'Freedom Fries' creator sees the light...

[segovius]

The guy who came up with the 'freedom fries' re-labelling has now realised the Iraq war was based on no justification whatsoever and regrets his input in the creation of the rather silly meme.

He he has since become an anti-war activist on Capitol Hill and has placed a memorial outside his office to the soldiers who lost their lives.

Is this being reported in the US media ?

Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1491463,00.html)

[giant]

I see he supports troop withdrawal as well.

[hardeeharhar]

no.

[SDW2001]

So.....France was right, then? Their actions were not duplicitous? I see.

[midwinter]

That's great. Maybe he'll send a memo that all the bushes outside his office be re-labeled "liars." "Time to trim the liars!"

[Harald]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So.....France was right, then? Their actions were not duplicitous? I see.

Yes, France was right. They did not want to go to war on WMD. There were no WMD. Ergo, France didn't screw up.

No, France was not duplicitous. The intel was spun by the US and the UK. That was duplicitous. Anything France may be guilty of the UK and US are also guilty of.

That was easy.

Next.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by segovius
The guy who came up with the 'freedom fries' re-labelling has now realised the Iraq war was based on no justification whatsoever and regrets his input in the creation of the rather silly meme.

He he has since become an anti-war activist on Capitol Hill and has placed a memorial outside his office to the soldiers who lost their lives.

Is this being reported in the US media ?

Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1491463,00.html) Havent heard a word but I have almost stopped the Fox crap, Saddam deserved to be spanked and with the help of a few nations with democratic balls we did it.Tyrants need to go period no exception. who's next? The U.N. gave old im in my Diapers Saddam a bunch of chances so he was just being stupid. He should have said ok i'll play nice. Tyrants,Dictators Suck. Saddam deserved to be shown who the man is.:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
Tyrants need to go period no exception.

Except Saudi, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kuwait, Burma, China, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Pakistan and anyone else with enough money/resources to cut a deal and just as long as the population is moronic enough not to see through the bs.....

Yeah....they all must go.....:rolleyes:

[rageous]

WMD or not, duplicity or not, justifed invasion or not...


"Freedom Fries" was one of the stupidest ideas ever to fall out of someone's brain case.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by rageous
WMD or not, duplicity or not, justifed invasion or not...


"Freedom Fries" was one of the stupidest ideas ever to fall out of someone's brain case.

Actually, I think the "give back the statue of liberty" petition was dumber.

[rageous]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, I think the "give back the statue of liberty" petition was dumber.

note: I said "one of the stupidest", not the utmost and ultimate.

but yes I would concur with your statement 100%

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Aurora
Havent heard a word but I have almost stopped the Fox crap, Saddam deserved to be spanked and with the help of a few nations with democratic balls we did it.Tyrants need to go period no exception. who's next?

The tyrants we go to bed with, of course, are just fine and dandy. Saddam Hussein was a real tyrant from 1978-1990, and that is when he was the buddyboy of senior Reagan Adminstration officials. Some of those same officials are now senior Bush administration figures. To paraphrase: Those who harbor tyrants are as guilty as the tyrants themselves.

The U.N. gave old im in my Diapers Saddam a bunch of chances so he was just being stupid. He should have said ok i'll play nice. Tyrants,Dictators Suck. Saddam deserved to be shown who the man is.:lol: [/B]

He's always been the same tyrant, friend or foe. Actually, when he was our friend and ally, that is when he did his mass killings. After Gulf War 1, the execution rate declined to somewhere near, say, Texas under Governor George W. Bush. Tyrants...yes, they all suck.

[sammi jo]

Freedom fries? What a sick joke, now we got laws fit for a tyrant, namely the so-called U.S. "Patriot" Act.

More appropriate would have been "Freedom's Fried"

:mad:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So.....France was right, then? Their actions were not duplicitous? I see.

France was right there was no reason for this war whatsoever! I don't think you'll ever " see ".

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Harald
Yes, France was right. They did not want to go to war on WMD. There were no WMD. Ergo, France didn't screw up.

No, France was not duplicitous. The intel was spun by the US and the UK. That was duplicitous. Anything France may be guilty of the UK and US are also guilty of.

That was easy.

Next.

France, a supposed "ally" of the US, flew its diplomats all ocer the world seeking to defeat a US sponsored resolution.
This is not the behavor of an ally. Vote against a resolution, fine. Openly wage a PR campaign against your ally? No.

At the same time, France was doing business with Saddam, even right up to the invasion. So, don't give me the old "France turned out to be right....they opposed the war because they knew there were no WMD" line. That's bullshit. They thought there were WMD too. They just didn't want Saddam gone. It was too profitable to have him in power.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
France was right there was no reason for this war whatsoever! I don't think you'll ever " see ".

See my above post. It's amazing how you'll attribute only moral motives to France, while attributing only sinister ones to the US.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The tyrants we go to bed with, of course, are just fine and dandy. Saddam Hussein was a real tyrant from 1978-1990, and that is when he was the buddyboy of senior Reagan Adminstration officials. Some of those same officials are now senior Bush administration figures. To paraphrase: Those who harbor tyrants are as guilty as the tyrants themselves.



He's always been the same tyrant, friend or foe. Actually, when he was our friend and ally, that is when he did his mass killings. After Gulf War 1, the execution rate declined to somewhere near, say, Texas under Governor George W. Bush. Tyrants...yes, they all suck.

It's amazing that intelligent, thinking, more-informed-than everyone-else-on-the-planet liberals completely ignore the historical context of our alliance with Saddam in the 1980's, and the geopolitical events that were transpiring at the time.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's amazing that intelligent, thinking, more-informed-than everyone-else-on-the-planet liberals completely ignore the historical context of our alliance with Saddam in the 1980's, and the geopolitical events that were transpiring at the time.

