Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On May 2, 8:34=EF=BF=BDam, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Les,
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful response. =EF=BF=BDSeriously.
Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
you was an idiot.
>
> But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when that
> was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! =EF=BF=
=BDThat fact
> is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. =
=EF=BF=BD
There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
What about it all being in Syria?
Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
innocent.
The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
like typical, back-stabbing libs.
So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
"decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
election? Blame Bush.
Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
Osama who? Thank Bush.
Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
Libs =3D they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>Now...how much have we spent on this war?
Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
budget it actually eats up.
Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
not worried about any war costs.
>Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
> on alternative fuel research!
Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
times?
Imagine if Jimmy Carter didn't agree to pay Isreal and Egypt BILLIONS
per year for the last 30 years just to keep the peace between them.
Who cares if Egypt and Israel fight, right? It's far away and they
don't even have oil! Over 100 billion wasted so far...
You and your liberal buddies in this thread are really unimpressive
when it comes to current and past politics. Most of what is said here
is Mike Moore parroting. Not surprising seeing this is an "amp" group
where people like Ed Blum have followers...
On May 2, 8:34=EF=BF=BDam, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Les,
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful response. =EF=BF=BDSeriously.
Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
you was an idiot.
>
> But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when that
> was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! =EF=BF=
=BDThat fact
> is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. =
=EF=BF=BD
There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
What about it all being in Syria?
Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
innocent.
The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
like typical, back-stabbing libs.
So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
"decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
election? Blame Bush.
Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
Osama who? Thank Bush.
Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
Libs =3D they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>Now...how much have we spent on this war?
Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
budget it actually eats up.
Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
not worried about any war costs.
>Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
> on alternative fuel research!
Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
times?
Imagine if Jimmy Carter didn't agree to pay Isreal and Egypt BILLIONS
per year for the last 30 years just to keep the peace between them.
Who cares if Egypt and Israel fight, right? It's far away and they
don't even have oil! Over 100 billion wasted so far...
You and your liberal buddies in this thread are really unimpressive
when it comes to current and past politics. Most of what is said here
is Mike Moore parroting. Not surprising seeing this is an "amp" group
where people like Ed Blum have followers...
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On May 2, 11:38=C2=A0pm, ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
> On May 2, 8:34=EF=BF=BDam, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Les,
>
> > I appreciate your thoughtful response. =EF=BF=BDSeriously.
>
> Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
> you was an idiot.
>
>
>
> > But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when tha=
t
> > was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! =EF=BF=
=BDThat fact
> > is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. =
=EF=BF=BD
>
> There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
> buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
Yeah - what if? You can still dare to dream.
> What about it all being in Syria?
>
> Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
> Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
> else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
> innocent.
>
> The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
> follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
>
> And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
> Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
> all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
> briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
> like typical, back-stabbing libs.
>
> So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
> "decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
>
> Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
>
> Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
>
> Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
> election? Blame Bush.
>
> Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
>
> Osama who? Thank Bush.
>
> Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
>
> Libs =3D they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>
> >Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>
> Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
> budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
> percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
> more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
> one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
> budget it actually eats up.
Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_=
says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/,
"The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
analysis."
The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year.
http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=3D1&state=3D53&pro=
gram=3D576&submit_tradeoffs=3Dfrom_costofwar&tradeoff_item_item=3D999
Shall I continue?
> Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
> bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
> not worried about any war costs.
The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
> >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spen=
t
> > on alternative fuel research!
>
> Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
> pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
> have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
> times?
Tell us. Why don't you find out how much the federal government
spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
Iraq war. Then try out a little perspective on spending.
On May 2, 11:38=C2=A0pm, ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
> On May 2, 8:34=EF=BF=BDam, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Les,
>
> > I appreciate your thoughtful response. =EF=BF=BDSeriously.
>
> Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
> you was an idiot.
>
>
>
> > But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when tha=
t
> > was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! =EF=BF=
=BDThat fact
> > is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. =
=EF=BF=BD
>
> There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
> buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
Yeah - what if? You can still dare to dream.
> What about it all being in Syria?
>
> Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
> Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
> else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
> innocent.
>
> The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
> follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
>
> And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
> Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
> all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
> briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
> like typical, back-stabbing libs.
>
> So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
> "decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
>
> Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
>
> Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
>
> Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
> election? Blame Bush.
>
> Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
>
> Osama who? Thank Bush.
>
> Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
>
> Libs =3D they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>
> >Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>
> Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
> budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
> percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
> more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
> one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
> budget it actually eats up.
Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_=
says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/,
"The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
analysis."
The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year.
http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=3D1&state=3D53&pro=
gram=3D576&submit_tradeoffs=3Dfrom_costofwar&tradeoff_item_item=3D999
Shall I continue?
> Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
> bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
> not worried about any war costs.
The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
> >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spen=
t
> > on alternative fuel research!
>
> Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
> pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
> have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
> times?
Tell us. Why don't you find out how much the federal government
spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
Iraq war. Then try out a little perspective on spending.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
TPS wrote:
> On May 2, 11:38 pm, ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
<snip.
>
> Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
> to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>
> According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/,
> "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> analysis."
>
In WWII, we spent like 108% of GDP at one point. The provenance for
joining in on WWII is still being debated - did FDR know about
Pearl Harbor or not? There were multiple suspensions of civil
rights, gas was rationed, scrap iron drives, MULTIPLE incursions
into people's everyday lives.
More Americans* died in one hour on Iwo than in all of the Gulf War.
*when the enemy operates under Bushido, which does not value
human life... sound familiar?
