Another of your straw-men Hollywood... Especially as I never have been of the attitude ""your either for us or against us"... Neither was Bush for that matter... Now the LW anti-war fringe WAS and IS... Hence Pelosi's new dance step...
Now my point with Russia IS and was, geopolitical alliance normally are temporary based on convenience... As was our help to Saddam, our interest was not to let either Iraq nor Iran win... And that policy drove our actions... Second, the arms we supplied helped us and the Russians defeat Hitler --- the question here is the refusal of Russia to WITHDRAWAL to its pre war borders WAS a consequence of that win... This included incorporating the Baltic and much of Poland into USSR... ANd the argument used with with Saddam is BECAUSE we helped him, WE are responsible for the end result... Applying that logic to WWII, we were responsible for 40 years of repression in Eastern Europe... Now I reject that line of reasoning in the cases of Russia during WWI and Saddam post 1987... The issue here do you also reject the reasoning??? If so the issue of our limited help to Saddam in the 80's is a none issue... If you accept that logic, then you logically must hold we are guilty of repressing Eastern Europe for 40 years... On May 20, 10:16 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > jgg, > > NOW you want to resign the black/white world of "your either for us or > against us" George Bush? > OH, we didn't want Russia it win against Germany, we only wanted to > help them avoid defeat? When Russian tanks were rumbling thru the > street of Berlin, hundreds of miles west of their borders, we were > merely helping them avoid defeat and destruction? Read a history book, > Russia help US to avoid defeat in Europe. > > On May 20, 8:55 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes Hollywood, in the grown-up game of geopolitics that is a > > significant difference... In your Ivory Tower of perfection, > > Ideology must remain pure by using only "moral" methods... In WWII, > > we allied with a Totalitarian tyrant not quite as dangerous as Hitler, > > Stalin, to beat Hitler... We supplied him arms so he would not be > > defeated... > > > And Stalin used them to take over Eastern Europe after the war... By > > your standards, we are responsible for Stalin post war, even though he > > stopped being an ally in 1945... Problem is, that is not how the > > world works... > > > On May 19, 7:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > jgg, > > > > Ohhh, we were not helping him to WIN, we were merely helping him to > > > avoid DEFEAT. > > > Well, that makes all the difference in the world. > > > > On May 19, 3:33 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Our support to SH in the 80's was limited to proventing his defeat by > > > > Iran. 95%+ of SH weapons came from the USSR or its satellites... A > > > > majority of the rest came from France and Germany... > > > > > On May 19, 3:35 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In a way, it was, for our support of SH during the Iraq-Iran war. We > > > > > tend to eliminate those who illustrate our political conscience. > > > > > Panama. Cuba. El Salvador. USSR. etc. > > > > > > On May 19, 1:35 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > So, S.H's Iraq was NOT an immediate and dangerous threat that needed > > > > > > to be removed? > > > > > > > On May 19, 12:56 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, the Iraqi War was NOT principally about WMD (using your non > > > > > > > UNSC definition)... > > > > > > > > On May 18, 5:52 am, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > You really don;t read or pay attention to the news do you? > > > > > > > > > You fools said the same things about WMD's > > > > > > > > that mistake only cost 4000 US lives and maimed > > > > > > > > only 30,000. > > > > > > > > > When Republicans make mistakes Americans die. > > > > > > > > Good track record you got going there. > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:17 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > > > > > > So, this is really what it boils down to, as I suspicioned. > > > > > > > > > What you are > > > > > > > > > really saying is, "I Hate Bush, But I Don't Know Why". > > > > > > > > > > What transpired at Abu Gharib is not at all what transpired > > > > > > > > > with enhanced > > > > > > > > > interrogation techniques by the CIA. The Army has no > > > > > > > > > mechanism other than > > > > > > > > > the Army Field Manual to interrogate prisoners. Those > > > > > > > > > individuals were > > > > > > > > > prosecuted because they were outside of Army regulations. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:26 AM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If we tried the little guys for what happened at Abu Gharib > > > > > > > > > > then the precedent has already been set for the ENTIRE > > > > > > > > > > Bush Administration. > > > > > > > > > > > I believe Nixon was also Impeached for his crimes > > > > > > > > > > during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > > > > > Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for his crimes > > > > > > > > > > while in office, and Republicans pushed all out to impeach > > > > > > > > > > Clinton while in office about a lie over a BJ. > > > > > > > > > > > So both your reasons for calling me a traitor have both been > > > > > > > > > > proven false based on previous precedent. > > > > > > > > > > > You have nothing left to say, because you have run > > > > > > > > > > out of realistic arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 4:47 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Sean!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I thought my post was rather witty!! > > > > > > > > > > > > In all honesty, you seem like a bright, intelligent, (I > > > > > > > > > > > am assuming > > > > > > > > > > younger > > > > > > > > > > > than me) man. It is one thing to question our > > > > > > > > > > > governments' policies, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > quite another to jump on a traitorous bandwagon, accusing > > > > > > > > > > > our President, > > > > > > > > > > > (any President!) during a time of war, of war crimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have nothing else to say on the subject. Based on all > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > that has been released to date, I don't believe that we > > > > > > > > > > > ever "tortured" > > > > > > > > > > > anyone. That this is just a hyped up term used by far > > > > > > > > > > > left extremists > > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > are either uninformed, and/or have an Anti-American > > > > > > > > > > > agenda. One or the > > > > > > > > > > > other.