If your argument is that we were supporting Saddam against the rise of Islamic fundamentalist in Iran, you are correct. If you ignore the fact that the US set up the situation in Iran such that it was likely to become fundamentalist, you are one step closer to being wrong. We set up the Shah in Iran who brutally repressed the religious movement; their cause had nowhere to go but up and join with anti-western sentiments. Most of the issues we are cleaning up today were caused by US and UK policies in the region in the past. That is the fact.

Consistency in the past would have made the world situation a great deal more agreeable to our policies...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's amazing that intelligent, thinking, more-informed-than everyone-else-on-the-planet liberals completely ignore the historical context of our alliance with Saddam in the 1980's, and the geopolitical events that were transpiring at the time.

I think you need to give us all a history lesson, then. Why don't you? Lay it all out for us so that we understand. Historical context & geopolitical events transpiring, please.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So.....France was right, then? Their actions were not duplicitous? I see. Yep . . . that appears to be the case.


But some of us knew that all along.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
France, a supposed "ally" of the US, flew its diplomats all ocer the world seeking to defeat a US sponsored resolution.
This is not the behavor of an ally. Vote against a resolution, fine. Openly wage a PR campaign against your ally? No.

At the same time, France was doing business with Saddam, even right up to the invasion. So, don't give me the old "France turned out to be right....they opposed the war because they knew there were no WMD" line. That's bullshit. They thought there were WMD too. They just didn't want Saddam gone. It was too profitable to have him in power. Silly boy . . .that's called politics . . . that's the way it gets done from the halls of Congress to the halls of the UN

as far as the 'doing business' . . haven't we seen enough proof that indicates that individuals from many nations were 'doing business' including the US, and subsidiaries of KBR . . . ie: Halliburton.

Wake the Fuuck up and see that that smoke-screen is idiotic and desperate . . .

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's amazing that intelligent, thinking, more-informed-than everyone-else-on-the-planet liberals completely ignore the historical context of our alliance with Saddam in the 1980's, and the geopolitical events that were transpiring at the time.

SDW, if the United States is the great world power that tries to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world, remember that the rise of Islamic fundamantalism was a direct result of our very own CIA's actions in overthrowing the democratically elected leader of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and its democratic parliamentary system. Quite obviously, the powers that be in US (and the UK) did not want the Iranian nation and people to benefit from their huge oil wealth..so they organized a coup, wrecked a working democracy, and installed the Shah, a crook and despot if there ever was one. The blowback was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, if it indeed *was* blowback.

Same in Afghanistan. The Afghan. government requested the Soviets to intervene on no less than *three* separate occasions to counter Islamic fundamentalist warlords who were against the actions and reforms of the "too liberal" Afghan government. The Soviets refused to get involved until the 4th request, when the orders were given to invade. The USSR got bogged down, fighting the like of Osama bin Laden and the mudjahadin "freedom fighters" (as Reagan so quantly put it), who were armed to the hilt with $$billions of weapons and funding, on the unsuspecting US taxpayer.

Were these actions a result of shortsighted foreign policy, or pre-planned 'chessboard maneuvering'? Have a read of Zbigniew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard"...buts the whole thing in sharp (but unwelcome) perspective. The ways these policy decisions are arrived at are always open to debate, but there is a possibility it seems as if the US powers-that-be have used Islamic fundamentalists, to the point of overthrowing democracies etc. in order to benefit 'x' and 'y'. Such political actions always have motivations behind them, and one can argue ad infinitum as to whoever and whatever 'x' and 'y' are, but one thing I am 100% sure of, is that regular American people like you and I do not even figure into the equation. We haven't even entered the conversation, let alone be qualified enough to earn a place at the table.

Why is it that on the one hand, the US talks the talk, blowing the trumpet of 'democracy', but we dont walk the walk. We have trashed more working democracies than we have instigated ( I cant think of one that we have instigated off hand), and been in bed with more vicious tyrants than one can count on all fingers and toes..and for reasons that almost always are ethically suspect, at the best.

Very sad. :(

Perhaps you should read some history, then pass judgement.

[midwinter]

Sammi,

Don't forget to mention Reagan's Proclamation 5450: National Afghanistan Day (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/32186b.htm)

[bergz]

Originally posted by sammi jo
We have trashed more working democracies than we have instigated ( I cant think of one that we have instigated off hand)

The Phillipines (after setting up the world's 1st concentration camps there). Japan (after dropping 2 nukes). Hawai'i (well, the House of Kamehameha wasn't much of a republican institution).

You're talking to people who listen to Oliver North talk about democracy but know nothing about the recent history of South America. That's irony. Or maybe just sad.

--B

[New]

Originally posted by bergz
The Phillipines (after setting up the world's 1st concentration camps there). Japan (after dropping 2 nukes). Hawai'i (well, the House of Kamehameha wasn't much of a republican institution).

You're talking to people who listen to Oliver North talk about democracy but know nothing about the recent history of South America. That's irony. Or maybe just sad.

--B

Japan was actually "sort of" democratic in period well before WWII. They withdrew from the League of Nations partially because of the Western powers' rejection of its bid for a racial equality. Ironic, eh?
Democracy crubled in Japan in a remarkably simmilar fashion to Germany, a mix between hard economic strain and ultranationalist forces bid for power.

Japan did infact fight on the Allied side in WWI, with the same imperialist ambtions as the others.

Just to mention hawaii or the phillipines is a mockery, but I do recognize your irony.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by bergz
[B]The Phillipines (after setting up the world's 1st concentration camps there). Japan (after dropping 2 nukes). Hawai'i (well, the House of Kamehameha wasn't much of a republican institution).

What? The US supported the corrupt Marcos dictatorship! It was not the US that initiated that 'quiet revolution' which brought Corazon Aquino to power, but rather the people of the Phillipines who took to the streets and demanded change...and they got it.

You're talking to people who listen to Oliver North talk about democracy but know nothing about the recent history of South America. That's irony. Or maybe just sad.


'Oliver North' and 'democracy' do not belong in the same sentence. How that treasonous mass-murdering terrorist-supporting son-of-a-bitch isn't behind bars for the rest of his life is a prime example of justice not done.

