Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Compilation of prewar false statements
Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,067 Views)
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Minuet
Jan 24 2008, 10:53 AM
:clap: :clap: :clap:

I remember when he was your groupie. "The student has become the master." ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:05 PM
Minuet
Jan 24 2008, 10:53 AM
:clap:  :clap:  :clap:


I've quoted the relevant part of your post. Thanks for the contribution. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:58 AM
Wow, you're skilled at mincing words. Great achievement. :clap: :rolleyes:

And, since I know you're not stupid, then you know what I meant and (once again) didn't bother to actually address the point.

Do I take that as a concession or would you like to try again? Here, I'll even clarify what you already know so you don't have any excuses: They saw specific reports first-hand and had conversations first-hand that others only got reports about.

I'm assuming you're NOT stupid and have a reasonable ability to say what you mean the first time. My apologies if that assumption is incorrect. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:00 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
Was it the right decision?  I don't think so.
This is fine on it's own, but what you're saying is that "we had no part in it." Did you read the quotes from democrats pushing Bush to take action?

I find it curious that people on your side of the political aisle want us to recognize our collective guilt in slavery, the assassination of King Jr., etc, but deny any part of going to war.

The vote to take action is on record. It was pretty overwhelming.

That discussion was about FDR, not Bush...

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
A President should not simply override the will of the people. That's what a democracy is all about.  If he had a valid case for going to war, then he should have taken that case to the American people and persuaded them that it was the right way to go.
This is revisionist history. He had tremendous support to take action.
Again, we were talking about FDR.

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
Many people share this view. Most of them because Bush will get credit. It's a symptom of BDR.
When all else fails, if you don't have an academic argument, apply labels and hope they stick. That's just sad!

(Edited to fix an error in the quote appearance.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:02 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:20 AM
I can't point any fingers without know exactly who was on those committees and exactly how much information they had access to.

You admit you don't have all the information but you're going to point your finger at Bush anyway???

I have the information about Bush, just not about all the people you quoted. Geez, some of this should be obvious RTW. Haven't you been paying attention?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Minuet
Jan 24 2008, 01:07 PM
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:05 PM
Minuet
Jan 24 2008, 10:53 AM
:clap:  :clap:  :clap:


I've quoted the relevant part of your post. Thanks for the contribution. ;)

:rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:07 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:58 AM
Wow, you're skilled at mincing words.  Great achievement. :clap: :rolleyes:

And, since I know you're not stupid, then you know what I meant and (once again) didn't bother to actually address the point.

Do I take that as a concession or would you like to try again?  Here, I'll even clarify what you already know so you don't have any excuses:  They saw specific reports first-hand and had conversations first-hand that others only got reports about.

I'm assuming you're NOT stupid and have a reasonable ability to say what you mean the first time. My apologies if that assumption is incorrect. ;)

Just as I thought...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:08 AM
Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
Many people share this view. Most of them because Bush will get credit. It's a symptom of BDR.
When all else fails, if you don't have an academic argument, apply labels and hope they stick. That's just sad!

It's not a label. It's an affliction.

Your denial of BDR is as devoid of substance as your denail of any congressional oversight/input. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:14 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:08 AM
Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
Many people share this view. Most of them because Bush will get credit. It's a symptom of BDR.
When all else fails, if you don't have an academic argument, apply labels and hope they stick. That's just sad!

It's not a label. It's an affliction.

Your denial of BDR is as devoid of substance as your denail of any congressional oversight/input. ;)

Still waiting for that first real academic answer... :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 12:51 PM
What convinced FDR?  And why do you now think he made a good choice?  Why does the public generally agree now?  Just because we won? I don't think so.  What good was winning if it wasn't something worth winning?  So what made it worth it?

What convinced FDR?

Familiarity with the UK
Power
Oil
Trade
A genuine feeling that it was the right thing to do
To save off aggression before it came to the US
With out being a mind reader and the ability to raise the dead I couldn’t know for sure what convinced FDR.


Why does the public generally agree now. Because we won and it’s far in the past. Because the victors get to write the history books.

What did the US win in WWII our friend’s safety back? Is that worth wining? Did the US win dominance as a supper power through first dibs on natural resources? Is that worth winning? Did the US win our freedom, was that even at stake? Did the US win pride in knowing that they helped to stop a ruthless killer?


Quote:
 
I can give answers offhand, but probably not ones that would have changed public opinion back then.  But, if I was to invest considerable time into formulating a persuasive argument, then perhaps I could.  If not me, someone more talented in persuasive arguments (like the people employed by Presidents, for example) surely could.


Surely Presidents are talented in creating persuasive arguments. But sometimes we call them dishonesty when they become to persuasive.