The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
propaganda films in favor of WWII.
Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
> The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
> war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year.
> http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=1&state=53&program=576&submit_tradeoffs=from_costofwar&tradeoff_item_item=999
>
> Shall I continue?
>
>
Health care is already heavily subsidized, which is why it is so
expensive. This began with people offering Blue Cross to
attract employees during Truman's wage freeze after
WWII....
--
Les Cargill
TPS wrote:
> On May 2, 11:38 pm, ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
<snip.
>
> Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
> to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>
> According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/,
> "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> analysis."
>
In WWII, we spent like 108% of GDP at one point. The provenance for
joining in on WWII is still being debated - did FDR know about
Pearl Harbor or not? There were multiple suspensions of civil
rights, gas was rationed, scrap iron drives, MULTIPLE incursions
into people's everyday lives.
More Americans* died in one hour on Iwo than in all of the Gulf War.
*when the enemy operates under Bushido, which does not value
human life... sound familiar?
The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
propaganda films in favor of WWII.
Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
> The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
> war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year.
> http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=1&state=53&program=576&submit_tradeoffs=from_costofwar&tradeoff_item_item=999
>
> Shall I continue?
>
>
Health care is already heavily subsidized, which is why it is so
expensive. This began with people offering Blue Cross to
attract employees during Truman's wage freeze after
WWII....
--
Les Cargill
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote
...
> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
Christian white people that spoke English needed our help.
__
Steve
.
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote
...
> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
Christian white people that spoke English needed our help.
__
Steve
.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
In article <Oa8Tj.2037$3O7.43@newssvr19.news.prodigy,net >,
Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>
>"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote
>...
>
>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>
>Christian white people that spoke English needed our help.
Like the Filipinos and the European Jews.
Asshole.
In article <Oa8Tj.2037$3O7.43@newssvr19.news.prodigy,net >,
Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>
>"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote
>...
>
>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>
>Christian white people that spoke English needed our help.
Like the Filipinos and the European Jews.
Asshole.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On Sat, 3 May 2008 20:19:40 -0500, "Stephen Cowell"
<scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>
>"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote
>...
>
>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>
>Christian white people that spoke English needed our help.
>__
>Steve
>.
>
"What are we doing today GW?" says Cheneye
"what we do every day Cheyene, Take over the world" GW
On Sat, 3 May 2008 20:19:40 -0500, "Stephen Cowell"
<scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>
>"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote
>...
>
>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>
>Christian white people that spoke English needed our help.
>__
>Steve
>.
>
"What are we doing today GW?" says Cheneye
"what we do every day Cheyene, Take over the world" GW
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On May 3, 2:16 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
> TPS wrote:
> > On May 2, 11:38 pm, ronald mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
> <snip.
>
> > Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
> > to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>
> > According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis says w...,
> > "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> > to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> > 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> > Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> > analysis."
>
> In WWII, we spent like 108% of GDP at one point. The provenance for
> joining in on WWII is still being debated - did FDR know about
> Pearl Harbor or not? There were multiple suspensions of civil
> rights, gas was rationed, scrap iron drives, MULTIPLE incursions
> into people's everyday lives.
>
> More Americans* died in one hour on Iwo than in all of the Gulf War.
>
> *when the enemy operates under Bushido, which does not value
> human life... sound familiar?
>
> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>
> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
You want to argue about whether or not the Iraq war is the same as
WWII? That sounds like an awfully tedious waste of time.
On May 3, 2:16 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
> TPS wrote:
> > On May 2, 11:38 pm, ronald mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
> <snip.
>
> > Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
> > to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>
> > According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis says w...,
> > "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> > to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> > 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> > Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> > analysis."
>
> In WWII, we spent like 108% of GDP at one point. The provenance for
> joining in on WWII is still being debated - did FDR know about
> Pearl Harbor or not? There were multiple suspensions of civil
> rights, gas was rationed, scrap iron drives, MULTIPLE incursions
> into people's everyday lives.
>
> More Americans* died in one hour on Iwo than in all of the Gulf War.
>
> *when the enemy operates under Bushido, which does not value
> human life... sound familiar?
>
> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>
> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
You want to argue about whether or not the Iraq war is the same as
WWII? That sounds like an awfully tedious waste of time.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Les Cargill wrote:
> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>
> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe? Had he attacked
Pearl Harbor and seized American possessions across the Pacific? Did his
military might threaten American commerce and American allies across the
globe? No, no and no? Well then.
Les Cargill wrote:
> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>
> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe? Had he attacked
Pearl Harbor and seized American possessions across the Pacific? Did his
military might threaten American commerce and American allies across the
globe? No, no and no? Well then.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
>> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
>> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>>
>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>
> Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe?
What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at that
time.
Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
going in....
> Had he attacked
> Pearl Harbor
The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
authorized action.
All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
sort of thing works.
We want people who will speak truth to power, so we can have our
Presidential candidates throw them under the wheels of the bus...
> and seized American possessions across the Pacific? Did his
> military might threaten American commerce and American allies across the
> globe? No, no and no?
You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
less certain.
> Well then.
>
>
Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
was much better executed.
I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
asking about *how* they know that.
--
Les Cargill
DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
>> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
>> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>>
>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>
> Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe?
What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at that
time.
Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
going in....
> Had he attacked
> Pearl Harbor
The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
authorized action.
All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
sort of thing works.
We want people who will speak truth to power, so we can have our
Presidential candidates throw them under the wheels of the bus...
> and seized American possessions across the Pacific? Did his
> military might threaten American commerce and American allies across the
> globe? No, no and no?
You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
less certain.
> Well then.
>
>
Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
was much better executed.
I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
asking about *how* they know that.
--
Les Cargill
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
news:481dfee7$0$7729$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
>>> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
>>> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>>
>> Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe?
>
> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at that
> time.
>
> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
You never *did* refute that one, btw...
__
Steve
.
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
news:481dfee7$0$7729$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
>>> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
>>> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>>
>> Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe?
>
> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at that
> time.
>
> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
You never *did* refute that one, btw...
__
Steve
.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
> news:481dfee7$0$7729$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
>>>> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
>>>> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>>>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>>>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>>> Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe?
>> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
>> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at that
>> time.
>>
>> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
>
> You never *did* refute that one, btw...
>
> Steve
> .
>
>
I am not sure at this point what "this one" refers to. I think that
"white xtian ppl were under attack" had a lot to do with the propaganda
case for WWII.
Yurp had less to do with national self-interest than the Middle East
does now. We were making out like bandits selling stuff to first
both sides, then only one side.
--
Les Cargill
Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
> news:481dfee7$0$7729$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The principal difference between WWII and now is that every
>>>> blessed filmmaker in Hollywood was pressed into service making
>>>> propaganda films in favor of WWII.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds to me like if the Bushies had spun the War, we'd all be having
>>>> parades in his honor. Bring your "but WWII was different" objections
>>>> here, and I'll refute them, one by one.
>>> Infreakingcredible. Had Saddam conquered most of Europe?
>> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
>> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at that
>> time.
>>
>> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
>
> You never *did* refute that one, btw...
>
> Steve
> .
>
>
I am not sure at this point what "this one" refers to. I think that
"white xtian ppl were under attack" had a lot to do with the propaganda
case for WWII.
Yurp had less to do with national self-interest than the Middle East
does now. We were making out like bandits selling stuff to first
both sides, then only one side.
--
Les Cargill
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Les Cargill wrote:
> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at
> that time.
What does that have to do with whether or not Europe conquered and under the
control of a madman was a threat to the United States, what does that have
to do with what was widely believed to be approaching war between Japan and
the U.S. even before Pearl Harbor? Hitler was a real and present danger to
America, Japan was a real and present danger, Saddam post-Desert Storm was
not and only a deliberate shell game made him appear to be one.
> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
The U.S. was opposed to the Japanese occupation of large parts of China as
well, the population of which was neither white nor Christian.
> Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
> And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
> going in....
I don't assume it, kindly do not assume that I am unread on that period of
history. I am well aware of the isolationist sentiment in the U.S. at the
time and the means FDR had to use to work around it, but that was before
Pearl Harbor. That the American people allowed their unsatisfied need for
revenge re: 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and attack a nation
that had not in fact attacked them only underscores the contrast between the
leadership of FDR and Bush. After all, FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an
excuse to invade Spain.
> The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
> turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
> in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
> authorized action.
Not on that basis alone it didn't, the threat of present or impending WMDs
was given considerably greater weight. Of course that also turned out to be
false.
> All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
> To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
> sort of thing works.
"All objections?" Plenty of people have written at length about the
determination of the administration to attack regardless of how good or poor
the intelligence was. Depicting the process as being driven by faulty
intelligence is to ignore that the intelligence was just window-dressing for
a policy that was already in motion.
> You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
> a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
> allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
> are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
> less certain.
I'd forgotten no such thing, but with a broken military and a gutted economy
Saddam was no longer a serious threat to Kuwait or anyone else in the
region. That is not to say he could never have become a threat again, if
sanctions had been lifted and he had been able to rebuild then all bets
would have been off. But that was not the case in 2003, was it.
> Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
> scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
> was much better executed.
Rubbish. Residents on the east coast of the U.S. were not able to see
burning tankers and freighters sinking offshore in 2003, nor were newspapers
and news broadcasts filled with stories of country after country falling to
Saddam, nor were American bases being bombed and American troops being
killed and captured by the advancing armies of Iraq.
> I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
> asking about *how* they know that.
When bombs are falling on you from airplanes sent by a hostile nation you
know the threat is real, but when that hostile nation only has a few dozen
combat aircraft left and they don't dare to leave the ground the threat is
somewhat less convincing. Bush 41 and Clinton both thought Saddam would
always have an interest in being a threat but they also both knew he lacked
the ability to deliver on his intentions. That's why they were content to
occasionally bomb his air defenses to make the point that there was nothing
he could do about it. The only thing that changed under Bush 43 was 9/11,
and the notion that a war was launched costing thousands of American lives
and countless billions of dollars because the govt. was mistaken about
whether the country being invaded was really a threat couldn't be in sharper
contrast to what happened in WWII.
Les Cargill wrote:
> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at
> that time.
What does that have to do with whether or not Europe conquered and under the
control of a madman was a threat to the United States, what does that have
to do with what was widely believed to be approaching war between Japan and
the U.S. even before Pearl Harbor? Hitler was a real and present danger to
America, Japan was a real and present danger, Saddam post-Desert Storm was
not and only a deliberate shell game made him appear to be one.
> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
The U.S. was opposed to the Japanese occupation of large parts of China as
well, the population of which was neither white nor Christian.
> Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
> And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
> going in....