:mad:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by sammi jo
How that treasonous mass-murdering terrorist-supporting son-of-a-bitch isn't behind bars for the rest of his life is a prime example of justice not done.

:mad:

Nah. It's just an example of the kind of people George Bush, Sr. pardoned on his way out the door. What's shameful is that despite all of his crimes, he was still legally able to run for office.

[bergz]

Originally posted by sammi jo
What? The US supported the corrupt Marcos dictatorship!

Marcos, and I may be wrong, started out in the 60s and Aquino was in the 80s (+ or -). The US in the 40s did let a protectorate that had once been under the thumb of two (not including the US) foreign empires become an independent democracy. Counts for something, even if they were more interested in business and purging collaborators of the Japanese and, yes, later supporting Amelda's shoe collection.

--B

[pfflam]

The US took the Phillipines in the Spanish American War . .. a completely fabricated pretense for war started on completely trumped up charges waged against Spain . . . the rhetoric was one of righteousness and protection and freedom, but the reality was one of simple expansionistic Imperialism . . . Gun Boat diplomacy and outright land grab . . . sure Spain was a miserable colonial power, and mistreated its subjects, BUT

but the war in the Phillipines waged for years by the Americans against the locals was an incredible butchering: an incredible dessimation of savages by the upstanding White Civilized . . . do a little research, underneath the still existant veneer of patriotic rhetoric and you'll see the worst sort of crimes that our great country perpetrated

I know, my Great-great Uncle in-law served in that war in a high capacity . . .. he brought back 'treasures' . . . and they were mere hints of the terrible atrocities that the US did in the name of . . . . well . . . . who knows?! that war was a travesty and a lie . . .

As Twain wrote about the Episode:
General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been, "Kill or capture those savages." Apparently our little army considered that the "or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it had been for eight years in our army out there--the taste of Christian butchers.

[New]

Originally posted by bergz
Marcos, and I may be wrong, started out in the 60s and Aquino was in the 80s (+ or -). The US in the 40s did let a protectorate that had once been under the thumb of two (not including the US) foreign empires become an independent democracy. Counts for something, even if they were more interested in business and purging collaborators of the Japanese and, yes, later supporting Amelda's shoe collection.

--B

The fact is that the phillipinians fought for their right to self-determination. Buy the time the US bought out the spanish, the Filipinos had indeed already decleared independence, which led to a 14 year long butchery of up to a million filipinos (including civilians).

The war only ended when the US decided to implement a policy of working towards the independence of the Philippines.

So the truth is more that the Phillipines became an independent nation, in spite of american efforts...

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
If your argument is that we were supporting Saddam against the rise of Islamic fundamentalist in Iran, you are correct. If you ignore the fact that the US set up the situation in Iran such that it was likely to become fundamentalist, you are one step closer to being wrong. We set up the Shah in Iran who brutally repressed the religious movement; their cause had nowhere to go but up and join with anti-western sentiments. Most of the issues we are cleaning up today were caused by US and UK policies in the region in the past. That is the fact.

Consistency in the past would have made the world situation a great deal more agreeable to our policies...

We also alllowed the Shah to fall when we shouldn't have. If your argument is that we shouldn't have been involved in the first place, I can accept that. What I'm saying is that Reagan administration had certain realities to deal with that don't exist today.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
What I'm saying is that Reagan administration had certain realities to deal with that don't exist today.

History lesson, please.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
See my above post. It's amazing how you'll attribute only moral motives to France, while attributing only sinister ones to the US.


Nope SDW. It's simply an examination of the history of this debacle. France was right to stay out of it. Other agenda's or not. And I'd say the evidence is very heavy on the side of us being " sinister ". The facts are that France didn't start a war based ( and please once again without this basis it wouldn't have happened ) on a falsehood. I'm sure I don't have to review it for you.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by jimmac
Nope SDW. It's simply an examination of the history of this debacle. France was right to stay out of it. Other agenda's or not. And I'd say the evidence is very heavy on the side of us being " sinister ". The facts are that France didn't start a war based ( and please once again without this basis it wouldn't have happened ) on a falsehood. I'm sure I don't have to review it for you.

Could I also add the following idea for those on the right to consider:

Those who were gang busters for this war in Iraq like to discuss the evil nature of "dictators" and how a dictator does not permit "freedom" if you will.

Yet...

These same drumbeat pro-war activists are the first to figuratively "bite the head off of France" for their non-support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Let's look at this.... Do I have this right? France is not "permited" to have the right to dissent this matter of war???

Since when was Bush the dictator of the world and all must bow to him?

Why are neo-cons unable to respect the right for France to oppose this war?

Why? I would really like an answer to this.

If neo-cons are all about "freedom" then they should respect the right of the French to oppose the war in Iraq.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by SDW2001
See my above post. It's amazing how you'll attribute only moral motives to France, while attributing only sinister ones to the US.

See my above post. It's amazing how you'll attribute only moral motives to the US, while attributing only sinister ones to France.

Fellows

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Could I also add the following idea for those on the right to consider:

Those who were gang busters for this war in Iraq like to discuss the evil nature of "dictators" and how a dictator does not permit "freedom" if you will.

Yet...

These same drumbeat pro-war activists are the first to figuratively "bite the head off of France" for their non-support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Let's look at this.... Do I have this right? France is not "permited" to have the right to dissent this matter of war???

Since when was Bush the dictator of the world and all must bow to him?

Why are neo-cons unable to respect the right for France to oppose this war?

Why? I would really like an answer to this.

If neo-cons are all about "freedom" then they should respect the right of the French to oppose the war in Iraq.

Fellows


It's quite simply because they've never ( and probably never will ) accept the outcome of the " War " in Iraq inspite of all the facts that outline the truth of the matter.

It's like a child not wanting to admit he/she made a mistake. Or it could be like Nixon after Watergate where he realized what he did was wrong but it was a means to an end ( Therefore justifiable ) so it was ok.

