They drove the educated and the professionals out of Iraq. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in other countries afraid to come home. Lebanon ,Syria and other countries around the mid east would love to see them go home. But the bastion of safety and freedom that Curtis sees, is not seen that way by those who actually live there. Iraq is a mess.
:rolleyes:
Not all of them were males, and I base my logic on what took place in El Salvador, The levels of relative peace of today can be explained by the ethnic cleansing and effectiveness of the death squads. And I do remember reading about the reconstruction efforts suffering because the ones with the knowledge to man the reconstructed buildings and organizations are missing.
And here you are forgetting history, it was the decision of Florida too, and even though the final count could had benefited Bush, it was clear to me that the true will of the Floridians was thwarted by butterfly ballots, chads and voter registration shenanigans.
Bolding mine, really, what you where thinking?
That is precisely what took place in El Salvador, most victims were never acknowledged by the authorities. As the same pacification plan was applied in Iraq, I made an estimate based on the proportion of the population of El Salvador and applied to Iraq, I came with more than 300,000 people dead, and not by warfare and it was before the surveys came out. A million is not impossible as one has to add ethnic cleansing to the equation in the case of Iraq.
Of course, it is not our direct fault. But we did unleash the dogs of war.
Well, of course. Authorities that barely exist, widely regarded as illegitimate collaborators, may well be the perpetrators, may well be the victims; you can expect that a great many people just dropped the bodies in a river or buried them in their backyard or some such.
What allegations are you talking about?
Bush/Cheney spent human lives like they spent tax payer money.
Deficits and lives don’t matter.
This makes no difference be it true or false. They’re still dead as a result of your invasion.
Oh, well I guess their deaths are okay then. If you didn’t mean to kill them while you invaded their country under false pretenses I guess I should hold the fact you dropped bombs on them against you. No, Bush got all those people killed for no reason. If you supported Bush, you support killing for people for no reason. “Oh well, war’s a bitch” will not cut it.
If Illinois had gone Republican, Nixon would have won. Let’s just say that Nixon had some legitimate doubts about the fairness of vote counting in Chicago (it was Mayor Daley, after all) but decided not to argue it for the good of the country. I hadn’t heard that the plurality was the deciding factor, but that makes sense. This is yet another case where Nixon was better than Bush.
When Nixon was asked why he lost, he said “they fixed the Chicago voting better than we did”.
Hehehehe
quoted for truth.
When I lived in Illinois Dakin Williams, Tennessee Williams’ brother, was more or less running for governor. At one point he campaigned in the graveyards of Chicago because “that is where the votes are.”
:dubious: Post-invasion, there was a complete social and economic collapse in Iraq. Didn’t you notice?
Two Daley Machine operatives were going through the cemetery registering voters. One said, “OK, we’ve got enough, let’s go home.” The other said, “Hey, wait, what about these guys over here? They have as much right to vote as the others!”
Well, to be more accurate, Nixon showed in public to be magnanimous. His allies on the other hand:
GIGObuster – he was 3 years old in 2000. I’m pretty sure “forgetting history” doesn’t (and won’t) play into it here.
I don’t think anyone’s going to convince him that Gore specifically didn’t drag out the election (in actuality, he conceded gracefully and early). Even though virtually every single person here besides him has actual first-person memories of the 2000 election.
This is wrong. Kennedy won the electoral vote 303 to 219, and still would have won even if Illinois’ 27 electoral votes had gone to Nixon. If Nixon had won Illinois and Texas, he would have won the election.
I’d just like Curtis to actually discuss why he thinks Kennedy stole the election. This isn’t the first time he’s brought it up without explanation or cite.
And, folks, do we really need to continually bring up a poster’s age? It’s really not germane to the discussion. Curtis does have quite a bit of historical knowledge of events previous to, and shortly after, his birth. I was a small child in the 80’s, yet never seem to get chided for contributing my opinion on the historical facts and interpretations of that decade.
This might be the first thread where it actually is relevant, at least somewhat. G. W. Bush is probably the only president the OP remembers in the first place.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And if he fails twice he will be expelled…
Yes, I do know that allegedly he is in school. And he shows enough awareness that sometimes I wonder if we are doing his homework.
Yes, I do, when it’s pertinent. And a claim that Gore pulled some Norm Coleman-esque drawing out of the 2000 election is false on its face to anyone cognizant of national events at the time. Which he wasn’t, being all of 3 years old.
Suck it up if you don’t like it.
Perhaps because they don’t border on nutter territory?
Actually, I don’t know whether your 80s opinions do or not – just my best guess. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you’d like, that you actually do often post absolute garbage concerning the 80s. 