I don't assume it, kindly do not assume that I am unread on that period of
history. I am well aware of the isolationist sentiment in the U.S. at the
time and the means FDR had to use to work around it, but that was before
Pearl Harbor. That the American people allowed their unsatisfied need for
revenge re: 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and attack a nation
that had not in fact attacked them only underscores the contrast between the
leadership of FDR and Bush. After all, FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an
excuse to invade Spain.
> The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
> turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
> in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
> authorized action.
Not on that basis alone it didn't, the threat of present or impending WMDs
was given considerably greater weight. Of course that also turned out to be
false.
> All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
> To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
> sort of thing works.
"All objections?" Plenty of people have written at length about the
determination of the administration to attack regardless of how good or poor
the intelligence was. Depicting the process as being driven by faulty
intelligence is to ignore that the intelligence was just window-dressing for
a policy that was already in motion.
> You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
> a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
> allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
> are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
> less certain.
I'd forgotten no such thing, but with a broken military and a gutted economy
Saddam was no longer a serious threat to Kuwait or anyone else in the
region. That is not to say he could never have become a threat again, if
sanctions had been lifted and he had been able to rebuild then all bets
would have been off. But that was not the case in 2003, was it.
> Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
> scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
> was much better executed.
Rubbish. Residents on the east coast of the U.S. were not able to see
burning tankers and freighters sinking offshore in 2003, nor were newspapers
and news broadcasts filled with stories of country after country falling to
Saddam, nor were American bases being bombed and American troops being
killed and captured by the advancing armies of Iraq.
> I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
> asking about *how* they know that.
When bombs are falling on you from airplanes sent by a hostile nation you
know the threat is real, but when that hostile nation only has a few dozen
combat aircraft left and they don't dare to leave the ground the threat is
somewhat less convincing. Bush 41 and Clinton both thought Saddam would
always have an interest in being a threat but they also both knew he lacked
the ability to deliver on his intentions. That's why they were content to
occasionally bomb his air defenses to make the point that there was nothing
he could do about it. The only thing that changed under Bush 43 was 9/11,
and the notion that a war was launched costing thousands of American lives
and countless billions of dollars because the govt. was mistaken about
whether the country being invaded was really a threat couldn't be in sharper
contrast to what happened in WWII.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
>> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at
>> that time.
>
> What does that have to do with whether or not Europe conquered and under the
> control of a madman was a threat to the United States, what does that have
> to do with what was widely believed to be approaching war between Japan and
> the U.S. even before Pearl Harbor? Hitler was a real and present danger to
> America,
I respectfully disagree. Subs in the Intercoastal do nto make
for a clear and present danger. *As a nation*, we could simply have
turned our backs. It took considerable leadership to change
that.
> Japan was a real and present danger,
Much easier case to make. Still a tough 'un.
> Saddam post-Desert Storm was
> not and only a deliberate shell game made him appear to be one.
>
The UN process broke down. The shell game happened after
that. This is not a justification; it's simply what
happened. I understand - it's Red-Queen "answers first,
questions later" stuff - but *that is what the Executive branch
does*. They do not have time for deep research on the
spot.
You have a vacuum, and a cadre of true believers who cannot handle
a vacuum.
>> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
>
> The U.S. was opposed to the Japanese occupation of large parts of China as
> well, the population of which was neither white nor Christian.
>
Indeed; that's what led to Pearl. We boycott Japan, er, embargoed them,
whatever.
>> Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
>> And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
>> going in....
>
> I don't assume it, kindly do not assume that I am unread on that period of
> history.
Well, I mean no harm :) I don't know what you know. I'm lucky if
I know what I know. I certainly appreciate your thoughts. It's
a buster of a deal, man. Mess. Just a mess.
> I am well aware of the isolationist sentiment in the U.S. at the
> time and the means FDR had to use to work around it, but that was before
> Pearl Harbor. That the American people allowed their unsatisfied need for
> revenge re: 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and attack a nation
> that had not in fact attacked them only underscores the contrast between the
> leadership of FDR and Bush.
That is very true. But that contrast is a *larger* subject. I do not
hold FDR as a saint, nor Bush as a devil.
> After all, FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an
> excuse to invade Spain.
>
We declared war on Japan; Germany declared war on us. That made
it much easier.
>> The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
>> turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
>> in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
>> authorized action.
>
> Not on that basis alone it didn't, the threat of present or impending WMDs
> was given considerably greater weight. Of course that also turned out to be
> false.
>
It depends on when you sampled the state of the art. The story shifted
over time. I don't think anybody will disagree that *however* the case
was made, 9/11 was the justification for Iraq.
>> All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
>> To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
>> sort of thing works.
>
> "All objections?" Plenty of people have written at length about the
> determination of the administration to attack regardless of how good or poor
> the intelligence was. Depicting the process as being driven by faulty
> intelligence is to ignore that the intelligence was just window-dressing for
> a policy that was already in motion.
>
The policy had been in place since the Monica Missiles, what, 1998?
>> You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
>> a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
>> allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
>> are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
>> less certain.
>
> I'd forgotten no such thing, but with a broken military and a gutted economy
> Saddam was no longer a serious threat to Kuwait or anyone else in the
> region. That is not to say he could never have become a threat again, if
> sanctions had been lifted and he had been able to rebuild then all bets
> would have been off. But that was not the case in 2003, was it.
>
This ignores various "oil for food" abuses, the potential for Iraq as
support for terror, and above all, the guy's behavior. He chose
poorly to bluff.
