Author Topic: Bush = Active/Negative (Read 1758 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:02:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
They weren't fighting. Why should we?

Again, though, they DID fight. They stopped after losing 100,000 - 230,000 people though.

No credit for that still?

Sandman · « **Reply #46 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:05:22 PM »

Toad · « **Reply #47 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:09:01 PM »

Didn't bleed enough, huh?

So it's two years of all out fighting or no help? That's your yardstick?

Sandman · « **Reply #48 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:12:18 PM »

Nope. Active revolt.

You keep wanting to make this a body count issue. I don't see it that way.

Vudak · « **Reply #49 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:16:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm saying that if the Iraqi people could have sustained a 2-3 year insurgency (kinda like now) against Hussein, I'd have felt much better about sending our people to help.

Well, COULD we have sustained our four year "insurgency" against Britain if it were not for those French supplies that arrived in 1776?

Furthermore, WOULD we have kept on fighting if the British went Roman on us like Saddam did to his insurgents? Contrary to popular belief, "The Patriot" is full of it. The Brits weren't Nazis. Saddam and his henchmen were.

I think Toad is hitting the nail on the head with this one.

Sandman · « **Reply #50 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:24:39 PM »

Then I'm certain you'll be supportive of the next liberation effort the U.S. undertakes.

Toad · « **Reply #51 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:32:53 PM »

Define "Active Revolt" then.

Is what is going on in Iraq now an "active revolt"? If so, what qualifies it as such? IED's? Suicide bombers blowing up Shia funeral processions?

Oh, and tell me why a month long active revolt that cost 100,000 - 230,000 lives doesn't qualify.

Or, just admit that Iraqi boys DID try to do what they should do for themselves. The fact that they failed doesn't change that.

Sandman · « **Reply #52 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:48:21 PM »

active revolt

A month long revolt nearly a decade in the past is hardly active no matter how many people died in it.

They didn't fail. They quit.

Toad · « **Reply #53 on:** April 27, 2006, 09:58:11 PM »

Ah, I see. Well it was quite active in March of 1991 when US troops were close enough to see the fighting.

By your standard, I don't think the French would have helped us. Not enough "active" in the revolt.

And, I suspect, if the British had reacted to Lexington and Concord the way Saddam did to the Shia and Kurds in March of 1991, American boys would have quit as well.

The Uprising of March 1991

Quote

Basra
The suppression of the rebellion was marked by:
mass executions of civilians.

Civilians were tied to tanks and used by government forces as human shields.

Civilians were reportedly drowned in the Shatt al-Arab waterway by tying them to rocks and pushing them in.

Wonder if the summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots would have met your criteria faced with that.

They fought. They died. They tried. I'll give them that.

BTW, do you consider what's going on now in Iraq an "active revolt"? By your online dictionary results, I'd have to think you do.

Sandman · « **Reply #54 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:00:42 PM »

Meanwhile, between 1991 and 2003 there was... nada.

Some revolt.

Toad · « **Reply #55 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:02:20 PM »

230,000 dead in trying to overthrow Saddam.

Some revolt!

Do you consider what's going on now in Iraq an "active revolt"?

Mr Big · « **Reply #56 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:12:27 PM »

Tiananmen Square was a silly protest gone wrong. Those people who died just quit when the going got rough. The last job they pulled was never big enough, but they know where the cops hang out.

Vudak · « **Reply #57 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:15:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Meanwhile, between 1991 and 2003 there was... nada.

Some revolt.

And you don't think the 100,000+ eradicated revolters had anything to do with this?

Sandman · « **Reply #58 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:17:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
230,000 dead in trying to overthrow Saddam.

Some revolt!

Do you consider what's going on now in Iraq an "active revolt"?

Not within the context of the rest of this discussion. We're past all that. Where's the Iraqi government? Who's in charge? All this talk in the past few weeks from Bush and Rice about "Unity Government" means just one thing. They don't have one. I suspect that Iraq will be in a state of civil war for the foreseeable future. When/if the U.S. pulls out, the peace loving Iraqi people can go about killing each other, something they should have been doing for themselves in the first place.

Toad · « **Reply #59 on:** April 27, 2006, 10:32:56 PM »

My, my, my.

September 3, 1783: the Treaty of Paris.

April 30, 1789: George Washington Inaugurated.

It never was going to run 23 minutes exclusive of commercial breaks.

Ok, so it's civil war there now. At least we didn't have to go through that, eh?