These kinds of people have no sense of honour or integrity. They're willing to trade it away for an end. They don't understand the meaning of the word " Truth ". For them it's variable.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me that's totally contrary to my way of thinking. Also waiting for those WMDs to be found just over the next sand dune ( forever ) is just denial. If we wait long enough the sun will become a red giant and that will end the discussion once and for all.

You're right Fellows. It's a double standard.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by midwinter
History lesson, please.

This is a tried and true argument tactic used by a lot of liberals: Imply the conservative doesn't understand history by asking him a question you already know the answer to. Sorry. not going there. Why don't you, in your infinite wisdom, give me a history lesson?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Fellowship
See my above post. It's amazing how you'll attribute only moral motives to the US, while attributing only sinister ones to France.

Fellows

Why don't you explain our motives and contrast them with the motives of the French, then? Go ahead...I'm listening.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Nope SDW. It's simply an examination of the history of this debacle. France was right to stay out of it. Other agenda's or not. And I'd say the evidence is very heavy on the side of us being " sinister ". The facts are that France didn't start a war based ( and please once again without this basis it wouldn't have happened ) on a falsehood. I'm sure I don't have to review it for you.

Why, exactly, was France right to stay out of it?

Beyond that, you're missing the point: If France had merely "stayed out of it", I'd have no problem with their actions. But they openly tried to persuade US allies to vote against resolutions and openly opposed their "ally" on the international political stage. While doing so, they had clear ties to Saddam's government while doing so and were owed billions by Saddam as well.

Now tell me you're fine with that simply because it turned out there were no WMD. That doesn't excuse their actions.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Why, exactly, was France right to stay out of it? Maybe because the WMDs turned out to be either figments of imagination, or products of deliberate fabrication?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This is a tried and true argument tactic used by a lot of liberals: Imply the conservative doesn't understand history by asking him a question you already know the answer to. Sorry. not going there. Why don't you, in your infinite wisdom, give me a history lesson?

I didn't imply shit. You said that there was a great deal of historical context that we weren't taking into consideration. I asked you to enlighten us. That's not an "implication." That's a question. But you seem to have deftly dodged a question that simply asked you to explain your understanding of the historical context of it all. I don't presume to know your reasons, so I won't call you a coward at the moment.

But if asking my opponent to lay out the premise(s) of his argument is a "tactic," I'm guilty as charged.

Please, since you brought it up, give us the history lesson we all so clearly need. You talked about Reagan and Iraq in the 1980s.

Please. Enlighten us.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by midwinter
I didn't imply shit. You said that there was a great deal of historical context that we weren't taking into consideration. I asked you to enlighten us. That's not an "implication." That's a question. But you seem to have deftly dodged a question that simply asked you to explain your understanding of the historical context of it all. I don't presume to know your reasons, so I won't call you a coward at the moment.

But if asking my opponent to lay out the premise(s) of his argument is a "tactic," I'm guilty as charged.

Please, since you brought it up, give us the history lesson we all so clearly need. You talked about Reagan and Iraq in the 1980s.

Please. Enlighten us.

Ahhh...and yet another one: Again, knowing the very historical context you challenge me to explain, when I call you on the tactic you accuse me of "dodging the question."

I know from discussing things with you previously that you're an intelligent and informed person. I don't buy for a second that you don't already know of the geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing and how those realities differ from today's times.

In other words, your request for me to explain is disingenuous.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ahhh...and yet another one: Again, knowing the very historical context you challenge me to explain, when I call you on the tactic you accuse me of "dodging the question."

I know from discussing things with you previously that you're an intelligent and informed person. I don't buy for a second that you don't already know of the geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing and how those realities differ from today's times.

In other words, your request for me to explain is disingenuous.

So in other words, this "historical context"—which you brought up and which is at the heart of this debate—is something we shouldn't lay out and make clear for everyone?

Nice.

History lesson, please. You brought it up. I just want to know how you think the history plays out.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ahhh...and yet another one: Again, knowing the very historical context you challenge me to explain, when I call you on the tactic you accuse me of "dodging the question."

I know from discussing things with you previously that you're an intelligent and informed person. I don't buy for a second that you don't already know of the geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing and how those realities differ from today's times.

In other words, your request for me to explain is disingenuous.

In other words, you have wasted much language trying to avoid defending something you have claimed when it could have been addressed many posts ago.

That is disingenuous, and it clearly suggests to me that you have no understanding of these geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing. You are bullshitting these forums, and instead of flowers, we are getting more bullshit... Stop bullshitting.

[segovius]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
In other words, you have wasted much language trying to avoid defending something you have claimed when it could have been addressed many posts ago.

That is disingenuous, and it clearly suggests to me that you have no understanding of these geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing. You are bullshitting these forums, and instead of flowers, we are getting more bullshit... Stop bullshitting.

They all do it - I guess they think it's a clever tactic but really it's just tiresome.

Make an ambiguous statement, when asked to clarify refuse, then carry on like that for a few posts and voila.....you have a derailment that isn't a derailment and the original subject that caused you discomfort has vanished.

Lame.

[midwinter]

And then the thread just fades away.

[segovius]

Originally posted by midwinter
And then the thread just fades away.

Yep - problem solved.

It's quite brilliant in it's way - you can't even use it against them because it would have the same desired effect: obscuring the facts.

I really wonder how they discovered it. Watching too many of their political heroes I guess.

[johnq]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't buy for a second that you don't already know of the geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing and how those realities differ from today's times.

Differ from?! How quaint.

It's more like this:

I don't buy for a second that you don't already know of the geopolitical decisions and schemes the Reagan administration was plotting and how those policies have had long-term disastrous effects on today's times.

No Reagan, no 9-11. (That's not entirely true, the neocons would have been there anyway)...but Reagan aided Bin Laden, period. Hire scumbags to do your dirty work, it'll come back to haunt you.

God knows what further self-destructive path the Bush empire will lead us...

[johnq]

Originally posted by midwinter
Sammi,

Don't forget to mention Reagan's Proclamation 5450: National Afghanistan Day (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/32186b.htm)

Oh, that's precious. That's satisfies my irony quota for the week.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
In other words, you have wasted much language trying to avoid defending something you have claimed when it could have been addressed many posts ago.

That is disingenuous, and it clearly suggests to me that you have no understanding of these geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing. You are bullshitting these forums, and instead of flowers, we are getting more bullshit... Stop bullshitting.

And there we have it. I was waiting for it to get to this point. By pretending that the you and others don't clearly know the historical differences between today's times and the Reagan years (and asking me to explain them), you set yourself up in a nice position. If I refuse to answer and call you on the tactic, you can accuse me of dodging the question. If I do answer, you can sit back and take pot shots at the argument. Either way, it's win-win for you.

[pfflam]

It usually is win-win when talking with you . . .

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
They all do it - I guess they think it's a clever tactic but really it's just tiresome.

Make an ambiguous statement, when asked to clarify refuse, then carry on like that for a few posts and voila.....you have a derailment that isn't a derailment and the original subject that caused you discomfort has vanished.

Lame.

I am not the purveyor of bullshit around here. You know damn well the differences Reagan faced with regard to Iraq. Please. Mindwinter's little "request for a lesson" is nothing but a set up, one I won't play into.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I am not the purveyor of bullshit around here. You know damn well the differences Reagan faced with regard to Iraq. Please. Mindwinter's little "request for a lesson" is nothing but a set up, one I won't play into.

Aww. Poor beleaguered SDW2001!! Set upon from all sides, it seems! He's a victim, people! Can't you see?! A VICTIM!

A victim who, by the way, said this:

We also alllowed the Shah to fall when we shouldn't have. If your argument is that we shouldn't have been involved in the first place, I can accept that. What I'm saying is that Reagan administration had certain realities to deal with that don't exist today.

And when asked to explain what those "certain realities" were, steadfastly refused to, because, you know, asking for clarification of what seems to be a key point is just a "set up."

Victim! Victim I say! Cruelly oppressed! On his way to martyrdom, most certainly!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And there we have it. I was waiting for it to get to this point. By pretending that the you and others don't clearly know the historical differences between today's times and the Reagan years (and asking me to explain them), you set yourself up in a nice position. If I refuse to answer and call you on the tactic, you can accuse me of dodging the question. If I do answer, you can sit back and take pot shots at the argument. Either way, it's win-win for you.

No. You didn't provide an argument. You have been effectively arguing that you are above providing reasons for your positions. Midwinter asked you for legitimate clarification of an obtuse phrase, and true to the form of someone who is filled with bullshit, you avoided it and claimed persecution.

You argue as well as a drunk fish.

[midwinter]

Heh. When I read this:

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
legitimate clarification of an obtuse phrase, and true to the form of someone who is filled with bullshit, you avoided it and claimed persecution.

I immediately thought of this (http://homepage.mac.com/scottrogers_/youhavetotry.mp4) (~440K, .mp4) snippit from a Lyle Lovett song.

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
snip...... If I do answer, you can sit back and take pot shots at the argument.

Good lord. You've been reduced to claiming that actually making your argument is pointless and self defeating, since to do so merely provides the people who disagree with you the opportunity to argue back.

I didn't think it was possible to out-do Naples in the coveted confoundingly-self-negating-rhetorical-inversion-via-baseless-indignation cup , but by God, I think you've done it!

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
Good lord. You've been reduced to claiming that actually making your argument is pointless and self defeating, since to do so merely provides the people who disagree with you the opportunity to argue back.

I didn't think it was possible to out-do Naples in the coveted confoundingly-self-negating-rhetorical-inversion-via-baseless-indignation cup , but by God, I think you've done it!

You're unbelievable. But you know what? You guys win. I'll play ball. My statement was the Reagan faced certain realities that differ from today with regards to Iraq (or something to that effect)

The reality was that when Reagan took office, the administration had to contend with Iraq-Iran war. In short, the US considered Iran the greater threat to national security, mostly due to our oil interests. While Saddam was a brutal dictator, but Kohomeni was a brutal fundmentalist dictator.

There are more factors, however. Iran later began attacking Kuwati oil tankers, some of which were US-flagged (although the US was essentially baited by the Kuwaitis--we did not wish to flag and protect their tankers until the Soviets did so). Iran also had declared that it would not stop fighting until Saddam's regime was toppled. Although Iraq had started the war, Iran had become far more aggressive and had less international support. Finally, since the Soviets had been Iraq's bigget arms supplier, one could make the case that we supported Iraq, in part, to prevent it from forming an exclusive alliance with the Soviets.

Those ae just some of the realities Reagan was dealing with during his Presidency that do not exist today. At some point, the simplistic judgement was made that Iran was "worse" than Iraq.

Now, my disclaimer: None of the above means that I support our giving military aid to Iraq (and later...to Iran, but for different reasons). I think it was a bad idea that we had to contend with later, as we usually do.

Now, let the flaming begin.

[bergz]

Isn't Wikipedia wonderful?

BTW, short version of the above: Ruskies.

--B

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Why, exactly, was France right to stay out of it?

Beyond that, you're missing the point: If France had merely "stayed out of it", I'd have no problem with their actions. But they openly tried to persuade US allies to vote against resolutions and openly opposed their "ally" on the international political stage. While doing so, they had clear ties to Saddam's government while doing so and were owed billions by Saddam as well.

Now tell me you're fine with that simply because it turned out there were no WMD. That doesn't excuse their actions.

Because it was wrong! Because the main excuse was false! As the U. S. with a high moral standard to live up to we had no right to just attack without more provocation. Yes SDW for all the reasons that have been gone over in triplicate for the last 3 years! Don't play dumb.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Because it was wrong! Because the main excuse was false! As the U. S. with a high moral standard to live up to we had no right to just attack without more provocation. Yes SDW for all the reasons that have been gone over in triplicate for the last 3 years! Don't play dumb.


