consistently comes up short on those scores.

> I'm sure this is cheaper than therapy, so you're welcome.

And I'm sure this is cheaper for you than going back to school to learn all the stuff you missed the first time around. Sometimes I feed the fish in the barrel. And sometimes I shoot them.

RETARD SAYS WHAT?

Hyper-partisan idiot in the spot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the arc again:

Still stuck on stupid, eh? See the above re breadth and depth. The actual history of Vietnam is far broader and deeper than what can be captured in some simpleton schoolboy's chart of troop levels. It does not seem though that you have the capacity or intellectual curiosity needed to reach for those broader, deeper understandings.

> It does when we're talking about warmongering
> Democrats. And there are plenty of racist
> Democrats now. Your dumb drone talking points
> don't change the reality of either.

As if your phony pretensions were going to carry the day. Party labels are meaningless in an age of upheaval. Meanwhile, opposition to the war came from the left. From your unwashed hippies and your basic nattering nabobs of negativism. From an effete corps of impudent snobs. Poor imprisoned Spiro. Another hopeless loser of yours. My country, right or wrong. That by contrast was the disgrace that the right-wing had on its bumpers.

> Trying to stretch some related role for moral
> equivalence just doesn't work in this case.
> Sorry. Vietnam was Kennedy and Johnson's baby.
> That Nixon had to take over their Iraq/Afghanistan
> doesn't make it his any more than you'd assign the
> latter to Obama. Yeah, yeah, I know... but that's
> different. lol

Once again, you are operating at a barely pre-school level. There is no context, no depth, and no texture involved here. Just hapless nursery rhyme-like repetition. This is how you fall by the wayside in intellectual endeavors. Consider yourself fallen.

Swing and a miss.

I did not miss, I did a really good job. I have proven that I am right by blaming everyone except the people I like. Because they are never wrong.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As you know, the only important people here are
> you and me. One of us very much needs to up his
> game, and it isn't me. There are meanwhile facts
> behind all my arguments. Fact and reason are what
> shape my world. It's you who so consistently
> comes up short on those scores.

Everybody here's vote counts the same as yours and mine. Nobody is unimportant.

You have yet to give anybody on my side of the aisle anything close to passing marks. I would be flabbergasted for you to even name one Republican you think isn't a complete idiot. That you can't do that says pretty much everything there is to be said.

> And I'm sure this is cheaper for you than going
> back to school to learn all the stuff you missed
> the first time around. Sometimes I feed the fish
> in the barrel. And sometimes I shoot them.

The last thing I need is more education. 3 degrees is more than enough.

Brian connected on that one...its outta there! Suck it Gerry.

Man in the shadows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hyper-partisan idiot in the spot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's the arc again:
>
> Still stuck on stupid, eh? See the above re
> breadth and depth. The actual history of Vietnam
> is far broader and deeper than what can be
> captured in some simpleton schoolboy's chart of
> troop levels. It does not seem though that you
> have the capacity or intellectual curiosity
> needed to reach for those broader, deeper
> understandings.


Actually it can be captured very well. Your 'breadth and depth' is simply bullshit in an attempt to redirect and obscure the heart of the matter. "Understanding" wasn't what got people killed. Troop levels were. If they weren't there, they weren't there to be killed. Johnson is almost solely responsible for building up the massive troop levels. And the associated resulting deaths. There's really not a lot of "deeper understanding" required beyond that.

>
> > It does when we're talking about warmongering
> > Democrats. And there are plenty of racist
> > Democrats now. Your dumb drone talking points
> > don't change the reality of either.
>
> As if your phony pretensions were going to carry
> the day. Party labels are meaningless in an age
> of upheaval. Meanwhile, opposition to the war
> came from the left. From your unwashed hippies
> and your basic nattering nabobs of negativism.
> From an effete corps of impudent snobs. Poor
> imprisoned Spiro. Another hopeless loser of
> yours. My country, right or wrong. That by
> contrast was the disgrace that the right-wing had
> on its bumpers.


Which has nothing to do with Johnson being the one responsible for the war. I was one of those unwashed hippies. And we, very appropriately, blamed Johnson at the time. That Nixon didn't move fast enough to back people out of Johnson's fuck up, also with some appropriate blame, doesn't change the fact that Johnson was the one who created the mess.


> > Trying to stretch some related role for moral
> > equivalence just doesn't work in this case.
> > Sorry. Vietnam was Kennedy and Johnson's baby.
>
> > That Nixon had to take over their
> Iraq/Afghanistan
> > doesn't make it his any more than you'd assign
> the
> > latter to Obama. Yeah, yeah, I know... but
> that's
> > different. lol
>
> Once again, you are operating at a barely
> pre-school level. There is no context, no depth,
> and no texture involved here. Just hapless
> nursery rhyme-like repetition. This is how you
> fall by the wayside in intellectual endeavors.
> Consider yourself fallen.


Doesn't need to be. I have one thing that you don't - the truth of the matter. I'm not a partisan idiot like you so I don't have to try to protect any one side from it. As you do. Which is why you have to rely on long bullshit-filled paragraphs of "texture" and typical petty ad hom crap as above. And why you'll always lose.

Hyper-partisan idiot in the spot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man in the shadows Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hyper-partisan idiot in the spot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Actually it can be captured very well. Your
> 'breadth and depth' is simply bullshit in an
> attempt to redirect and obscure the heart of the
> matter. "Understanding" wasn't what got people
> killed. Troop levels were. If they weren't
> there, they weren't there to be killed. Johnson
> is almost solely responsible for building up the
> massive troop levels. And the associated
> resulting deaths. There's really not a lot of
> "deeper understanding" required beyond that.

It was Nixon's fault, the right are war-mongers.

>
> Which has nothing to do with Johnson being the one
> responsible for the war. I was one of those
> unwashed hippies. And we, very appropriately,
> blamed Johnson at the time. That Nixon didn't
> move fast enough to back people out of Johnson's
> fuck up, also with some appropriate blame, doesn't
> change the fact that Johnson was the one who
> created the mess.

No, it was Nixon's fault.

> Doesn't need to be. I have one thing that you
> don't - the truth of the matter. I'm not a
> partisan idiot like you so I don't have to try to
> protect any one side from it. As you do. Which
> is why you have to rely on long bullshit-filled
> paragraphs of "texture" and typical petty ad hom
> crap as above. And why you'll always lose.

This is George Bush's war, and Obama has done a stellar job in dealing with it. You need to get your facts straight.