President Trump moment of glory.

[ecco]

Obama did not start the wars, he inherited them. You know that so your attempt at deflecting blame is really pathetic.

(my emphasis)

Oh, so blame only falls on the person who STARTS wars?

No blame deflection here, plenty to go around.

Sure, Bush dragged the West into two unnecessary and poorly planned wars, but Obama kept us in them, and ordered military strikes into a bunch of other sovereign nations besides.

People like you would have been screaming bloody hell if Obama immediately withdrew forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact people like me would have been screaming bloody hell if he did that. It would have been horrendously irresponsible.

But you know that, so your response is, once again, pathetic.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

(my emphasis)



People like you would have been screaming bloody hell if Obama immediately withdrew forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact people like me would have been screaming bloody hell if he did that. It would have been horrendously irresponsible.

staying was responsible?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

(my emphasis)



People like you would have been screaming bloody hell if Obama immediately withdrew forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact people like me would have been screaming bloody hell if he did that. It would have been horrendously irresponsible.

But you know that, so your response is, once again, pathetic.

My response isn't "pathetic", I'm just pointing out uncomfortable facts, and your cognitive dissonance is making you react badly. Your "emphasis" is great and all, but you're strawmanning and being selective. I didn't say anything about "immediate withdrawal", and you completely missed the bit about attacks on other sovereign countries.

I really hope this is a one off instance, you have a headache or stayed up late, or something, because, frankly, you're being as ad hoc and revisionist as the worst of the Trumpettes.

Bush may arguably have more blood on his hands, but Obama has literal metric tonnes on his also, and given the quantities of death pain and suffering we're talking about, the only one being "pathetic" is the person who's ideological sensitivities can't abide criticism of his erstwhile Dear Leader, just like the Trumpettes.

 

[ecco]

Democrate W.Clinton didn't have to invade , he just gave them money, in hopefully that in the appeasement would please them.

Democrate Obama didn't have to invade,
Obama just bowed down to them showing that he was to weak to stand up to them.
If that didn't work, Obama would just give them money in appeasement.

Gave money to whom for what?

Bill Clinton Once Struck a Nuclear Deal With North Korea - HISTORY
History Channel › news › north-korea-nu...
Apr 17, 2018 · President Bill Clinton looking across the Demilitarized Zone into North Korea with two US soldiers during his trip to ...

Bill Clinton says America should be rooting for Trump's success on North ...
PBS › newshour › show › bill-cl...
7 days ago · Americans should “be rooting” for President Donald Trump at next week's U.S.-North Korea summit on ...

I asked you to show who gave money to whom and for what. You responded by posting a link to an article. Do you really expect me to read an article when you don't even take the time or make the effort to indicate the gist of the article?

I stopped following blind links a long time ago. Just posting links is a favorite tactic of people who make assertions they cannot defend. It's your job to dig through the article and show those portions that you think support your argument.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I asked you to show who gave money to whom and for what. You responded by posting a link to an article. Do you really expect me to read an article when you don't even take the time or make the effort to indicate the gist of the article?

I stopped following blind links a long time ago. Just posting links is a favorite tactic of people who make assertions they cannot defend. It's your job to dig through the article and show those portions that you think support your argument.

Good luck.

 

[ecco]

There has been liberal democrats President that got the United States into more wars than Republicans.

liberal democrat President
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S.Truman, who took the United States
into world war 2.

And it was after the assassination of democrat President JFK 1963, that liberal democrat Lyndon B. Johnson who got the United States in the Vietnam War 1964.

So do not put it off like liberal democrats do not get the United States into wars.

There has been liberal democrat President's that has gotten the United States into more wars than Republicans.

Who was President at the time of
world war 2.
democrate President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S.Truman.

Who was President at the time of the
Vietnam War.
democrate Lyndon B.Johnson 1964.

And it was Republican President Richard Nixon who ended the Vietnam War in 1975.

Golly Gee! You forgot Republican Abraham Lincoln.

 

[ecco]

And it was Republican President Richard Nixon who ended the Vietnam War in 1975.

Uh huh.
The war was coming to an end because Leftist Liberals, mostly young people, had been protesting against it for years.

Then there is this from 2013...

Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest | Smart News | Smithsonian

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings, ...


President Johnson had at the time a habit of recording all of his phone conversations, and newly released tapes from 1968 detailed that the FBI had “bugged” the telephones of the South Vietnamese ambassador and of Anna Chennault, one of Nixon’s aides. Based on the tapes, says Taylor for the BBC, we learn that in the time leading up to the Paris Peace talks, “Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.” ​

 

[ecco]

staying was responsible?

Responsibly drawing it down was the responsible thing to do. Immediate withdrawal would have led to far more chaos.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Responsibly drawing.

what is that?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Responsibly drawing it down was the responsible thing to do. Immediate withdrawal would have led to far more chaos.

Debatable that anything could have led to more chaos. But no one suggested immediate withdrawal. But you know that, so your response is, once again, pathetic.

 

[metis]

You are manufacturing those equivalencies.

That's a lie.

This goes far beyond Trump to the core of each party.

It should.

So why does that view of heritage matter?

I already explained what effect that may have on his actions.

 

[ecco]

I didn't say anything about "immediate withdrawal",

Option 1 stay in
Option 2 withdraw responsibly over time
Option 3 withdraw immediately

You accused him of taking option 1, staying in. You know he took option 2.
Were you being intentionally deceitful?

and you completely missed the bit about attacks on other sovereign countries.

I can only sort through so much BS at a time.

I really hope this is a one off instance, you have a headache or stayed up late, or something, because, frankly, you're being as ad hoc and revisionist as the worst of the Trumpettes.

...the only one being "pathetic" is the person who's ideological sensitivities can't abide criticism of his erstwhile Dear Leader, just like the Trumpettes.

If you can't make an argument resort to hyperbole.

 

[ecco]

what is that?

Find someone else to play word games with.

 

[ecco]

Debatable that anything could have led to more chaos. But no one suggested immediate withdrawal. But you know that, so your response is, once again, pathetic.

See post #173 above.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Option 1 stay in
Option 2 withdraw responsibly over time
Option 3 withdraw immediately

You accused him of taking option 1, staying in. You know he took option 2.
Were you being intentionally deceitful?

I can only sort through so much BS at a time.

If you can't make an argument resort to hyperbole.

I'm sure your cognitive dissonance defences are telling you it's hyperbole. Whatever. If you can't handle a grown up conversation about Obama's failings as well as those of Republicans, I'll leave you to your hero worship.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Find someone else to play word games with.

It's not a game at all, but a very good and relevant question.

 

[ecco]

I'm sure your cognitive dissonance defences are telling you it's hyperbole. Whatever. If you can't handle a grown up conversation about Obama's failings as well as those of Republicans, I'll leave you to your hero worship.

You still don't want to (cannot bring yourself to) admit that Obama took an option that you intentionally ignored, even after I pointed it out to you.

So, first things first.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Golly Gee! You forgot Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln did not get the United States into any wars.

Your probably talking about the Civil War, which was between the States and not with another country.

Besides, Abraham Lincoln did not start the war, the South started the rebellion against the North, all because the south was not going to give their slaves without a fight first.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Option 1 stay in
Option 2 withdraw responsibly over time
Option 3 withdraw immediately

You accused him of taking option 1, staying in. You know he took option 2.
Were you being intentionally deceitful?

There is basically no difference there
..

 

[Faithofchristian]

Uh huh.
The war was coming to an end because Leftist Liberals, mostly young people, had been protesting against it for years.

Then there is this from 2013...

Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest | Smart News | Smithsonian

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings, ...


President Johnson had at the time a habit of recording all of his phone conversations, and newly released tapes from 1968 detailed that the FBI had “bugged” the telephones of the South Vietnamese ambassador and of Anna Chennault, one of Nixon’s aides. Based on the tapes, says Taylor for the BBC, we learn that in the time leading up to the Paris Peace talks, “Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.” ​

There's nothing that you can tell me about the Vietnam War, I was there.
Or world war 2 or the North Korean war.