Bush military records 'destroyed'

YEAH, Grammatron, the small problem that Clinton was never IN the military. But guess who was, and who is a deserter?

And Cain, there's a difference between optimism and what you do, which is stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes tight and go 'loo loo loo loo loo loo' to keep out all the pesky reality.
 
When I wrote deserter I mean draft dodger. Which if you think about it not really that different.

As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that.
 
Grammatron said:
When I wrote deserter I mean draft dodger. Which if you think about it not really that different.

As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that.
Click to expand...
You're only a deserter if you're charged with it? Following the same logic, does that mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass murderer, untill this year?
 
Kerberos said:

You're only a deserter if you're charged with it? Following the same logic, does that mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass murderer, untill this year?
Click to expand...

Nice logic leap, but not quite.

If no one in the armed forces has called him a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?
 
Grammatron said:
When I wrote deserter I mean draft dodger. Which if you think about it not really that different.

As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that.
Click to expand...
You're only a deserter if you're charged with it? Following the same logic, does that mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass murderer, untill this year?
 
from Grammatron:
If no one in the armed forces has called him a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?
Click to expand...
His actions determine whether he was a deserter. The fact that no-one in the military has accused their commander-in-chief of desertion doesn't tell us much. Just what his actions were is going to be difficult to determine, what with the records getting trashed and all.

What is clear is that Clinton opposed the war, and didn't go, while Bush (and Cheney) didn't oppose the war ... and didn't go. Make of that what you will.
 
Cleon said:

The US has shut down a few newspapers since invading Iraq. That's not "free."
Click to expand...

Yes, for inciting violence, not for printing opposing points of view. What's your point?


Actually, under Saddam, Iraqis had free health care.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. I'm not sure where you got your information, but I'm getting mine from Iraqi doctors. The health care system under Saddam basically collapsed (beginning actually BEFORE the first gulf war) because Saddam didn't spend money on it. That has finally changed.


Do you actually know of anyone that called Saddam's regime a democracy? I sure as hell don't, and I even know a few Baathists.
Click to expand...

Read demon's post again, the one I responded to. Note his use of the phrase "Saddam's democracy". I don't care what demon *actually* thinks regarding democracy, but I am going to reuse the term he used when describing Saddam's Iraq. If it's somehow too complicated to understand why I might reuse demon's term when responding to him, well, perhaps you need to start using a blunt keyboard so you don't hurt yourself.
 
From Mytharat (weapons inspectors kicked out etc...he should work for Fox News or Anne hasn`t got a Clwyd "Human mincing machines" he LOVES when we kill people, just not when arabs retaliate. Silly, silly racist!")

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, under Saddam, Iraqis had free health care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mytharat:quote:
No they didn't. I'm not sure where you got your information, but I'm getting mine from Iraqi doctors. The health care system under Saddam basically collapsed (beginning actually BEFORE the first gulf war) because Saddam didn't spend money on it. That has finally changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mytharat:
Read demon's post again, the one I responded to. Note his use of the phrase "Saddam's democracy". I don't care what demon *actually* thinks regarding democracy, but I am going to reuse the term he used when describing Saddam's Iraq. If it's somehow too complicated to understand why I might reuse demon's term when responding to him, well, perhaps you need to start using a blunt keyboard so you don't hurt yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I`ll call you on this...how many Iraqi`s do you know? I know many...here me? MANY! shock horror too, I know Palestinians too...I actually talk to them, you warmongering jerk. Engage the people you are talking about before you speak about them you despicable armchair bomber. I dare you to come back here after talking to an Iraqi...hearing one of the Chalbi "yes men" doesn`t count, get that? Idiot.

t
 
Grammatron said:
You might have a point there, but at that time a president was in office who was a deserter and people had no problem with that, so why go through so much?
Click to expand...
"Clinton did too" is soo old now .... :p
 
demon said:

I`ll call you on this...how many Iraqi`s do you know? I know many...here me? MANY!
Click to expand...

That's nice for you. Can I meet them?

Tell you what, I'll give you a source that you can check out yourself, so you don't even have to trust me.
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
Look up the July 4th post. Example quotes:
"During the ex-regime, the hospitals in Iraq, according to a decision from the ‘wise’ government were self-funded, i.e the poor Iraqi who’s downtrodden and plunged into poverty had to pay very high expenses to get the medicine or to be treated in the hospitals..."

"After the liberation, the new Ministry of Health decided to cancel the self-funded system in the hospitals making all the treatments and medicine for free, thousands of families are now being treated at no cost, they are so glad to get the free treatment."

"I feel so pleased when sometimes I sit in the pharmacy room there in Basra with my colleague when someone comes and gets his medicine then says ‘how much?’.. And we reply ‘Ibbalash’! ( free)."

Now, do you have a source to back up your contention, or are you just talking out your backside again?


shock horror too, I know Palestinians too...I actually talk to them, you warmongering jerk.
Click to expand...

Shock and horror, I wasn't talking about Palestinians. Get bent.


Engage the people you are talking about before you speak about them you despicable armchair bomber. I dare you to come back here after talking to an Iraqi...hearing one of the Chalbi "yes men" doesn`t count, get that? Idiot.

t
Click to expand...

