What Were We Fighting For?

[Synthaholic]

This whole argument started because you just couldn't accept my statement that Liberals were right about the Iraq War.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think if a scientific poll was conducted asking simply, "Do you believe Hillary Clinton is a liberal," most Americans would answer in the affirmative.

Most Americans can't tell you who the Majority Leader is in the Senate. Or who the Speaker is. A good percentage couldn't name the VP.

Americans are politically ignorant, by choice.

That doesn't disprove what I said.

Most American would probably say Donald Trump is one of the richest men in America, too. And they would be wildly off the mark.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neither.

It's just a fact that going to war based on flimsy evidence is not a Liberal tendency. Going to war, period, is not a Liberal tendency. Liberals value diplomacy over military might.

I feel like I'm explaining this to someone who just landed here on earth.

So would you say then that Woodrow Wilson and FDR were not liberals? How about Harry Truman? I won't insult you and ask whether you think LBJ was.

American Liberals didn't start WWI or WWII. But they sure as hell finished them.

So then Wilson, FDR, and Truman were liberals then? Interesting.

 

[Synthaholic]

So would you say then that Woodrow Wilson and FDR were not liberals? How about Harry Truman? I won't insult you and ask whether you think LBJ was.

American Liberals didn't start WWI or WWII. But they sure as hell finished them.

So then Wilson, FDR, and Truman were liberals then? Interesting.

For their times, yes. Although not so much for Truman.

 

[Synthaholic]

So would you say then that Woodrow Wilson and FDR were not liberals? How about Harry Truman? I won't insult you and ask whether you think LBJ was.

American Liberals didn't start WWI or WWII. But they sure as hell finished them.

So then Wilson, FDR, and Truman were liberals then? Interesting.

You don't think The New Deal was Liberal?

 

[whitehall]

Neither.

It's just a fact that going to war based on flimsy evidence is not a Liberal tendency. Going to war, period, is not a Liberal tendency. Liberals value diplomacy over military might.

I feel like I'm explaining this to someone who just landed here on earth.

So would you say then that Woodrow Wilson and FDR were not liberals? How about Harry Truman? I won't insult you and ask whether you think LBJ was.

American Liberals didn't start WWI or WWII. But they sure as hell finished them.

There was no WW1 before Woodie Wilson sent American Dough Boys to die in the trenches. Life was cheap by the time FDR realized that Hitler was a threat. Killing civilians to force regimes to surrender became the accepted agenda. Nobody in the media dared to object because FDR placed the media under government restriction. About 6,000 Marines were killed on a tiny island that could have been bypassed four months before the war ended. American/UN troops had the NK defeated in Korea and even the NK capital was taken but Harry Truman turned it all around and we are still living with the humiliating "truce" today.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

American Liberals didn't start WWI or WWII. But they sure as hell finished them.

So then Wilson, FDR, and Truman were liberals then? Interesting.

You don't think The New Deal was Liberal?

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

 

[Synthaholic]

So then Wilson, FDR, and Truman were liberals then? Interesting.

You don't think The New Deal was Liberal?

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't think The New Deal was Liberal?

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

No, because he had allies when he was supposed to be neutral, which proves the fact that he had every intention of getting involved in the war from the beginning. Much like Woodrow Wilson before him. He, like Wilson before him, did everything in his power to provoke the Axis into firing first.

And Obama is a warmonger regardless.

 

[KNB]

What is the "conservative" argument in all of this? That the United States should invade and occupy every country forever? Do you people actually want US soldiers to go back into Iraq?

Iraq was about WMD that did not exist. Bush lied. The CIA trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan so that there would not be a Soviet victory. There will not be a US victory in Afghanistan for the same reason. So what are you people trying to say? That the US should go trillions of dollars more into debt to fight a war that the US designed to never end? Is this the "fiscal conservative" Republican plan? Aren't liberal Democrats the ones who just want to "keep throwing money at the problem to fix it"? It's worked so well in the drug war over these past 40 years, hasn't it? Maybe 40 years into the war on terrorism, we'll see as much success as we have in the war on drugs.

Good job, Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

What were we fighting for?

Don't ask me I don't give a damn...

 

[1776]

You're such a stupid pile of shit.

1) We didn't train the group in Afghanistan that turned into the "Taliban," that would be UBL and his goons. UBL was in Afghanistan buying power with his money. We supported the NORTHERN ALLIANCE, the leader of the NA was killed on 10 Sep 01....ring a bell, asswipe?

2) Oh, Saddam never had WMDs??? Tell that to those he killed with WMDs. Most of his WMDs were sent to (drumroll) Syria. Aren't we talking about WMDs in Syria these days?

3) Iraq...Obama fucked up all the gains made there allowing the Iranians and AQ to rush into the vacuum he created there without a small SOF and training force. Biden fucked up getting a SOFA with Iraq and today you see the outcome of it....death all over Iraq.

go fuck yourself.

What is the "conservative" argument in all of this? That the United States should invade and occupy every country forever? Do you people actually want US soldiers to go back into Iraq?

Iraq was about WMD that did not exist. Bush lied. The CIA trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan so that there would not be a Soviet victory. There will not be a US victory in Afghanistan for the same reason. So what are you people trying to say? That the US should go trillions of dollars more into debt to fight a war that the US designed to never end? Is this the "fiscal conservative" Republican plan? Aren't liberal Democrats the ones who just want to "keep throwing money at the problem to fix it"? It's worked so well in the drug war over these past 40 years, hasn't it? Maybe 40 years into the war on terrorism, we'll see as much success as we have in the war on drugs.

Good job, Republicans.

 

[whitehall]

What is the "conservative" argument in all of this? That the United States should invade and occupy every country forever? Do you people actually want US soldiers to go back into Iraq?

Iraq was about WMD that did not exist. Bush lied. The CIA trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan so that there would not be a Soviet victory. There will not be a US victory in Afghanistan for the same reason. So what are you people trying to say? That the US should go trillions of dollars more into debt to fight a war that the US designed to never end? Is this the "fiscal conservative" Republican plan? Aren't liberal Democrats the ones who just want to "keep throwing money at the problem to fix it"? It's worked so well in the drug war over these past 40 years, hasn't it? Maybe 40 years into the war on terrorism, we'll see as much success as we have in the war on drugs.

Good job, Republicans.

WW1 was about a threat that didn't exist. We lost about 1000,000 Troops. Harry Truman did not ask for congressional permission to defend SK from the NK invaders. He authorized American Troops in a full scale foreign war by (illegal?) presidential decree. You wouldn't mind if truman had the sense to restrict the mission but he let his commanding general set the rules and instead of a victory we were forced to accept a truce dictated by the enemy we had defeated. George W. Bush asked congress for permission to use combat Troops and congress authorized the mission. Democrats decided to undermine Bush's authority for political points after they authorized it and low information stupids think it was illegal.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I do, or progressive if you like. I also think FDR was a clear warmonger.

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

No, because he had allies when he was supposed to be neutral, which proves the fact that he had every intention of getting involved in the war from the beginning. Much like Woodrow Wilson before him. He, like Wilson before him, did everything in his power to provoke the Axis into firing first.

And Obama is a warmonger regardless.

Does anyone know why the United States entered WW I?

When a German U-Boat sunk the Lusitania, the United States shrugged it off.
When German spies were captured in the United States after blowing up rail lines, the United States shrugged it off.

Neither of those two events brought the United States into the war. No, it took an intercepted message from Germany to Mexico asking and giving terms to Mexico to invade the United States. This message was intercepted by the British who sat on it for a long time waiting for the right moment to tell the United States.

As for WW II, FDR wanted badly to get involved but the people wanted to stay out. He secretly built up the military in both men and equipment, he just needed an excuse. He knew that sanctions on Japan would push them into attacking the United States, so that's why there was the oil embargo. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it pissed the people off and allowed FDR to get us into the war.

FDR knew that by declaring war on Japan, Germany would declare war on the United States. Just think what would have happen had Germany not declared war on the United States.

 

[protectionist]

You must do yoga, because you sure can twist!

Disqualified? No. Strange choice of words. It's just a fact that the Liberals did not vote for it, while centrist, corporate, and conservative Democrats did.

I don't know why you are having such a difficult time understanding that there is a Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, just as there is a teabagger wing of the Republican Party.

Here's the Budget compromise that ended the Tea Party Shutdown in November:

What distinguishes the Republican yes votes from the Republican no votes?

There's no twisting, I'm merely asking you to clarify your comments. Does voting "Yes" to the Iraq war disqualify somebody from being a liberal? I'm merely trying to understand your classifications because I think most people would classify Hillary Clinton as a liberal. I can understand nuance, I'm merely asking you to explain yours so that I can understand your previous assertions. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Incorrect.

Most people who listen to conservative media would classify Hillary Clinton as a Liberal.

Most Liberals would not. Same for Bill.

It's - of course - in the interests of simpleton thinkers like Rush and Sean to classify anyone who isn't a conservative as a Liberal. It's a catch-all insult for the extreme fringe.

That's nice. Now can we re-rail this derailed thread back to the topic >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

And you guys can live happily ever after with your conservative vs liberal topic in another thread.

 

[protectionist]

What is the "conservative" argument in all of this? That the United States should invade and occupy every country forever? Do you people actually want US soldiers to go back into Iraq?

Iraq was about WMD that did not exist. Bush lied. The CIA trained the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan so that there would not be a Soviet victory. There will not be a US victory in Afghanistan for the same reason. So what are you people trying to say? That the US should go trillions of dollars more into debt to fight a war that the US designed to never end? Is this the "fiscal conservative" Republican plan? Aren't liberal Democrats the ones who just want to "keep throwing money at the problem to fix it"? It's worked so well in the drug war over these past 40 years, hasn't it? Maybe 40 years into the war on terrorism, we'll see as much success as we have in the war on drugs.

Good job, Republicans.

What do you think is the primary reason(s) for US troops to be in Afghanistan or Iraq ?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's no twisting, I'm merely asking you to clarify your comments. Does voting "Yes" to the Iraq war disqualify somebody from being a liberal? I'm merely trying to understand your classifications because I think most people would classify Hillary Clinton as a liberal. I can understand nuance, I'm merely asking you to explain yours so that I can understand your previous assertions. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Incorrect.

Most people who listen to conservative media would classify Hillary Clinton as a Liberal.

Most Liberals would not. Same for Bill.

It's - of course - in the interests of simpleton thinkers like Rush and Sean to classify anyone who isn't a conservative as a Liberal. It's a catch-all insult for the extreme fringe.

That's nice. Now can we re-rail this derailed thread back to the topic >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

And you guys can live happily ever after with your conservative vs liberal topic in another thread.

Maybe you can take your whining to another thread.

 

[protectionist]

Incorrect.

Most people who listen to conservative media would classify Hillary Clinton as a Liberal.

Most Liberals would not. Same for Bill.

It's - of course - in the interests of simpleton thinkers like Rush and Sean to classify anyone who isn't a conservative as a Liberal. It's a catch-all insult for the extreme fringe.

That's nice. Now can we re-rail this derailed thread back to the topic >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

And you guys can live happily ever after with your conservative vs liberal topic in another thread.

Maybe you can take your whining to another thread.

Not a whining. More like a spanking (to your backside)

 

[protectionist]

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

No, because he had allies when he was supposed to be neutral, which proves the fact that he had every intention of getting involved in the war from the beginning. Much like Woodrow Wilson before him. He, like Wilson before him, did everything in his power to provoke the Axis into firing first.

And Obama is a warmonger regardless.

Does anyone know why the United States entered WW I?

When a German U-Boat sunk the Lusitania, the United States shrugged it off.
When German spies were captured in the United States after blowing up rail lines, the United States shrugged it off.

Neither of those two events brought the United States into the war. No, it took an intercepted message from Germany to Mexico asking and giving terms to Mexico to invade the United States. This message was intercepted by the British who sat on it for a long time waiting for the right moment to tell the United States.

As for WW II, FDR wanted badly to get involved but the people wanted to stay out. He secretly built up the military in both men and equipment, he just needed an excuse. He knew that sanctions on Japan would push them into attacking the United States, so that's why there was the oil embargo. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it pissed the people off and allowed FDR to get us into the war.

FDR knew that by declaring war on Japan, Germany would declare war on the United States. Just think what would have happen had Germany not declared war on the United States.

Then, instead of fighting Hitler in Germany, we would have fought him here in the US, with the USA being destroyed in the process. In case anyone doesn't know, Hitler's plan was to take over the WORLD.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's nice. Now can we re-rail this derailed thread back to the topic >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

And you guys can live happily ever after with your conservative vs liberal topic in another thread.

Maybe you can take your whining to another thread.

Not a whining. More like a spanking (to your backside)