Because it was wrong. Oh, I see. It was wrong to depose a horrendus, violent dictator who threatened his neighbors, used chemicals weapons, openly praised 9/11, committed genocide, fired on US aircraft every single day and violated the will of the international community a full 17 times. It was also wrong to believe every major intelligence agency on the planet---all of whom said that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The French thought so. The Germans thought so. The Brits thought so. We thought so. It's all wrong because it turned out there were no weapons and Bush lied and Bush is a war monger and he's stupid and just out for oil and is building an empire because he is Hitler incarnate.

Got it.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Because it was wrong. Oh, I see. It was wrong to depose a horrendus, violent dictator who threatened his neighbors, used chemicals weapons, openly praised 9/11, committed genocide, fired on US aircraft every single day and violated the will of the international community a full 17 times.

Yes. Just like if a proven paedophile and murderer lived across the road from you and you knew he committed those crimes it would be wrong of you to blow his head off with a shotgun.

And even more wrong to justify yourself afterwards with his crimes.

It's called 'the law'. If you don't respect it then you're a lawbreaker just like him.

It was also wrong to believe every major intelligence agency on the planet---all of whom said that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The French thought so. The Germans thought so. The Brits thought so. We thought so. It's all wrong because it turned out there were no weapons and Bush lied and Bush is a war monger and he's stupid and just out for oil and is building an empire because he is Hitler incarnate.

No one thought so. It was known to be a lie. People supported it or not depending on other factors.

You haven't been keeping up with the Downing Street Memos have you ?

Got it.

I sincerely doubt that.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Because it was wrong. Oh, I see. It was wrong to depose a horrendus, violent dictator who threatened his neighbors, used chemicals weapons, openly praised 9/11, committed genocide, fired on US aircraft every single day and violated the will of the international community a full 17 times. It was also wrong to believe every major intelligence agency on the planet---all of whom said that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The French thought so. The Germans thought so. The Brits thought so. We thought so. It's all wrong because it turned out there were no weapons and Bush lied and Bush is a war monger and he's stupid and just out for oil and is building an empire because he is Hitler incarnate.

Got it.


Like I've already said " Don't play dumb! " We've already been over this. To make this logical and an adopted policy of the U. S. we'd have to do this everywhere in the world that this sort of thing is happening. That's a lot of places SDW! You really need to stop using this stale argument as it didn't hold water a couple of years ago. Also many people didn't think he had anything or a way to deliver them.

That makes him not a threat to us.

This was before the war SDW.

I wonder how these people knew?

By the way the inspectors ( you know the real intelligence experts who's job it was to ascertain this ) over there said before the war that he didn't have any WMD. But some lame presidents just believe what they want to hear. If you want a real threat with real WMD try N. Korea. Of course there we'd have a real war on our hands. Not just beating up on a little country that isn't even close to a match for us.

By the way I don't know what Bush is stupid for but he is stupid and is driving this country into the ground.

[mmcgann11]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Because it was wrong. Oh, I see. It was wrong to depose a horrendus, violent dictator who threatened his neighbors, used chemicals weapons, openly praised 9/11, committed genocide, fired on US aircraft every single day and violated the will of the international community a full 17 times. It was also wrong to believe every major intelligence agency on the planet---all of whom said that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The French thought so. The Germans thought so. The Brits thought so. We thought so. It's all wrong because it turned out there were no weapons and Bush lied and Bush is a war monger and he's stupid and just out for oil and is building an empire because he is Hitler incarnate.

Got it.

Actually, Mr. Context, let's put thing in context at the time of the build up of the case for the war — which I publicly opposed right in your county, because I was running for state representative against a twit who thought Pennsylvania should ban French wine for pointing out that we were jumping the gun. At that time, we had a few thousand troops in Afghanistan — and were "hot on the trail" of Osama Bin Laden — a guy actually murdered 3,000 Americans right her. Did we crank up the troop numbers? Did we go in for the kill?

No, we went into Iraq instead. FOR NO GOOD REASON. At the time on the record and in print (look it up), I said the WMD issue was bogus and the French and Germans merely wanted to complete the UN investigation. Like a spoiled child, Bush stomped his feet and threatened and gave the "You're either with us or against us" bit.

In context it was wrong then, but most people like to think the president is a lying weasel, so they trusted him. We now know it was a lie. Period.

So just stop spinning. Enough.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes. Just like if a proven paedophile and murderer lived across the road from you and you knew he committed those crimes it would be wrong of you to blow his head off with a shotgun.

And even more wrong to justify yourself afterwards with his crimes.

It's called 'the law'. If you don't respect it then you're a lawbreaker just like him.



No one thought so. It was known to be a lie. People supported it or not depending on other factors.

You haven't been keeping up with the Downing Street Memos have you ?



I sincerely doubt that.

Excuse me...what law governs the US going to war? The ubiquitous "international Law?"

Beyond that, your analogy sucks. Saddam was not a criminal who did his time and was ready to place nice again. Using your child pedophile analogy, it's the same as your neighbor putting up a sign in his yard that says "I want to molest your children". When you pass by, he throws rocks at your car. He speeds dwn the street with reckless abandon. He kills his and other neghbors' pets. You tell the police 17 times, but you are ignored. Then one day you see him in is car, holding out a piece of candy to your daughter. On top of this, 5 of your neighbors tell you he has been making fertilizer bombs in his basement.

But you're right...you wouldn't do anything about it.



No one thought so. It was known to be a lie. People supported it or not depending on other factors.

A lie told by whom?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Like I've already said " Don't play dumb! " We've already been over this. To make this logical and an adopted policy of the U. S. we'd have to do this everywhere in the world that this sort of thing is happening. That's a lot of places SDW! You really need to stop using this stale argument as it didn't hold water a couple of years ago. Also many people didn't think he had anything or a way to deliver them.