What, am I supposed to be scared by that? Am I supposed to feel cowed by some imagined moral superiority on your part? How about you wander through http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ or http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ and tell me why you so disdain the opinions of those Iraqis. I guess maybe they don't count as "real" Iraqis if they are glad to have freedom. But then, you never really cared about their freedom at all.

Edit to correct "aren't" to "are" :(
 
If you actually want to talk to an Iraqi...face to face...not through a link or by a cruise missile...ask them about sanctions. I dare you.

Why don`t you actually ask some real Iraqis for a change instead of mouthing off here? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Give you a hint...it`s people, human beings.
 
Originally posted by demon
If you actually want to talk to an Iraqi...face to face...not through a link or by a cruise missile...ask them about sanctions. I dare you.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think your point is, but the sanctions support invading Iraq. The sanctions were devastating indeed to innocent Iraqis, but they could not be safely lifted while Saddam stayed in power (one of the primary arguments against the war was that it wasn't needed because sanctions kept Saddam in check). The best way to get rid of sanctions is to get rid of Saddam. Which is what we did.


Why don`t you actually ask some real Iraqis for a change instead of mouthing off here? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Give you a hint...it`s people, human beings.
Click to expand...

I note that you have no support for your earlier factual contentions, and you have no response to the sources I posted. And yes, it is indeed about human beings. But you haven't ever actually advocated a course of action that would produce real, lasting benefit for the people you seem to want me to think you support.

So again, get bent.
 
"I note that you have no support for your earlier factual contentions, and you have no response to the sources I posted. And yes, it is indeed about human beings. But you haven't ever actually advocated a course of action that would produce real, lasting benefit for the people you seem to want me to think you support."
More than a decade of sanctions are the way to go eh?

To think there was no alternative to war is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the anti-war position.

Takes one hell of a warmonger to persist that we were right to go to war in the light of new revelations every day now...oh yes, human rights violations. Have you ANY idea about Iraqi history? Do you know ANYTHING about it?

I mean that seriously, have you enaged any? Would you like too? Ask a resident of Fallugha about "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...telling them it`s for their own good just won`t cut it.
 
demon said:

To think there was no alternative to war is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the anti-war position.
Click to expand...

It's not about whether or not there were alternatives, it's about whether or not the alternatives were better. And nothing you have ever presented indicates that there was a better alternative. Keeping the sanctions was an alternative (were you for that alternative, in light of how, as you yourself point out, it's toll was terrible for Iraqis?). Lifting sanctions (which might allow Saddam's weapons programs to restart) was also an alternative. Got any more alternatives?

Oh, and you STILL haven't been able to address any of my factual contentions regarding the state of Iraqi health care, or in fact anything else I said in my earlier post regarding the difference between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation. All you can do is resort to "no true Scotsman" logic. But I'm not going to play that game. So, once again, bite me.
 
demon said:

To think there was no alternative to war is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the anti-war position.
Click to expand...

It's not about whether or not there were alternatives, it's about whether or not the alternatives were better. And nothing you have ever presented indicates that there was a better alternative. Keeping the sanctions was an alternative (were you for that alternative, in light of how, as you yourself point out, it's toll was terrible for Iraqis?). Lifting sanctions (which might allow Saddam's weapons programs to restart) was also an alternative. Got any more alternatives?

Oh, and you STILL haven't been able to address any of my factual contentions regarding the state of Iraqi health care, or in fact anything else I said in my earlier post regarding the difference between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation. All you can do is resort to "no true Scotsman" logic. It's getting old.
 
Grammatron said:
Yes and that's not the point. You are welcome to re-read the posts and my response to them to get the point.
Click to expand...
You posted this:

You might have a point there, but at that time a president was in office who was a deserter and people had no problem with that, so why go through so much?
Click to expand...
I can see no earlier mentioning of Clinton in this thread, which was about Dubya's military records. What was your point?

On another note, you have posted these, in the order I quote them:

- at that time a president (Clinton) was in office who was a deserter

- As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that

- If no one in the armed forces has called him (Bush) a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?

Do we have different standards here - Clinton was a deserter, Bush was not, because he was never charged with that?
 
Clinton was a deserter???


The last I heard, he wasn't even IN the service..... like a couple of guys in the Bush admin.
 
Mytharat:
"It's not about whether or not there were alternatives, it's about whether or not the alternatives were better. And nothing you have ever presented indicates that there was a better alternative. Keeping the sanctions was an alternative (were you for that alternative, in light of how, as you yourself point out, it's toll was terrible for Iraqis?). Lifting sanctions (which might allow Saddam's weapons programs to restart) was also an alternative. Got any more alternatives?

Oh, and you STILL haven't been able to address any of my factual contentions regarding the state of Iraqi health care, or in fact anything else I said in my earlier post regarding the difference between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation. All you can do is resort to "no true Scotsman" logic. It's getting old."

You haven`t seen my posts then.
You are obviously ignorant about Iraq befor Fox News told you about it...was doing rather well until FoxNews recruited scum like you around a neocon agenda planned years ago...I think that`s the reason you get so uppity these days...you like the aggression, you just got left out with the say so angle LOL

Thats always been the problem with self important warmongers...they think the war is being fought for their own good...can you say "dickhead" on here without getting banned? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom