bush hypocrisy

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Are you saying that the government of the United States of God loving America would distort the facts, even lie to get us in a war? This is news to you?
4,486 American men and women died in Iraq, the latest trumped up war.
58,148 American men and women died in Viet Nam.
One was trumped up by a republican administration, the other by a democratic one. Republicans got a lot of catching up to do in order to even the score with dems.
More...

I'll top that. We lost 550k men in WWII at a time where our country's population was 120 million. In today's terms that would be the equivalent of losing almost 1.5 million men in Iraq. So let's compare 1.5 million to 4k. And that does not include all the women and children we killed in Europe and Japan. But wait, we defeated Hitler right? Nope, he killed himself to avoid capture by Stalin. Well, we stopped Nazism right? Nope, they are still around today and growing in numbers in Europe as we speak. We stopped communism right? Nope, we gave half of Europe to the communists.

As bad as Iraq was, I don't even call it a war. I call it a skirmish. A military exercise gone bad. Government waste. And a perfect example why government needs to be smaller and with less power. Piezoe can't see the forest through the trees.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

I'll top that. We lost 550k men in WWII at a time where our country's population was 120 million. In today's terms that would be the equivalent of losing almost 1.5 million men in Iraq. So let's compare 1.5 million to 4k. And that does not include all the women and children we killed in Europe and Japan. But wait, we defeated Hitler right? Nope, he killed himself to avoid capture by Stalin. Well, we stopped Nazism right? Nope, they are still around today and growing in numbers in Europe as we speak. We stopped communism right? Nope, we gave half of Europe to the communists.

As bad as Iraq was, I don't even call it a war. I call it a skirmish. A military exercise gone bad. Government waste. And a perfect example why government needs to be smaller and with less power. Piezoe can't see the forest through the trees.
More...
Don't forget WWI and Korea, A democrat president got us into those as well.

116,708 and 36,516 US dead.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Are you saying that the government of the United States of God loving America would distort the facts, even lie to get us in a war? This is news to you?
4,486 American men and women died in Iraq, the latest trumped up war.
58,148 American men and women died in Viet Nam.
One was trumped up by a republican administration, the other by a democratic one. Republicans got a lot of catching up to do in order to even the score with dems.
More...

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying, and no, it is not news to me. It is news to pspr, however. As long as one considers the lives lost as worthless, which I don't, and you include WWII, the democrats lead on killing, the republicans on costs. It is hard to say who killed more Iraqis, Bush or Saddam. And let us not forget the Nixon escalation of the Vietnam War -- a war with roots in world war II, started by Kennedy, escalated by Johnson, further escalated and expanded by Nixon. I don't see any significant difference between democrats and republicans on this account. (After WWII ended the U.S., under Eisenhower, was, by 1954, paying for 80% of the French war effort in Vietnam.)

There are many war criminals in past U.S. administrations, and many just plan criminals. Henry Kissinger is both, and that's why 90-year-old Henry can't travel to certain countries today. He'll be arrested. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/11/the_latest_kissinger_outrage.html
 
Quote from piezoe:

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying, and no, it is not news to me. It is news to pspr, however. As long as one considers the lives lost as worthless, which I don't, the democrats lead on killing, the republicans on costs. I don't see any significant difference between democrats and republicans on this account. It is hard to say who killed more Iraqis, Bush or Saddam.

There are many war criminals in past U.S. administrations, and many just plan criminals. Henry Kissinger is both, and that's why 90-year-old Henry can't travel to certain countries today. He'll be arrested. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/11/the_latest_kissinger_outrage.html
More...
Come on pie, you know you only believe this with Republicans. Democraps are off the hook with you. Your bias runs deep and poisons your thinking.

Open your eyes, bud. The truth will set you free.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xwDJRBOsj78" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from piezoe:

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying, and no, it is not news to me. It is news to pspr, however. As long as one considers the lives lost as worthless, which I don't, and you include WWII, the democrats lead on killing, the republicans on costs. It is hard to say who killed more Iraqis, Bush or Saddam. And let us not forget the Nixon escalation of the Vietnam War -- a war with roots in world war II, started by Kennedy, escalated by Johnson, further escalated and expanded by Nixon. I don't see any significant difference between democrats and republicans on this account. (After WWII ended the U.S., under Eisenhower, was, by 1954, paying for 80% of the French war effort in Vietnam.)

There are many war criminals in past U.S. administrations, and many just plan criminals. Henry Kissinger is both, and that's why 90-year-old Henry can't travel to certain countries today. He'll be arrested. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/11/the_latest_kissinger_outrage.html
More...
I don't know why anyone is putting WWII on either team's scorecard, it had to be fought.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Here is a friendly suggestion for pspr's benefit. Read what I've said, not what you think I've said.
More...
I've read many of your posts, pie. Your bias is obvious. I've NEVER seen you attack a democrap. Every time you attack it is republicans by name.

I think you believe your are unbiased but it shows up in your words and conjecture in an obvious way to the rest of us.

A friendly suggest to you is to re-evaluate your priorities in government and social solutions that work long term. You may find many of the methods you believe in are not viable over the long term and have many unintended consequences.
 
Richter, when we make a list of least justifiable wars it steers us directly to Vietnam and Iraq. But we shouldn't ignore the almost innumerable small but costly "interventions" carried out by the U.S. military since 1946. Many of these, the majority I would say, were clearly, in hindsight, counterproductive and wrong headed. Sadly, there were experts in every case who recommended against these actions, but were overruled by a government firmly controlled by the military-industrial complex. Today, this might better be described as the military-corporate complex. Then, if we add in counterproductive interference by the State Department and CIA in the affairs of other countries, we get a picture of rather massive foreign policy failure; a policy which both political parties share responsibility for, and one which has cost us dearly.

But I'm not reaching the conclusion that Maverick has, viz., [that these policy failures] are perfect example why government needs to be smaller and with less power. I can't extrapolate that far. I only see these failures as examples of bad government, independent of government size.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I don't know why anyone is putting WWII on either team's scorecard, it had to be fought.
More...

Why did it HAVE to be fought? What did it accomplish? And please, try to stick with facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top