• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London

AdamT said:
then YOU are guilty of felony murder because YOU created the condition that led to the killing.
Click to expand...

So now Abraham Lincolm takes the honor of becoming the number one mass murderer in American history for unleashing black violence upon society, which has led to hundreds of thousands of murders since the end of the Civil War.
 
RiverDad said:
So now Abraham Lincolm takes the honor of becoming the number one mass murderer in American history for unleashing black violence upon society, which has led to hundreds of thousands of murders since the end of the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Sure is a neat trick you have of trying to change the subject when someone makes a good point. Just an observation.........
 
RiverDad said:
So now Abraham Lincolm takes the honor of becoming the number one mass murderer in American history for unleashing black violence upon society, which has led to hundreds of thousands of murders since the end of the Civil War.
Click to expand...

I think you could probably bestow that honor on the confederate states.
 
Catawba said:
Sure is a neat trick you have of trying to change the subject when someone makes a good point. Just an observation.........
Click to expand...

That's not a change of subject, it's an application of AdamT's principle. Lincoln freed the slaves and so he is responsible for all of the harm that results from his action. AdamT even dressed up his reasoning with examples. This is simply another example.
 
RiverDad said:
That's not a change of subject, it's an application of AdamT's principle. Lincoln freed the slaves and so he is responsible for all of the harm that results from his action. AdamT even dressed up his reasoning with examples. This is simply another example.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly willing to credit Lincoln with freeing an entire race from slavery. Are you also going to credit him with the murders that every white person has committed?
 
RiverDad said:
That's not a change of subject, it's an application of AdamT's principle. Lincoln freed the slaves and so he is responsible for all of the harm that results from his action. AdamT even dressed up his reasoning with examples. This is simply another example.
Click to expand...

LOL! Sure, the most powerful military on the planet attacking one of the weakest, to gain access for big oil that has been denied for the last 35 years under Iraq's Nationalized oil policy, is exactly the same as our civil war!
 
AdamT said:
I'm perfectly willing to credit Lincoln with freeing an entire race from slavery. Are you also going to credit him with the murders that every white person has committed?
Click to expand...

Why would I? Applying your razor-honed reasoning, Lincoln didn't do anything that gave whites the freedom to murder people. Lincoln freed blacks from slavery, where they were controlled and had no freedom.

-Bush freed Iraqis and gave them the opportunity to murder one another, therefore it is Bush who is responsible for all of those murders.
-Lincoln freed blacks and gave them the opportunity to murder people, therefore it is Lincoln who is responsible for all of those murders.

You're the one who is pushing screwed up logic because you have an irrational and emotional need to blame Bush. Logic is not situation specific. The principles are generalizable.
 
RiverDad said:
Why would I? Applying your razor-honed reasoning, Lincoln didn't do anything that gave whites the freedom to murder people. Lincoln freed blacks from slavery, where they were controlled and had no freedom.

-Bush freed Iraqis and gave them the opportunity to murder one another, therefore it is Bush who is responsible for all of those murders.
-Lincoln freed blacks and gave them the opportunity to murder people, therefore it is Lincoln who is responsible for all of those murders.

You're the one who is pushing screwed up logic because you have an irrational and emotional need to blame Bush. Logic is not situation specific. The principles are generalizable.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to blame Bush for murders committed in Iraq 150 years from now, which would be the analogy flying off your rapier-like mind. :2rofll:

I'm blaming Bush for the perfectly foreseeable results of his invasion.
 
Catawba said:
LOL! Sure, the most powerful military on the planet attacking one of the weakest, to gain access for big oil that has been denied for the last 35 years under Iraq's Nationalized oil policy, is exactly the same as our civil war!
Click to expand...

Bull! if that war was for Iraqi oil, where the hell is it?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Bull! if that war was for Iraqi oil, where the hell is it?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Kindly re-read the post to see what it actually says, and try again!
 
j-mac said:
Bull! if that war was for Iraqi oil, where the hell is it?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I think it's more about a strategic presence in the Middle East. Just setting up shop in the general vicinity....
 
Councilman said:
With a few exceptions during WW-II ours has been a Nation that goes out of it's way to to fair and civil and to try to limit civilian loses.

Islam goes out of it's way to maim and kill innocent people from any walk of life.

After 9-11 we could have done as we did in Japan but burning Tokyo almost to the ground and obliterating two other Cities with A-bombs but we didn't and it has cost us dearly.

I don't believe at playing War as we have so far, and did in Vietnam.

You have to go to War to win and no half way half-assed measures or it ends up being drawn out into and endless quagmire and we finally give up and go home and thousands died for nothing and nothing changes other than the bad guys have time to regroup and come back another day even stronger.

Now we know the Taliban has told it's murderers to back off until Obama completes his retreat.

Once our troops are down in numbers where the Taliban no longer fear them They will kill off the Government in power and go right back to where they were before 9-11.

Obama is the stupidest idiot to ever come along. You never ever tell the enemy you plans. What does he have for brains?

Nothing I suspect.

One last thing for Aunt Spicker. It took far less than 100 to bring about the reality of 9-11.
Click to expand...

So your telling me a religion, something that is intangible, "goes out of it's way to maim and kill innocent people?"
 
Catawba said:
Kindly re-read the post to see what it actually says, and try again!
Click to expand...

So when you say:

the most powerful military on the planet attacking one of the weakest, to gain access for big oil....
Click to expand...

That means you don't think that the Iraqi war was for oil?

j-mac
 
David D. said:
I think it's more about a strategic presence in the Middle East. Just setting up shop in the general vicinity....
Click to expand...

I think it was about in light of 9/11 changing things, and how we approached the ME and their radicals, not letting Saddam go any further with his tactics, and suppression of his own people. Not to mention his proposed at the time ability to regenerate his WMD programs, and then aid terror orgs. with that type of weaponry.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Bull! if that war was for Iraqi oil, where the hell is it?

j-mac
Click to expand...
BBC NEWS | Middle East | BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.


Not to mention how many oil wells they've created in one of the largest oil fields in Iraq (Majnoon).
 
j-mac said:
So when you say:



That means you don't think that the Iraqi war was for oil?

j-mac
Click to expand...


Apparently, you are unaware that we get our oil from the world oil market, and you are unaware that Saddam kicked big oil out of Iraq over 35 years ago when Iraq nationalized its oil. By our war, and setting up a new government with US military protection, big oil was able to return to Iraq for the first time since then.
 
j-mac said:
I think it was about in light of 9/11 changing things, and how we approached the ME and their radicals, not letting Saddam go any further with his tactics, and suppression of his own people. Not to mention his proposed at the time ability to regenerate his WMD programs, and then aid terror orgs. with that type of weaponry.

j-mac
Click to expand...

But where did the US gov't make the link between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists?

How did we go from Al-Qaeda attacking US to US invades Iraq?

Perhaps war could have been much cheaper, smaller, and quicker if we attacked Afghanistan full force from the get go, no Iraq.

Why blow the war up into magnificent proportions at the expense of US lives and tax dollars?
 
AdamT said:
I'm perfectly willing to credit Lincoln with freeing an entire race from slavery. Are you also going to credit him with the murders that every white person has committed?
Click to expand...
Yes, and he was Republican while YOUR party of KKKer's were hanging blacks.
 
Councilman said:
Once our troops are down in numbers where the Taliban no longer fear them They will kill off the Government in power and go right back to where they were before 9-11.
Click to expand...

So? It's not our business. If the Afghan people want to remove the Taliban, they will do what they can to remove the Taliban. Dropping carpet combs and turning the country into a major warzone isn't making life better for the Afghans. Soldiers stationed in Afghanistan have been committing atrocities just as the Taliban were doing before we showed up. Torture, rapes and murders have all been documented. We're not exactly winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan.

Either way, what's our alternative? Stay in Afghanistan indefinitely? We should focus on defense here at home rather than chasing small groups of terrorists all around the world invading countries along the way.
 
American said:
Yes, and he was Republican while YOUR party of KKKer's were hanging blacks.
Click to expand...

The Republican party was also popular in the north, and the Democratic party was popular in the south. up until the Civil Rights act anyway...

Southerners and northerners didn't switch positions geographically.
 
Last edited:
better a flag than burning people like in Pakistan
 
Enola said:
Maybe I'm just grumpy, but I guess I am no better, either, cuz I agree with councilman.
When Japan had that earthquake...we were there, helping. Didn't matter that they killed so many at Pearl Harbor. The USA doesn't hold grudges.
Some do. And obviously most radical muslims are in that category. And anyone that IS muslim has the stink of radicals hanging on their burqa's just like christians have the stink of Falwell's/Baker's/InsertPreacherNameHere on their prayer books.
Click to expand...

You do realize that they don't hate us for the one time (over the course of 10 years ha-ha) that we bombed a few people in Iraq right? They hate us for the same reasons people in Latin America, Africa and Asia would hate a state that gives military, financial and political support to dictatorships in their region. The US doesn't hold grudges cause we have nobody to hold a grudge against. Japan? Well, I don't hold a grudge against them but most old timers in my area who fought in the war call them derogative names. Britain was 200+ years ago. The Mexicans got their assess kicked and so did Spain. Who would we have to hold a grudge against? Wait, do you even realize that Muslims aren't holding a grudge? A grudge would mean they're mad over something that happened a while back. We're still in their countries supporting dictatorships at our discretion.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
But where did the US gov't make the link between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists?
Click to expand...

That is a conflation that liberals promoted to bash Bush with at the time. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the events of 9/11, however he was involved in supporting terrorist in that region, and that coupled with his constant refusal to comply with UN edicts, finally led to his bluff being called, and the people are better off for it.

How did we go from Al-Qaeda attacking US to US invades Iraq?
Click to expand...

An honest reading of history would probably serve you well friend.

Perhaps war could have been much cheaper, smaller, and quicker if we attacked Afghanistan full force from the get go, no Iraq.
Click to expand...

And maybe if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hoped. Hindsight armchair quaterbacking is one of the things that increased the divide we see today in politics. Are you seriously trying to come in here with a "conservative" lean, and spout dem talking points from 2003?

Why blow the war up into magnificent proportions at the expense of US lives and tax dollars?
Click to expand...

What a dichotomy you offer here, on the one hand you say that a larger response to Afghanistan would have been better, and on the other you question why we have to have large endeavors....Which is it?

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
I'm not trying to blame Bush for murders committed in Iraq 150 years from now, which would be the analogy flying off your rapier-like mind. :2rofll:

I'm blaming Bush for the perfectly foreseeable results of his invasion.
Click to expand...
A constitutional republic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom