Re: I told you so!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:06:37 -0700, Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
<awrightus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 28, 10:44 pm, Derf <d...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:37:10 -0700, Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
<awrigh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oh yeah. Iraq is a veritable paradise o' freedom and democracy now.

Just like, oh, Germany and Japan in 1948, right?

Gimme a break. If you want to make a WWII analogy, try Vichy France in
1940.

I'd rather try Europe 3 years after the end of major combat
operations.

That's nice. What does it have to do with reality in Iraq today?


You're conveniently forgetting that *we* are the aggressor
nation here.

And wouldn't the world have been a better place if France were the
aggressor nation in 1937?

Wouldn't it be nice if money grew on trees? What's your point? This
makes about as much sense as comparing Iraq now to Germany and Japan
in 1948. Again, what does it have to do with reality?


Your propagandists have (so far) compared this war to
WWII, The Korean War, and The Cold War! What's next, WWI?

Oh yeah, best not remember the past so that we are doomed to repeat
it.

Apparently you intend no sarcasm with that statement, since you
Bushbots never bring up the obvious comparison. Remember Vietnam? Or
were you also too busy "chasing girls" to realize there was a war
going on then? Odd that the part of history you actually lived through
is so foggy in your memory. Welcome to Neocon World, where
inconvenient history never happened!


That second one is a really Bad Thing.
I disagree. Look at the history of it.

You disagree with Fearless Leader?

Um, yeah, what is so amazing about that?

It was a joke, Fred. Get it? In case you missed it, Bush obviously
believes in nation building. Hence, his occupation of Iraq. I was
pointing out how his words contradict his actions. You don't *really*
disagree with Fearless Leader. All straight now? Good. Let's move on.


What use is a shiny military that can't be used?

I'd rather not travel any further down this disturbing road. Let's
leave it.


the loss of prestige around the world;

The last time I looked, France and Germany elected leaders that were
far friendlier to the US that those in office in 2003.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

You tend to type that when you are puzzled about a rational response.

I find it puzzling that you consider blatant denial of reality
rational. I figured you might be an Orwell fan. You have certainly
embraced his concept of "Doublethink".


Attention readers of misc.news.internet.discuss. Fred will now go on
to explain to us just how much the war in Iraq has enhanced the
prestige of the United States around the world. Never mind reality.
This is Neocon World! Take it away Fred ...

While I'd prefer to be liked, I'd rather be feared and free than liked
and enslaved. If you disagree, well, that's your problem, not mine.

In Neocon Woirld, our worldwide prestige had to be supplanted by
worldwide fear, to free us from that brutal enslavement those evil
Iraqis had us under! Anybody who disagrees obviously has a problem of
some kind.


Now who is being pedantic?

Excuse me? Haven't you been the one arguing that "words mean
something"?

Um, yeah, I have.

When *** Cheney publicly uttered those words quoted
above, people took heed. Hundreds of thousands of real people DIED
because of those words, Fred. A man in *** Cheney's position
shouldn't misuse words like "no doubt" and "weapons of mass
destruction" and "amassing them to use", especially since we now know
he had *no proof*.

You still don't get it. Hindsight is always 20/20. I agreed that if
we knew in 2003 what we know about Iraq WMD, we wouldn't have gone to
war. But we DIDN'T know then what we know today. I've been quoting
Dr. Blix from 2003 in another thread, and he was saying that UNMOVIC
couldn't account for significant quantities of WMD and so had to
assume they might not have been destroyed.

You still don't get it.No matter how much you jump up and down and
point - NOTHING you have quoted justifies the statements made by
Rumsfeld and Cheney. There was nothing in those reports that justified
Cheney saying NO DOUBT Saddam Hussein IS AMASSING weapons to USE
AGAINST US. There was nothing in those reports that would allow
Rumsfeld to state that he knew the location of dispersed WMD. Deny
reality all you want, but you're wrong, Fred. Sorry.

In light of this litany of delusional horse*** from you I'm sure I
can expect more of the same. Reasoned debate with you on this is
futile. Go ahead and have your last word. I wash my hands of this
thread.
--

Cheers! :)
.

Loading