Clinton or Bush

I really wonder if dbermanmd is a typical Bush supporter. If so, it would really start to explain a lot of things about how people can still support Bush; his (dbermanmd) inability to follow a logical argument is just remarkable. If you're unable (or unwilling) to listen to logic and common sense, you can continue to believe whatever you want to believe independent of reality.

As a wise man once said about Bush, "He believes the same thing Wednesday that he did on Monday; NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED TUESDAY." You have to wonder if his supporters subscribe to this way of thinking, too.

 

Dr Berman,
A few other things come to mind which skew your comparison.
1)The efficiency of medical evacuation and treatment today has resulted in less death ,even though many more lives have been ruined by horrid injury.
2)Mercenary soldiers employed by the US government have suffered casualties in Iraq,but are not a part of your military statistic.

 

The real problem with the Democrat argument is that if you take it to its logical conclusion (which I believe MANY Democrat i.e. liberal supporters really want) and you were interested in the soldiers, you would just disbanned the military! Save ALL the soldiers lives!

The fact is soldiers enter situations in which they are likely to be killed so that we don't have to, and they are sometimes in fact killed. Given the nature of the conflict we are in and the time spent in conflict we are losing incredibly few people and potentially doing the world a great service.

Even though most on this site will never see that service or understand it since America is soooooooo Evil. But there are millions of Iraqis who are thankful that we are there, but just as under Saddam they find it better to lay low and not be noticed since either the sunni's who lost power or the muslim nutjobs have NO compunction about slicing off the heads of those that dissagree with them! Who is standing up for those peoples civil rights, not a freakin liberal or progressive that's for sure!

I'll tell you who, the American G.I.: the only people in history to stand up and risk their lives for the rights of others in the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 03:48 PM) [snapback]393513[/snapback]</div>

A few things... No one mentioned Iran before you did. Way to go, trying to change the subject (again). Does Bush have a plan? Has he had a plan since the first few months of the war when he declared victory? If so, i haven't seen it. All i hear from him is short term stop-gap measures, no long term plan for ending the violence and getting our troops home. Don't ask from the other party what your's isn't willing to provide, Berman.

Despite what you say, Clinton had it right. His focus was on home soil. He did a lot to increase our economy and keep our service men safe. Bush has done the opposite.

Finally, we all know you hate Obama, but please, for the hundredth time, use his name as he wants it to be used. Don't initialize his first name - he doesn't. Don't include his middle name - he doesn't.

Honestly Berman, your lack of respect, lack of understanding of simple logic or facts, and lack of a reasoned response to any post truly astounds me. I don't know how someone who is so short sighted and incapable of decent personal interactions could have possibly made it through medical school.

 

You're not talking about Hilary vs. Jeb in '08?

 

Just to state:

We had the right to go into Iraq, Saddam was not abiding by the first gulf war cease fire;
We had the authority to go into Iraq, U.N. resolutions and Senate approval;
We had the obligation to go into Iraq, because the rest of the world doesn't give a rat's behind about civillinas slaughtered by a dictator;

Foreget WMD's and Al-Queda, that was pablam for the liberal media and was a mistake. The facts are Saddam bad (past tense) rest of the world pussies. (still, except maybe Great Britain and Australia)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Feb 20 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]393553[/snapback]</div>

If WMDs were a mistake, how was he not abiding by it?

We had authority because we gave ourselves approval. Better check that circular logic there!

Great! When do we invade Texas?

Great! When do we invade Sudan, Somalia, and China, for that matter?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Feb 20 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]393553[/snapback]</div>

You are very wrong.

The US did not have he right or authority to go into Iraq. Iraq did not comply to UN resolutions and the UN did not snaction the US to invade Iraq. We just went ahead and did it against the wishes of the UN, how short the memories are. That was/is 90% of the problem we created for ourselves.

Lastly we have no obligation for "freeing" Iraq from Saddam. If that is the case there are a long list of countries in need of "freeing" , Zimbabwe is just one example were Saddam's actions would look like a saint, now Iran, Venezuela, and the list goes on. The whole thing was just a bad strategy by the current administration to handle the middel east and position themselves politically domestically. Well it backfired on them and is costing us a lot in resources (both military and financial).

Yet they still have people believe it was the correct decision, which I just find amazing.

And I will say again, the US has no right, authority or obligation to invade any other country, unless there are certain criteria met. Iraq did not fall into those. Amazing Clinton helped sort out Bosnia adn got a lot of praise for it, how did that happen?? Maybe his administration understood the rules of international politics a lot better??

I would not even dare to compare the stats of Bush vs Clinton. Look at the financial history, the war record and then talk again.

As to dogpile who started the thread. You are a baseless and factless moron, making BS claims and then running when they are debunked. You have yet to list any facts. It is amazing how stupid you are to keep coming back for a good old fashioned intellectual asswhooping.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Feb 20 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]393581[/snapback]</div>

Y'know, it's paragraphs like this that turn all the erudition, tight logic, unimpeachable facts and unalloyed arguments that precede it into worthless, pointless wind. I see this crap and I cringe. Good arguments stand on their own. Leave the ad hominen acid throwing to those who haven't got anything else; their self destruction does not need outside help.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 20 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]393601[/snapback]</div>

I would normally be in full agreement with you, however the person it is aimed at does not care about any facts or arguments that does not suite his/her views.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Feb 20 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]393604[/snapback]</div>

If the only thing Dr. Berman was guilty of was simple failure to care about facts and perspectives he disliked, he'd be indistinguishable from every human being on this planet, and it would be grossly out of line to call him names for what he and you and I do every time our minds first crack unappealing ideas against reluctant synapses. What he's really guilty of is sharp, disrespectful discourse - and that makes it even MORE grossly out of line to call him names, all the MORE reason to refrain from duplicating his style.

That's one of the human ideas I've always found baffling: the idea that behaving like a jerk is virtuous if the other guy behaves like a jerk first. Why not accept that being a jerk is bad, period; if the other guy wants to be a jerk, let him self destruct alone, don't double the number of jerks on the field by following his lead!

Mark Baird
Alameda CA