truth on hold Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Hey Magox, did you support the Iraq invasion because the morality was clear that Saddam was murdering people and needed to be stopped?Hold on there, I thought the justification was to rid him of weapons he didn't have. How many of his people was killing? Enough to justify the half a million our invasion killed? Otherwise killing people is a pretty weird way of saving them. Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Hold on there, I thought the justification was to rid him of weapons he didn't have. How many of his people was killing? Enough to justify the half a million our invasion killed? Otherwise killing people is a pretty weird way of saving them. Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq Oh Jesus H Christ. Shut the !@#$ up! That's not the point he was trying to make!
GG Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 That would be kind of like if my wife left me and moved in with someone else so I march over there with a gun and have a shootout when they refuse to hand her over. Then I say she forced my hand because I needed to preserve our union. More like when her new boyfriend locked himself up in one of your houses and started shooting when you showed up with a gun to evict him.
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 More like when her new boyfriend locked himself up in one of your houses and started shooting when you showed up with a gun to evict him. In one of MY houses? Not quite. In this scenario he was in his own house and I came marching up his front walk, kicked down the door, and started shooting.
GG Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 In one of MY houses? Not quite. In this scenario he was in his own house and I came marching up his front walk, kicked down the door, and started shooting. Who fired the first shots, again?
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Who fired the first shots, again? Fair enough. When I kicked down his door with a gun in my hand he started shooting.
GG Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Fair enough. When I kicked down his door with a gun in my hand he started shooting. Whose house again?
birdog1960 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I think you see the problem with that logic, but I've not commented on the battle flag specifically so I'm not sure what you're getting at. But the distinction matters a lot. Do symbols of the American revolution represent the issues that precipitated the revolutionary war or do they represent sovereignty and independence? . if the revolutionary war was primarily about slavery, then yes, the symbols from the side supporting that afront to human dignity would necessarily need to be considered racist.
K-9 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Nice to see our resident neo-Confederates continue to spin history by channelling their inner Lerone Bennetts and Thomas DiLorenzos. Like them, I find your tilted arguments intellectually lazy, if not outright dishonest. But hey, there has never been a shortage of audiences all too willing to glom onto completely ommitted or twisted facts in order to achieve a history to feel better about.
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Fort Sumter anyone? They took their ball and went home, huffing an puffing all the way.
K-9 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Didn't the South basically force his hand? History is pretty certain on this one, the states who elected to secede did so to preserve their right to have slaves. More importantly, they wanted to establish slave states in newly acquired federal territories. It really wasn't an issue in the established slave states it was about slavery moving forward. Lincoln would have been content not to challenge slavery in any of the seceding states before the onset. But, as you say, Fort Sumter and the four previously non-seceding states that refused to come to the aid of a federally held military installation, forced his hand.
boyst Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Let's dissect your ignorance. So what are you saying here? It's pretty obvious, what you are saying is that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves considering that the Emancipation only freed slaves from the South. Meaning, from your view, it was never about slavery but about exerting tyrannical control over the south. Of course, your ignorance didn't take into account that shortly after the executive order, the process of the 13th amendment began. Which pretty much blows up whatever you were trying to say. We all know the pretexts of the war, we know that States Rights was the reasoning provided from the Confederates to secede from the Union. We also know that Lincoln didn't solely go to war because he wanted to end Slavery. He wanted to preserve the Union, I stated that a couple times, but you are too much of a numbskull to see that. But make no mistake, the impetus for the war was about Slavery. If the South hadn't been so intent on keeping the status quo regarding slavery and got on board with the Republicans, then the war would have never have happened. But if you want to keep pretending that Slavery wasn't the driving force that started the Civil war, hey, that's your fantasy land and you are free to reside there. You are quoting someone else who stated an opinion - not fact - on Lincoln against someone who quoted Lincoln himself directly on the matter of slavery and blacks at least half a dozen times. I am a moron and I could do better then you, but arguing with you is like arguing, as others half said, with a 4th grade world history teacher on the matter - and a woman, at that - because you inject your feelings and emotions when they don't mean jack.
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 if the revolutionary war was primarily about slavery, then yes, the symbols from the side supporting that afront to human dignity would necessarily need to be considered racist. Way to miss the point.
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 You are quoting someone else who stated an opinion - not fact - on Lincoln against someone who quoted Lincoln himself directly on the matter of slavery and blacks at least half a dozen times. I am a moron and I could do better then you, but arguing with you is like arguing, as others half said, with a 4th grade world history teacher on the matter - and a woman, at that - because you inject your feelings and emotions when they don't mean jack. Yes, I agree. You are a moron.
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Nice to see our resident neo-Confederates continue to spin history by channelling their inner Lerone Bennetts and Thomas DiLorenzos. Like them, I find your tilted arguments intellectually lazy, if not outright dishonest. But hey, there has never been a shortage of audiences all too willing to glom onto completely ommitted or twisted facts in order to achieve a history to feel better about. Project much?
....lybob Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 So many "lost cause" boys on this thread - really shows the power of propaganda
boyst Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Yes, I agree. You are a moron. See, but i can take it. If someone called you out on anything else, which is hilarious - you selectively choose your responses or ignore their premise. It's ironic. Of all the things i stated, just like you do for everything else - you cherry picked what you wanted and put it in to your response. It's what you've done all along. Its like rain on your wedding day. There is only one response I am aware of that I haven't answered yet and thats from the transexual thing - because I am still reading his links and others to see if I can learn more about it. That's how things work. I've read others replies to him and I know enough to know what i know but if he insists there is more information I respect him and others enough to read up on it. You just completely disregard numerous others who compose well put responses and **** all over yourself to say "I got a feeling." You remind me of Mr VanHouten. "Can I borrow a feeling?"
Recommended Posts