When we tried to resolve the UN positions of France and Germany
with the Administration, nothing was left. But we can't necessarily
appear to be taking dictation from the UN, either. Even the failures
had failures.
>> Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
>> scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
>> was much better executed.
>
> Rubbish. Residents on the east coast of the U.S. were not able to see
> burning tankers and freighters sinking offshore in 2003, nor were newspapers
> and news broadcasts filled with stories of country after country falling to
> Saddam, nor were American bases being bombed and American troops being
> killed and captured by the advancing armies of Iraq.
>
Disagree if you will. I suspect you understimate just how much
propaganda, and how well done. And we got to hoist in a previous
President's (Bush41) comparisons of Saddam with Hitler (during the 1991
Gulf War) in the 2003 thing.
Of *course* there are differences. But they are not as great as
I would prefer... this thing rolled right into
that model...
>> I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
>> asking about *how* they know that.
>
> When bombs are falling on you from airplanes sent by a hostile nation you
> know the threat is real, but when that hostile nation only has a few dozen
> combat aircraft left and they don't dare to leave the ground the threat is
> somewhat less convincing. Bush 41 and Clinton both thought Saddam would
> always have an interest in being a threat but they also both knew he lacked
> the ability to deliver on his intentions.
The policy of the Executive Branch had been regime change from roughly
the time of the Monica Missiles.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq Liberation Act
> That's why they were content to
> occasionally bomb his air defenses to make the point that there was nothing
> he could do about it. The only thing that changed under Bush 43 was 9/11,
> and the notion that a war was launched costing thousands of American lives
> and countless billions of dollars because the govt. was mistaken about
> whether the country being invaded was really a threat couldn't be in sharper
> contrast to what happened in WWII.
WWII was *hundreds of thousands* of American lives, tens of millions
of non-Americans, and 108% of US GDP at one point. There *was*
the psychic equivalent of a Pearl Harbor event, once we follow
the then-proposed linkage.
Which was wrong, as we know know. But it was wrong in a very, very
interesting way - a half dozen or more people could have stood up,
sacrificed a political career, and stopped it. I cannot imagine
what that must have been like. It just proves to me that not
everybody is Thomas More. Hardly anybody *is*.
If the new standard for such justification is now 100% veracity, we
have a larger problem. A much larger problem. It is simply not
reasonable to expect perfection in that sort of decision.
Omniscience is not the answer. You are left with intent. Good
luck with that.
--
Les Cargill
DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
>> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at
>> that time.
>
> What does that have to do with whether or not Europe conquered and under the
> control of a madman was a threat to the United States, what does that have
> to do with what was widely believed to be approaching war between Japan and
> the U.S. even before Pearl Harbor? Hitler was a real and present danger to
> America,
I respectfully disagree. Subs in the Intercoastal do nto make
for a clear and present danger. *As a nation*, we could simply have
turned our backs. It took considerable leadership to change
that.
> Japan was a real and present danger,
Much easier case to make. Still a tough 'un.
> Saddam post-Desert Storm was
> not and only a deliberate shell game made him appear to be one.
>
The UN process broke down. The shell game happened after
that. This is not a justification; it's simply what
happened. I understand - it's Red-Queen "answers first,
questions later" stuff - but *that is what the Executive branch
does*. They do not have time for deep research on the
spot.
You have a vacuum, and a cadre of true believers who cannot handle
a vacuum.
>> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
>
> The U.S. was opposed to the Japanese occupation of large parts of China as
> well, the population of which was neither white nor Christian.
>
Indeed; that's what led to Pearl. We boycott Japan, er, embargoed them,
whatever.
>> Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
>> And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
>> going in....
>
> I don't assume it, kindly do not assume that I am unread on that period of
> history.
Well, I mean no harm :) I don't know what you know. I'm lucky if
I know what I know. I certainly appreciate your thoughts. It's
a buster of a deal, man. Mess. Just a mess.
> I am well aware of the isolationist sentiment in the U.S. at the
> time and the means FDR had to use to work around it, but that was before
> Pearl Harbor. That the American people allowed their unsatisfied need for
> revenge re: 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and attack a nation
> that had not in fact attacked them only underscores the contrast between the
> leadership of FDR and Bush.
That is very true. But that contrast is a *larger* subject. I do not
hold FDR as a saint, nor Bush as a devil.
> After all, FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an
> excuse to invade Spain.
>
We declared war on Japan; Germany declared war on us. That made
it much easier.
>> The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
>> turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
>> in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
>> authorized action.
>
> Not on that basis alone it didn't, the threat of present or impending WMDs
> was given considerably greater weight. Of course that also turned out to be
> false.
>
It depends on when you sampled the state of the art. The story shifted
over time. I don't think anybody will disagree that *however* the case
was made, 9/11 was the justification for Iraq.
>> All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
>> To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
>> sort of thing works.
>
> "All objections?" Plenty of people have written at length about the
> determination of the administration to attack regardless of how good or poor
> the intelligence was. Depicting the process as being driven by faulty
> intelligence is to ignore that the intelligence was just window-dressing for
> a policy that was already in motion.
>
The policy had been in place since the Monica Missiles, what, 1998?
>> You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
>> a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
>> allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
>> are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
>> less certain.
>
> I'd forgotten no such thing, but with a broken military and a gutted economy
> Saddam was no longer a serious threat to Kuwait or anyone else in the
> region. That is not to say he could never have become a threat again, if
> sanctions had been lifted and he had been able to rebuild then all bets
> would have been off. But that was not the case in 2003, was it.