Quote:
 
They will say, after all his bad choices, he got lucky. :D
How many times did the allied forced get lucky? and we call them heroes. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 11:20 AM
Quote:
 
They will say, after all his bad choices, he got lucky. :D
How many times did the allied forced get lucky? and we call them heroes. ;)

So true.

Pearl Harbor, Midway, D-Day, etc, etc, etc.

Had anyone taken the initiative to wake Hitler, or if Rommel was in charge, or took initiative, D-Day may have been a deadly failure.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 01:20 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 12:51 PM
What convinced FDR?  And why do you now think he made a good choice?  Why does the public generally agree now?  Just because we won? I don't think so.  What good was winning if it wasn't something worth winning?  So what made it worth it?

What convinced FDR?

Familiarity with the UK
Power
Oil
Trade
A genuine feeling that it was the right thing to do
To save off aggression before it came to the US
With out being a mind reader and the ability to raise the dead I couldn’t know for sure what convinced FDR.


Why does the public generally agree now. Because we won and it’s far in the past. Because the victors get to write the history books.

What did the US win in WWII our friend’s safety back? Is that worth wining? Did the US win dominance as a supper power through first dibs on natural resources? Is that worth winning? Did the US win our freedom, was that even at stake? Did the US win pride in knowing that they helped to stop a ruthless killer?

Those are all things that could have been used in the persuasive argument to the general public.

I disagree that the only reason people agree now is because we won. That would mean that the only reason people didn't want to go to war back then was fear of losing. You were more correct earlier when you said something about it not being our war. FDR needed to convince the public that it was our war because our interests were also at stake.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I can give answers offhand, but probably not ones that would have changed public opinion back then.  But, if I was to invest considerable time into formulating a persuasive argument, then perhaps I could.  If not me, someone more talented in persuasive arguments (like the people employed by Presidents, for example) surely could.


Surely Presidents are talented in creating persuasive arguments. But sometimes we call them dishonesty when they become to persuasive.
Persuasive arguments are persuasive arguments. Dishonest arguments are dishonest arguments. And persuasive dishonest arguments are persuasive dishonest arguments just as persuasive honest arguments are persuasive honest arguments. Please don't mix the categories as though they are the same.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
They will say, after all his bad choices, he got lucky. :D
How many times did the allied forced get lucky? and we call them heroes. ;)
Maybe it was all skill and no luck. I don't really know. But even with luck that's apples and oranges anyway. Even if they say Bush got lucky because Iraq stabilized, that doesn't mean they won't also say that he handled the whole matter quite poorly and even dishonestly before he got lucky.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 01:31 PM
Those are all things that could have been used in the persuasive argument to the general public.





It could have been - but it wouldn't have worked.


Quote:
 
I disagree that the only reason people agree now is because we won.  That would mean that the only reason people didn't want to go to war back then was fear of losing.  You were more correct earlier when you said something about it not being our war.  FDR needed to convince the public that it was our war because our interests were also at stake.


The people alive today aren’t the people who where convinced back then. The people to day aren’t critical of the war because it was a war that was won.

The people back then did want to go to war because they felt it was not their war. In order to "convince" them FDR brought the war to them making it their war.

Quote:
 
Persuasive arguments are persuasive arguments.  Dishonest arguments are dishonest arguments.  And persuasive dishonest arguments are persuasive dishonest arguments just as persuasive honest arguments are persuasive honest arguments.  Please don't mix the categories as though they are the same.


You asked why a president couldnt be more persuasive, you did not ask for them to do it honestly.

Had they done it honestly, in the case of FDR, he would have been much less persuasive.

Quote:
 
Maybe it was all skill and no luck.  I don't really know.  But even with luck that's apples and oranges anyway.  Even if they say Bush got lucky because Iraq stabilized, that doesn't mean they won't also say that he handled the whole matter quite poorly and even dishonestly before he got lucky.



The alied forces saw quite a bit of luck during the war, something where handled poorly, many things where handled dishonestly and today they are heroes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 24 2008, 11:45 AM
The alied forces saw quite a bit of luck during the war, something where handled poorly, many things where handled dishonestly and today they are heroes.

True again. It's not wars, soldiers, tactics, methods that are different/more evil. It's the second guessing at home that is different and devisive. One example is people celebrating Jesse MacBeth without checking out his story.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 01:17 PM
RTW
Jan 24 2008, 01:14 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 11:08 AM
Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
Many people share this view. Most of them because Bush will get credit. It's a symptom of BDR.
When all else fails, if you don't have an academic argument, apply labels and hope they stick. That's just sad!

It's not a label. It's an affliction.

Your denial of BDR is as devoid of substance as your denail of any congressional oversight/input. ;)

Still waiting for that first real academic answer... :whistle:

He's been a member for close to two years and hasn't provided one yet.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus