That's pretty obvious, but what was he saying?sthorp said:He was explaining the reasons for his answer to the question he was asked, what's so hard about that? He didn't change the subject or dodge the question, he answered it, and then gave reasons for the answer he gave.
yes, we had a prez who knew the difference between sh!t and shinola.PR3VS56 said:I don't get what you don't get. He's crystal clear. And he didn't change his mind later. That was 1994 under completely different circumstances.
You mean X years later an invasion to topple Saddam wouldn't fracture Iraq politically? And that it wouldn't be a quagmire? Exactly what were the circumstances that made it so different? If you go with the lame securing WMD response please explain where they are. Harboring terrorists? Don't go there. . . .it's bull$hit. Just what was different in 2003 from 1994, nine years later? Who has the blinders on?HiAngle said:Well I'll say it's pretty lame to use a set of facts from 13 years ago and try to apply them to a current argument-- I could care less what you're arguing. The problem set and solution set from 13 years ago and today are drastically different. That said, if there was a point that Smokey was trying to make, it's lost on me. Because I ask, what would the relevancy of that clip had been if the conditions in Iraq were different? I know it's convenient to use right now, but that doesn't make it an absolute.
Some of you folks need to take the blinders off. I could care less if you like the President or not, but let's get beyond applying third grade logic to make a point.
Lefty said:You mean X years later an invasion to topple Saddam wouldn't fracture Iraq politically? And that it wouldn't be a quagmire? Exactly what were the circumstances that made it so different? If you go with the lame securing WMD response please explain where they are. Harboring terrorists? Don't go there. . . .it's bull$hit. Just what was different in 2003 from 1994, nine years later? Who has the blinders on?
I never suggested an absolute argument. You did. Probably as a result of your inability to answer the "What was different in 2003?" question I posed.HiAngle said:Big swing and a miss with the point I was making. But thanks for proving my second point. Perhaps it was too difficult to pick up on the fact that I was referring to any argument, not just an Iraq problem set? So based off of your babble, you suggest that whatever your argument is, it's an absolute argument? It no longer matters what the circumstances are in the future or what they were in the past? I guess that makes it easy then, huh? Make a decision one day and never look back and see if it needs further evaluation. Good plan I guess, especially if you're into complete mayhem in your life.
BTW-- been there and done that with the GWOT and still serving so spare me the lecture there tough guy. I have a much better understanding on the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan than you ever will. You get to read about it, I had the luxury of an all expenses paid trip to help solve it- and I probably have another trip. I guess I should take the "fukk it" approach the next time because the rest of you have it figured out. Thankfully there are really smart folks like you out there to make up for dumb $hits like me.
Lefty said:I never suggested an absolute argument. You did. Probably as a result of your inability to answer the "What was different in 2003?" question I posed.
Thank you for your service, but I'm not buying your "My boots were on the ground so my knowledge is superior" argument.
HiAngle said:And obviously we now all know you can't stand the fact that your hearing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't trump what we, who have been there, know about Iraq and Afghanistan. Not chest beating, just a fact and it obviously hurts your feelings as evidenced by your comments. Anytime you want to take me to task on it, be my guest. I lived in the middle east (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) as a kid and I have served in combat over there. Give it your best shot. But I notice that you didn't address my experience over there compared to your reading about it. I guess you concede the point-- hollow cheat beating perhaps?
But to break it down to its basic form as you obviously have some trouble understanding my original point-
1) Regardless of what you're arguing- to go back and apply an argument from years past over a problem that is very different from today's problem is lacking merit. Even if it supports your position today.
For example-- Germany has made some recent political decisions that many in this country don't agree with. If I were to go back and drag up some clip from the 30s or 40s where we attacked Germany and its policies, it doesn't mean that's a valid point today. Even if the clip condemns German politics.
If you have to go back to the 90s to defend your views, for or against, the Iraq/Afghanistan war, then you're reaching. That was the premise of my argument.
Is it still difficult to understand? :hmmm:
But what was different in 1990 vs 2003?
1) We went to the ME in 1990 because Saddam invaded Kuwait. In the proccess, he murdered folks. This country's mission was to get him out of Kuwait. It was not to overthrow the regime. But funny, President Bush was beaten up for not going into Iraq and "finishing business". Therefore, you had Dick Cheney defending his boss' policy. Though I don't know if he disagreed with him. Maybe he did, based off of recent events.
2) We went to Iraq in 2003 after we had been wounded as a nation. The entire world, to include his own Army thought he had WMDs-- I have heard it come from an Iraqi Army Officer's mouth and say, "we were told we had them". I guess the Kurds can attest to their existence as well. Where are they today, I don't know. Saddam also shot at our aircraft-- was that ok for him to do? Obviously some Iraqi's made the government believe some things that certainly didn't pan out to be true. We also had some politicians who made some pretty bad assumptions and it has gotten us to where we are today. We grew our roots in very deep in Iraq and there is no longer an easy solution. But just because it's hard doesn't mean you walk away from it, which is what a lot of people advocate.
So obviously quite a bit is different between then and now. Just because it's convenient to use a clip of the Vice President discussing two different missions, doesn't mean it's a valid point for the current argument. The context and frame work of the problem was extremely different.