>
This ignores various "oil for food" abuses, the potential for Iraq as
support for terror, and above all, the guy's behavior. He chose
poorly to bluff.
When we tried to resolve the UN positions of France and Germany
with the Administration, nothing was left. But we can't necessarily
appear to be taking dictation from the UN, either. Even the failures
had failures.
>> Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
>> scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
>> was much better executed.
>
> Rubbish. Residents on the east coast of the U.S. were not able to see
> burning tankers and freighters sinking offshore in 2003, nor were newspapers
> and news broadcasts filled with stories of country after country falling to
> Saddam, nor were American bases being bombed and American troops being
> killed and captured by the advancing armies of Iraq.
>
Disagree if you will. I suspect you understimate just how much
propaganda, and how well done. And we got to hoist in a previous
President's (Bush41) comparisons of Saddam with Hitler (during the 1991
Gulf War) in the 2003 thing.
Of *course* there are differences. But they are not as great as
I would prefer... this thing rolled right into
that model...
>> I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
>> asking about *how* they know that.
>
> When bombs are falling on you from airplanes sent by a hostile nation you
> know the threat is real, but when that hostile nation only has a few dozen
> combat aircraft left and they don't dare to leave the ground the threat is
> somewhat less convincing. Bush 41 and Clinton both thought Saddam would
> always have an interest in being a threat but they also both knew he lacked
> the ability to deliver on his intentions.
The policy of the Executive Branch had been regime change from roughly
the time of the Monica Missiles.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq Liberation Act
> That's why they were content to
> occasionally bomb his air defenses to make the point that there was nothing
> he could do about it. The only thing that changed under Bush 43 was 9/11,
> and the notion that a war was launched costing thousands of American lives
> and countless billions of dollars because the govt. was mistaken about
> whether the country being invaded was really a threat couldn't be in sharper
> contrast to what happened in WWII.
WWII was *hundreds of thousands* of American lives, tens of millions
of non-Americans, and 108% of US GDP at one point. There *was*
the psychic equivalent of a Pearl Harbor event, once we follow
the then-proposed linkage.
Which was wrong, as we know know. But it was wrong in a very, very
interesting way - a half dozen or more people could have stood up,
sacrificed a political career, and stopped it. I cannot imagine
what that must have been like. It just proves to me that not
everybody is Thomas More. Hardly anybody *is*.
If the new standard for such justification is now 100% veracity, we
have a larger problem. A much larger problem. It is simply not
reasonable to expect perfection in that sort of decision.
Omniscience is not the answer. You are left with intent. Good
luck with that.
--
Les Cargill
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Les Cargill wrote:
>
>
> WWII was *hundreds of thousands* of American lives,
400,000. But that's merely where counting ceased...
Les Cargill wrote:
>
>
> WWII was *hundreds of thousands* of American lives,
400,000. But that's merely where counting ceased...
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
news:4820d9a7$0$20181$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
>>> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at
>>> that time.
>>
>> What does that have to do with whether or not Europe conquered and under
>> the control of a madman was a threat to the United States, what does that
>> have to do with what was widely believed to be approaching war between
>> Japan and the U.S. even before Pearl Harbor? Hitler was a real and
>> present danger to America,
>
> I respectfully disagree. Subs in the Intercoastal do nto make
> for a clear and present danger. *As a nation*, we could simply have turned
> our backs. It took considerable leadership to change
> that.
>
>> Japan was a real and present danger,
>
> Much easier case to make. Still a tough 'un.
>
>> Saddam post-Desert Storm was not and only a deliberate shell game made
>> him appear to be one.
>>
>
> The UN process broke down. The shell game happened after
> that. This is not a justification; it's simply what
> happened. I understand - it's Red-Queen "answers first,
> questions later" stuff - but *that is what the Executive branch
> does*. They do not have time for deep research on the
> spot.
>
> You have a vacuum, and a cadre of true believers who cannot handle
> a vacuum.
>
>>> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
>>
>> The U.S. was opposed to the Japanese occupation of large parts of China
>> as well, the population of which was neither white nor Christian.
>>
>
> Indeed; that's what led to Pearl. We boycott Japan, er, embargoed them,
> whatever.
>
>>> Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
>>> And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
>>> going in....
>>
>> I don't assume it, kindly do not assume that I am unread on that period
>> of history.
>
> Well, I mean no harm :) I don't know what you know. I'm lucky if
> I know what I know. I certainly appreciate your thoughts. It's
> a buster of a deal, man. Mess. Just a mess.
>
>> I am well aware of the isolationist sentiment in the U.S. at the time
>> and the means FDR had to use to work around it, but that was before Pearl
>> Harbor. That the American people allowed their unsatisfied need for
>> revenge re: 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and attack a nation
>> that had not in fact attacked them only underscores the contrast between
>> the leadership of FDR and Bush.
>
> That is very true. But that contrast is a *larger* subject. I do not
> hold FDR as a saint, nor Bush as a devil.
Well *someone* should hold Bush as impeacment material,
a war criminal, a war profiteer and a puppet for the PNAC
not to mention generating hate toward the USA around the
world as a belligerent bully occupying force of invaders.
>> After all, FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to invade Spain.
>>
>
> We declared war on Japan; Germany declared war on us. That made
> it much easier.
>
>>> The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
>>> turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
>>> in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
>>> authorized action.
>>
>> Not on that basis alone it didn't, the threat of present or impending
>> WMDs was given considerably greater weight. Of course that also turned
>> out to be false.
