<p>If the sanctions in Iraq worked well enough to affect the Iraqis, can someone tell me why the sanctions on Iran aren’t working at all? </p>
<p>I really have my doubts as to whether sanctions against any country ever work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, then you agree Iraq, too, was a huge blunder. I do stand corrected: I meant to say one of the biggest blunders. Glad to see you agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’ll grant you that with some Dems listening to them defend their actions on the war does verge on sounding like a kid saying “But he told me to do it, mommy!” And mommy replies: “If he told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?” The thing is the George W Bush Administration did tell the nation to jump off this particular bridge. And your whole argument is dedicated to making sure that they share the blame for the fiasco. Aren’t we really at a point as a nation that we just want to get the fiasco resolved? </p>
<p>Here are some great questions asked today by Ron Paul:</p>
<p>Say what you will, Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) is a clear speaker. He just asked a boatload of powerfully put questions. Among them:</p>
<p>–“What is moral about demanding more needless sacrifice”?</p>
<p>–“The Iraqi government . . . is an ally of the Iranians.” So why do we support it?</p>
<p>–If Iraq, our ally, has diplomatic relations with Iran, why don’t we?</p>
<p>–What would we think if Iran occupied Mexico? (I think that was his question.)</p>
<p>–“Since no one can define winning this war, just who can we expect to surrender?”</p>
<p>It’s about time, or rather quite a bit late. If we had claimed war reparations or billed them for the cost of security, we would have found a united Iraq and would have been asked to leave long ago.</p>
<p>
Source other than Lancet please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see that you never bothered to pay attention in school. Basic if/then statements confuse you. Lucky for you I’m here to explain everything, very basic, so you can understand. Please follow along:</p>
<p>Just because I use an if/then statement does not mean I agree with the premise. Thankfully I didn’t have high expectations for you though, especially after you claimed the dems in congress voted for the war but then, when the truth was “revealed” to them, realized they had been led down a path that surely they never knew existed. You’re right, the whole democratic party got tricked in 03! I’m sure none of them knew about those CIA reports that were passed around Washington like candy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you are saying this statement is entirely hypothetical – i.e. that you don’t think Vietnam was a blunder at all, but that if I do I must think it was a bigger blunder than Iraq? I was well aware you were making a conditional point. What you were doing was borrowing my own logic to argue against me. You are thereby saying effectively that my logic is wrong, but it’s good enough to use against me. Far from not seeing what you were doing, I didn’t buy into it. You can’t have it both ways. What do you really believe? Either the Vietnam War and Iraq were blunders of massive proportions (whatever ranking you put them in) or you disagree with the entire premise of my criticisms. But don’t agree with the premise of my discussion just long enough to say that I am wrong. That’s cowardly and it’s also stupid. I actually expected better of you than that, but now I see you’re about winning picayune points rather than arguing bravely the rightness or wrongness of your basic position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not on the face of things, but it does indicate that you took no real position except one meant to indicate I had the ordering of my blunders wrong. It doesn’t at all undo the basic point: the Iraq War was a massive blunder, even if I did get the ranking wrong. If you want to dance around a stupid logical point, be my guest.</p>
<p>I’ve whipped your a** logically in this forum before (I know you’ll whine and say I didn’t) and I know you’re probably still stinging from that and ready to strike at me on “technical grounds”, but still I expected more from you.</p>
<p>Tell me what you really think. Because if you’re going to stick to criticizing on the grounds you just laid out, I’ll assume that’s all you got. And that’s about as empty as this Administration. Which today for instance admitted to telling fibs about Iraq at the highest levels. And you apparently have all along been credulous enough to believe them:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“EXCLUSIVE: Bush Says Petraeus' Timeline for Troop Drawdown Not Open-Ended - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4633561&page=1</a></p>
<p>Wow, that’s a pretty low standard he’s setting for himself there: ‘It was okay to lie because I didn’t want them to think as I did at the time that it might all turn out to be a worthless sacrifice.’ That’s about as empty as the logical trap you set thinking I didn’t see it. What you did just showed me you have no real argument.</p>