|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Obama: Humanitarianism's Cheerleader |
 |
|
The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 27, 11:42 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
If, as Obama said, ONE MAN cannot be held responsible for the world's
problems (or fixing them), Bush cannot be to blame...right?
As I said (and you are trying to ignore), Bush is responsible for the
problems that HIS decisions (and HIS administration) caused. That is
according to some enough to have him get a death sentence from a war
crimes tribunal.
So, we are talking about the problems that any individual is involved
in creating by their decisions? So, when Democrats in congress voted
for the Iraqi war, that puts them to blame?
|
Those who voted for the war have some responsibility for it, something
that has in fact been held against Hillary in this primary season. But
the main decision to go to war was NOT made by the Democrats in
Congress, but by the President, and by the Republicans that at the
time were in the majority AND were marching in lockstep with the
Bushman. I suspect that all the Dems could have voted "no" and there
would still have been a war. But if Bush had said "no", there would
have been no war.
| Quote: |
Or, are you saying that Obama can be blamed for all the problems during his
administration...
If they are caused by his decisions or administration, yes.
Careful what you say. Remember that Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somolia all started with
Bill Clinton
No they didn't. Kosovo and Bosnia were started by the Serbian
government, and the world indeed is holding specific Serbian leaders
as being responsible for war crimes.
You know what I meant
|
No I don't. Nor do you.
| Quote: |
Our entrance in the those wars were against a non-threat to the United States.
|
Our entrance into those wars was as a part of NATO, which did view the
wars as a threat to European stability.
| Quote: |
So, every
US soldier death caused by those wars is on the head of Mr. Clinton.
Right?
|
Yes. Of course there was exactly *one* American combat death in
Bosnia.
You would have had a better argument, if you had compared to the Bay
of Pigs fiasco, which was JFK's decision, was a bad decision, and he
took full responsibility for it. That one led to all of FOUR American
combat deaths.
And of course you wouldn't consider comparing it to Reagan's invasion
of Grenada in 1983, which had a full *18* combat deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
What has been the American body count in Iraq?
| Quote: |
It was HIS decision that sent them there.
|
Yes.
| Quote: |
Somalia was a civil war that Clinton did not start. Clinton as
president was responsible for the Mogadishu battle in 1993, the
bombing of chemical plants in Sudan, etc. Those were things that he
ordered.
So, the televised torture of the US troops, there, is to Clinton's
blame?
|
No. The failed battle is his blame. Clinton did not decide to
torture anyone - that's the Bushman's thing.
| Quote: |
(as well as rocket attacks on Baghdad).
Which rocket attacks in Baghdad? Until there were US troops in
Baghdad, there weren't rocket attacks on Baghdad.
This is a direct lie.
|
Not hardly. In the current context, "rocket attacks on Baghdad"
refers to attacks on US troops.
| Quote: |
After it was learned that Saddam had tried to
assassinate Bush, Sr, Clinton sent cruise missiles into Baghdad.
|
That seems like a justified response.
| Quote: |
So, he is to blame for the Iraqi deaths
|
Yes.
| Quote: |
and further priming that country against us...right?
|
The cruise missile attacks on Baghdad had insignificant effect on
Iraqi attitudes towards the US.
| Quote: |
Is Bill to blame for the problems those wars began?
The problems in Iraq are ultimately the responsibility of Saddam
Hussein, or possibly of daddy Bush for not successfully ending the
war.
Then, again, why is Bush, jr, being blamed for them, today?
|
Because he started the current war, using deception and manipulation
to convince Congress and the American people that it was necessary,
when it was in fact one of the stupidest things we could have done at
the time, especially since we had no clue what to do after we
conquered the country.
If we had not gone to war, then Bush wouldn't be blamed for THAT,
(though he's done everything else wrong too).
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pubkeybreaker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Obama: Humanitarianism's Cheerleader |
|
|
On May 28, 1:41 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <d9bacf1e-f7e0-4141-861e-5ee1502b7...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
But as long as we're asking such questions, what does God
have against the Midwest?
|
Isn't it obvious???
They voted for Bush! They voted to put discrimination into
their state constitutions.
| Quote: |
And for that matter, what did God have against Tennessee
and Arkansas, the heart of Huckabee country, that He
allowed storms to kill 54 people there on Super Tuesday?
He didn't like the way they were going to vote?
|
Yep!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