>>
>
> It depends on when you sampled the state of the art. The story shifted
> over time. I don't think anybody will disagree that *however* the case
> was made, 9/11 was the justification for Iraq.
>
>>> All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
>>> To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
>>> sort of thing works.
>>
>> "All objections?" Plenty of people have written at length about the
>> determination of the administration to attack regardless of how good or
>> poor the intelligence was. Depicting the process as being driven by
>> faulty intelligence is to ignore that the intelligence was just
>> window-dressing for a policy that was already in motion.
>>
>
> The policy had been in place since the Monica Missiles, what, 1998?
>
>>> You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
>>> a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
>>> allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
>>> are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
>>> less certain.
>>
>> I'd forgotten no such thing, but with a broken military and a gutted
>> economy Saddam was no longer a serious threat to Kuwait or anyone else in
>> the region. That is not to say he could never have become a threat
>> again, if sanctions had been lifted and he had been able to rebuild then
>> all bets would have been off. But that was not the case in 2003, was it.
>>
>
> This ignores various "oil for food" abuses, the potential for Iraq as
> support for terror, and above all, the guy's behavior. He chose
> poorly to bluff.
>
> When we tried to resolve the UN positions of France and Germany
> with the Administration, nothing was left. But we can't necessarily
> appear to be taking dictation from the UN, either. Even the failures
> had failures.
>
>>> Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
>>> scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
>>> was much better executed.
>>
>> Rubbish. Residents on the east coast of the U.S. were not able to see
>> burning tankers and freighters sinking offshore in 2003, nor were
>> newspapers and news broadcasts filled with stories of country after
>> country falling to Saddam, nor were American bases being bombed and
>> American troops being killed and captured by the advancing armies of
>> Iraq.
>>
>
> Disagree if you will. I suspect you understimate just how much propaganda,
> and how well done. And we got to hoist in a previous
> President's (Bush41) comparisons of Saddam with Hitler (during the 1991
> Gulf War) in the 2003 thing.
>
> Of *course* there are differences. But they are not as great as
> I would prefer... this thing rolled right into
> that model...
>
>>> I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
>>> asking about *how* they know that.
>>
>> When bombs are falling on you from airplanes sent by a hostile nation you
>> know the threat is real, but when that hostile nation only has a few
>> dozen combat aircraft left and they don't dare to leave the ground the
>> threat is somewhat less convincing. Bush 41 and Clinton both thought
>> Saddam would always have an interest in being a threat but they also both
>> knew he lacked the ability to deliver on his intentions.
>
>
> The policy of the Executive Branch had been regime change from roughly
> the time of the Monica Missiles.
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
>
>> That's why they were content to occasionally bomb his air defenses to
>> make the point that there was nothing he could do about it. The only
>> thing that changed under Bush 43 was 9/11, and the notion that a war was
>> launched costing thousands of American lives and countless billions of
>> dollars because the govt. was mistaken about whether the country being
>> invaded was really a threat couldn't be in sharper contrast to what
>> happened in WWII.
>
> WWII was *hundreds of thousands* of American lives, tens of millions
> of non-Americans, and 108% of US GDP at one point. There *was*
> the psychic equivalent of a Pearl Harbor event, once we follow
> the then-proposed linkage.
>
> Which was wrong, as we know know. But it was wrong in a very, very
> interesting way - a half dozen or more people could have stood up,
> sacrificed a political career, and stopped it. I cannot imagine
> what that must have been like. It just proves to me that not
> everybody is Thomas More. Hardly anybody *is*.
>
> If the new standard for such justification is now 100% veracity, we
> have a larger problem. A much larger problem. It is simply not
> reasonable to expect perfection in that sort of decision.
>
> Omniscience is not the answer. You are left with intent. Good
> luck with that.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
news:4820d9a7$0$20181$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> What does that have to do with anything? That was well in play by '38.
>>> We entered the war two, three years later. The UN did not exist at
>>> that time.
>>
>> What does that have to do with whether or not Europe conquered and under
>> the control of a madman was a threat to the United States, what does that
>> have to do with what was widely believed to be approaching war between
>> Japan and the U.S. even before Pearl Harbor? Hitler was a real and
>> present danger to America,
>
> I respectfully disagree. Subs in the Intercoastal do nto make
> for a clear and present danger. *As a nation*, we could simply have turned
> our backs. It took considerable leadership to change
> that.
>
>> Japan was a real and present danger,
>
> Much easier case to make. Still a tough 'un.
>
>> Saddam post-Desert Storm was not and only a deliberate shell game made
>> him appear to be one.
>>
>
> The UN process broke down. The shell game happened after
> that. This is not a justification; it's simply what
> happened. I understand - it's Red-Queen "answers first,
> questions later" stuff - but *that is what the Executive branch
> does*. They do not have time for deep research on the
> spot.
>
> You have a vacuum, and a cadre of true believers who cannot handle
> a vacuum.
>
>>> Unless it is the "white Christian people were under attack" thing...
>>
>> The U.S. was opposed to the Japanese occupation of large parts of China
>> as well, the population of which was neither white nor Christian.
>>
>
> Indeed; that's what led to Pearl. We boycott Japan, er, embargoed them,
> whatever.
>
>>> Don't *assume* massive popular support for WWII. It was manufactured.
>>> And Bush's approval rating jumped like 25 points on news of
>>> going in....
>>
>> I don't assume it, kindly do not assume that I am unread on that period
>> of history.