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Until such time as more information has been released, > > > > > > > > > > > (which initially I > > > > > > > > > > > was opposed to, but now, because the Obama Administration > > > > > > > > > > > chose to > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > the several Memoranda by Bybee and Bradbury) I want to > > > > > > > > > > > see everything > > > > > > > > > > > released, including the documents from July 2004 that > > > > > > > > > > > former Vice > > > > > > > > > > President > > > > > > > > > > > Cheney has requested be released. > > > > > > > > > > > > Until such time, I can add nothing to the > > > > > > > > > > > conversation.....I've said my > > > > > > > > > > > piece, both here in PF, as well as that Den of Moonbats, > > > > > > > > > > > Euwetopia. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > That was the best you could do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keith you want to try again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 1:38 pm, Keith In Tampa > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, VT Sean Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The shifting denial about torture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May 16, 2009 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Torture is just one more nail into the coffin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the Republican Party. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheney is just trying to protect himself and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing preemptive damage control. It is clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the torture policy was his decision. Cheney > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is hoping for another terror attack so he can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be vindicated the same way the entire GOP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > party wants President Obama to fail so the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GOP policies can be vindicated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The water down spin on torture is that water > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boarding is not torture. Dunking someones > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head is hardly torture, it is like getting baptised! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rough questioning was needed to get results! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However a few things are being left out, 98 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dead prisoners, the torture did not work, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torture is against the both US and International > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If all the CIA was doing was 'questioning' prisoners > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why was a doctor needed to be present? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been questioned by the police, no doctor was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In previous questioning by the FBI, no doctor was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so what changed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What changed was there was now a chance that the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prisoner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might die from the harsh interrogation. In fact 98 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prisoners > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who were being held for 'questioning died. > > > > > > > > > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/04/98-prisoners-died-in-us-. > > > > > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This article had 623 footnotes verifying the deaths. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted one of those footnotes at the end of this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > article. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Torture Apologists want you to believe that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > water boarding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not dangerous, problem is water boarding wasn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harsh treatment the prisoners received. A point the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Torture > > > > > > > > > > Apologist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conveniently do not bring up. Also if it wasn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torture > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain the 98 dead prisoners? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next comes the issue of why the prisoners were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being tortured > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what were the results of the torture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We were told that the torture was to protect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Americans from future > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attack, and that valuable information came as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > result of the > > > > > > > > > > torture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was after we were told that the US does not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > torture by the > > > > > > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is that the CIA was torturing prisoners. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not to protect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > America or Americans, but to find a connection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between Iraq and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9/11 or a connection between Iraq and Al qaeda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > give cover to the > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