That makes him not a threat to us.

This was before the war SDW.

I wonder how these people knew?

By the way the inspectors ( you know the real intelligence experts who's job it was to ascertain this ) over there said before the war that he didn't have any WMD. But some lame presidents just believe what they want to hear. If you want a real threat with real WMD try N. Korea. Of course there we'd have a real war on our hands. Not just beating up on a little country that isn't even close to a match for us.

By the way I don't know what Bush is stupid for but he is stupid and is driving this country into the ground.

The inspectors didn't say Saddam had no WMD. They said they couldn't find them. They also said Saddam was not cooperating, which he was required to do.

You're among a group of people that doesn't understand why the UN has weapons inspectors. It's not to have a scavenger hunt of sorts for weapons. The Iraqis were supposed to actively cooperate with the inspectors so the inspectors could dismantle the program and destroy the weapons.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by mmcgann11
Actually, Mr. Context, let's put thing in context at the time of the build up of the case for the war — which I publicly opposed right in your county, because I was running for state representative against a twit who thought Pennsylvania should ban French wine for pointing out that we were jumping the gun. At that time, we had a few thousand troops in Afghanistan — and were "hot on the trail" of Osama Bin Laden — a guy actually murdered 3,000 Americans right her. Did we crank up the troop numbers? Did we go in for the kill?

No, we went into Iraq instead. FOR NO GOOD REASON. At the time on the record and in print (look it up), I said the WMD issue was bogus and the French and Germans merely wanted to complete the UN investigation. Like a spoiled child, Bush stomped his feet and threatened and gave the "You're either with us or against us" bit.

In context it was wrong then, but most people like to think the president is a lying weasel, so they trusted him. We now know it was a lie. Period.

So just stop spinning. Enough.

You ran against Steven Barrar, I assume? He's in Delaware County, but he supported such a bill. Good job in that race, by the way! lol: I'll tell him "hello" for you the next time I see him.

Oh, and you saying we went into Iraq for no good reason doesn't make it so.

[mmcgann11]

Actually, his district is in Chester and Delaware Counties and I live in Chester County. And we did a decent job, running ahead of most of the rest of ticket in the single-most Republican district in the state.

And when you do speak to Steve, speak slowly. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Oh, and you saying we went into Iraq for no good reason doesn't make it so.

And you saying it was okay, doesn't make it so, either. And the fact that the administration's rationale for the war has changed three times doesn't really help your argument.

And yet, you fail to provide anything resembling a reason, other than some vague argument about how bad dictators are. Boo hoo. You trash the concept of International law, but in the same breath suggest that we invaded Iraq because Saddam was bad — and there's a disconnect of logic if ever there was one. If International law doesn't apply, then who are we to make "value" judgments for other countries?

Bottom line, you can't win this argument on the merits, so you resort to misdirection and dishonesty. But as Reagan once said accidently, "Facts are stupid things."

And these stupid facts remain:

Bush was dishonest about why we went to war.
Bush neglected the war on terror and Al Queda is stronger today than it was five years ago.
Bush had no exit plan for Iraq.
Bush neglected the "Powell Doctrine" and failed to deploy enough troops to Iraq.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 1,600 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis — for fighting a war with no clear purpose.

You can deny the facts all you want, and undoubtedly, you will. But as Reagan meant to say, "Facts are persistent things." The facts about Iraq are slowly emerging — and the American people aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are.

[segovius]

Originally posted by mmcgann11
Actually, his district is in Chester and Delaware Counties and I live in Chester County. And we did a decent job, running ahead of most of the rest of ticket in the single-most Republican district in the state.

And when you do speak to Steve, speak slowly. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.



And you saying it was okay, doesn't make it so, either. And the fact that the administration's rationale for the war has changed three times doesn't really help your argument.

And yet, you fail to provide anything resembling a reason, other than some vague argument about how bad dictators are. Boo hoo. You trash the concept of International law, but in the same breath suggest that we invaded Iraq because Saddam was bad — and there's a disconnect of logic if ever there was one. If International law doesn't apply, then who are we to make "value" judgments for other countries?

Bottom line, you can't win this argument on the merits, so you resort to misdirection and dishonesty. But as Reagan once said accidently, "Facts are stupid things."

And these stupid facts remain:

Bush was dishonest about why we went to war.
Bush neglected the war on terror and Al Queda is stronger today than it was five years ago.
Bush had no exit plan for Iraq.
Bush neglected the "Powell Doctrine" and failed to deploy enough troops to Iraq.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 1,600 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis — for fighting a war with no clear purpose.

You can deny the facts all you want, and undoubtedly, you will. But as Reagan meant to say, "Facts are persistent things." The facts about Iraq are slowly emerging — and the American people aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are.

Bravo - brilliantly said.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You ran against Steven Barrar, I assume? He's in Delaware County, but he supported such a bill. Good job in that race, by the way! lol: I'll tell him "hello" for you the next time I see him.

Oh, and you saying we went into Iraq for no good reason doesn't make it so.

Nope, the facts do!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The inspectors didn't say Saddam had no WMD. They said they couldn't find them. They also said Saddam was not cooperating, which he was required to do.

You're among a group of people that doesn't understand why the UN has weapons inspectors. It's not to have a scavenger hunt of sorts for weapons. The Iraqis were supposed to actively cooperate with the inspectors so the inspectors could dismantle the program and destroy the weapons.

SDW, they concluded they weren't present! If I recall correctly the head inspector said that it was his opinion that they weren't there.

Spin, spin, spin!

Geez!


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/


I find this part interesting :

" Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."

Pretty damning.


Above and beyond this any thinking person would ask : " If he doesn't have a modern delivery system ( ICBMs ) how does this constitute a threat to us as the president was letting us believe? "


Any way you look at this SDW it's just crap! The country and the world deserves better. The only question I have is how could the american public let this inept moron into the office of the president?