>
> Well, I mean no harm :) I don't know what you know. I'm lucky if
> I know what I know. I certainly appreciate your thoughts. It's
> a buster of a deal, man. Mess. Just a mess.
>
>> I am well aware of the isolationist sentiment in the U.S. at the time
>> and the means FDR had to use to work around it, but that was before Pearl
>> Harbor. That the American people allowed their unsatisfied need for
>> revenge re: 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and attack a nation
>> that had not in fact attacked them only underscores the contrast between
>> the leadership of FDR and Bush.
>
> That is very true. But that contrast is a *larger* subject. I do not
> hold FDR as a saint, nor Bush as a devil.
Well *someone* should hold Bush as impeacment material,
a war criminal, a war profiteer and a puppet for the PNAC
not to mention generating hate toward the USA around the
world as a belligerent bully occupying force of invaders.
>> After all, FDR did not use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to invade Spain.
>>
>
> We declared war on Japan; Germany declared war on us. That made
> it much easier.
>
>>> The case was made that the WTC towers and Saddaam were related. This
>>> turned out to be false information, but *at the time*, it was
>>> in play. It was considered strong enough evidence that Congress
>>> authorized action.
>>
>> Not on that basis alone it didn't, the threat of present or impending
>> WMDs was given considerably greater weight. Of course that also turned
>> out to be false.
>>
>
> It depends on when you sampled the state of the art. The story shifted
> over time. I don't think anybody will disagree that *however* the case
> was made, 9/11 was the justification for Iraq.
>
>>> All objections to the war are based on the veracity of intelligence.
>>> To me, that shows that people are unfamiliar with how this
>>> sort of thing works.
>>
>> "All objections?" Plenty of people have written at length about the
>> determination of the administration to attack regardless of how good or
>> poor the intelligence was. Depicting the process as being driven by
>> faulty intelligence is to ignore that the intelligence was just
>> window-dressing for a policy that was already in motion.
>>
>
> The policy had been in place since the Monica Missiles, what, 1998?
>
>>> You've forgotten his little incursion into Kuwait, then? This was
>>> a direct consequence of that. As Greenspan has said, people are not
>>> allowed to behave piratically with the world's oil supply. They
>>> are not allowed to behave such that the security of the supply becomes
>>> less certain.
>>
>> I'd forgotten no such thing, but with a broken military and a gutted
>> economy Saddam was no longer a serious threat to Kuwait or anyone else in
>> the region. That is not to say he could never have become a threat
>> again, if sanctions had been lifted and he had been able to rebuild then
>> all bets would have been off. But that was not the case in 2003, was it.
>>
>
> This ignores various "oil for food" abuses, the potential for Iraq as
> support for terror, and above all, the guy's behavior. He chose
> poorly to bluff.
>
> When we tried to resolve the UN positions of France and Germany
> with the Administration, nothing was left. But we can't necessarily
> appear to be taking dictation from the UN, either. Even the failures
> had failures.
>
>>> Well then indeed. The differences don't hold up very well to detailed
>>> scrutiny. I submit that this is because the propaganda *for* WWII
>>> was much better executed.
>>
>> Rubbish. Residents on the east coast of the U.S. were not able to see
>> burning tankers and freighters sinking offshore in 2003, nor were
>> newspapers and news broadcasts filled with stories of country after
>> country falling to Saddam, nor were American bases being bombed and
>> American troops being killed and captured by the advancing armies of
>> Iraq.
>>
>
> Disagree if you will. I suspect you understimate just how much propaganda,
> and how well done. And we got to hoist in a previous
> President's (Bush41) comparisons of Saddam with Hitler (during the 1991
> Gulf War) in the 2003 thing.
>
> Of *course* there are differences. But they are not as great as
> I would prefer... this thing rolled right into
> that model...
>
>>> I am not saying people don't know there is a difference. I am
>>> asking about *how* they know that.
>>
>> When bombs are falling on you from airplanes sent by a hostile nation you
>> know the threat is real, but when that hostile nation only has a few
>> dozen combat aircraft left and they don't dare to leave the ground the
>> threat is somewhat less convincing. Bush 41 and Clinton both thought
>> Saddam would always have an interest in being a threat but they also both
>> knew he lacked the ability to deliver on his intentions.
>
>
> The policy of the Executive Branch had been regime change from roughly
> the time of the Monica Missiles.
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
>
>> That's why they were content to occasionally bomb his air defenses to
>> make the point that there was nothing he could do about it. The only
>> thing that changed under Bush 43 was 9/11, and the notion that a war was
>> launched costing thousands of American lives and countless billions of
>> dollars because the govt. was mistaken about whether the country being
>> invaded was really a threat couldn't be in sharper contrast to what
>> happened in WWII.
>
> WWII was *hundreds of thousands* of American lives, tens of millions
> of non-Americans, and 108% of US GDP at one point. There *was*
> the psychic equivalent of a Pearl Harbor event, once we follow
> the then-proposed linkage.
>
> Which was wrong, as we know know. But it was wrong in a very, very
> interesting way - a half dozen or more people could have stood up,
> sacrificed a political career, and stopped it. I cannot imagine
> what that must have been like. It just proves to me that not
> everybody is Thomas More. Hardly anybody *is*.
>
> If the new standard for such justification is now 100% veracity, we
> have a larger problem. A much larger problem. It is simply not
> reasonable to expect perfection in that sort of decision.
>
> Omniscience is not the answer. You are left with intent. Good
> luck with that.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