Even if you give dubbya the benifit of a doubt and try to blame the intelligence community why wasn't he asking the same questions that any thinking person would do about what was clearly incomplete evidence?

Crap!

[segovius]

Re the French pettiness which is apparently still alive and well (this is OT btw - more evidence of US Francophobia a la the 'Fries' embarrassment), it seems that o Friday some French fighters were in danger of running out of fuel near US bases and the US military refused them permission for an emergency landing !!!!!

Not only pathetic and lame but extremely dangerous I would have thought.

When nine French fighter jets and a weather plane from a French carrier taking part in a joint exercise with Canadian Naval forces in the Atlantic off New Jersey ran perilously low on fuel last Friday because of a freak storm that prevented them from returning to their ship, they figured, no problem. They weren't too far from the U.S. mainland, and so they could just land at McGuire AF Base in southern New Jersey.

No dice, the Francophobe U.S. military told them. According to a State Department source, quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer, they were denied landing rights at the facility.

Faced with the choice of ditching their planes or finding an alternative landing site, the French pilots, with the help of frantic State Department and Federal Aviation Administration officers, managed to arrange landing permission at the commercial airfield in Atlantic City, though this necessitated delaying and rerouting several commercial flights because of the number of planes that were coming in at once.

No national American media mentioned this stunning--and potentially life-threatening--breach of basic air etiquette by the U.S. military. And not for lack of knowing about it: many news organizations covered the whole thing as a humor item, focusing on the French pilots spending a night in the debauchery of America's East Coast Vegas.

Even the Inquirer, which did report on the incident with at least a modicum of seriousness, failed to go to the Pentagon and ask the obvious question: Why were ten planes from a European ally denied emergency landing rights at a fully equipped and prepared U.S. Air Force base when they were in danger of crashing from lack of fuel? (I did make that call, and was referred to the media relations office at McGuire, where a spokeswoman denied that the French planes had been turned away-a direct contradiction of the story out of the State Department. She had no answer when asked whether the French pilots had requested permission to land at the airbase.)

It boggles the mind to think that this nail-biting incident could have been the result of Pentagon pique at France for having refused to go along with the Bush Iraq War plan, but one is hard-pressed to come up with an alternative explanation.

Even Soviet planes, at the height of the Cold War, weren't turned away in emergencies.

And this was an ally.

At least the people of Atlantic City were gracious hosts to the plucky French pilots, reportedly offering them meals and hotel rooms.

One wonders what the American reaction would be if a French military airport turned away American pilots in similar circumstances-or what the French reaction would have been if the planes hadn't made it safely to Atlantic City.

Linky (http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff06072005.html)

[mmcgann11]

Gosh, I must have missed the French dropping out of NATO — since as a NATO ally, we are required to render assistance in such cases.

But, hey, International law, doesn't apply. The rule of the law doesn't apply.

Not to our little gang of international criminal thugs running this country, darn it. And if you disagree, you hate America and hate our troops in Iraq.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by segovius
Re the French pettiness which is apparently still alive and well (this is OT btw - more evidence of US Francophobia a la the 'Fries' embarrassment), it seems that o Friday some French fighters were in danger of running out of fuel near US bases and the US military refused them permission for an emergency landing !!!!!

Not only pathetic and lame but extremely dangerous I would have thought.



Linky (http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff06072005.html)

Truly disgusting! But not atypical of this administration.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by mmcgann11
Gosh, I must have missed the French dropping out of NATO — since as a NATO ally, we are required to render assistance in such cases.

But, hey, International law, doesn't apply. The rule of the law doesn't apply.

Not to our little gang of international criminal thugs running this country, darn it. And if you disagree, you hate America and hate our troops in Iraq.


Good one!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by mmcgann11
Actually, his district is in Chester and Delaware Counties and I live in Chester County. And we did a decent job, running ahead of most of the rest of ticket in the single-most Republican district in the state.

And when you do speak to Steve, speak slowly. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.



And you saying it was okay, doesn't make it so, either. And the fact that the administration's rationale for the war has changed three times doesn't really help your argument.

And yet, you fail to provide anything resembling a reason, other than some vague argument about how bad dictators are. Boo hoo. You trash the concept of International law, but in the same breath suggest that we invaded Iraq because Saddam was bad — and there's a disconnect of logic if ever there was one. If International law doesn't apply, then who are we to make "value" judgments for other countries?

Bottom line, you can't win this argument on the merits, so you resort to misdirection and dishonesty. But as Reagan once said accidently, "Facts are stupid things."

And these stupid facts remain:

Bush was dishonest about why we went to war.
Bush neglected the war on terror and Al Queda is stronger today than it was five years ago.
Bush had no exit plan for Iraq.
Bush neglected the "Powell Doctrine" and failed to deploy enough troops to Iraq.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 1,600 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis — for fighting a war with no clear purpose.

You can deny the facts all you want, and undoubtedly, you will. But as Reagan meant to say, "Facts are persistent things." The facts about Iraq are slowly emerging — and the American people aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are.

Oh you have to stay and play with us! This is too good!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ahhh...and yet another one: Again, knowing the very historical context you challenge me to explain, when I call you on the tactic you accuse me of "dodging the question."

I know from discussing things with you previously that you're an intelligent and informed person. I don't buy for a second that you don't already know of the geopolitical realities the Reagan administration was facing and how those realities differ from today's times.

In other words, your request for me to explain is disingenuous.


SDW this is a dodge.;)

[BigMcLargehuge]

Originally posted by New
Japan was actually "sort of" democratic in period well before WWII. They withdrew from the League of Nations partially because of the Western powers' rejection of its bid for a racial equality. Ironic, eh?
Democracy crubled in Japan in a remarkably simmilar fashion to Germany, a mix between hard economic strain and ultranationalist forces bid for power.

Japan did infact fight on the Allied side in WWI, with the same imperialist ambtions as the others.

Just to mention hawaii or the phillipines is a mockery, but I do recognize your irony.

you are correct, the Diet was formed in 1890.