What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepler said:
While the war was a colossal mistake, half a million Iranians would (or rather, would not) beg to differ with your statement.
Click to expand...
Considering we supported both sides in that war we really have no room to talk.

The only explanation for Trump praising Saddam is that he is trying to whittle away what support he has left and set the record for lowest percentage of the vote by a major party nominee.

If you want some intelligent discourse on the topic, the House of Commons is discussing a new report on the UK's role in the war. It's a damming report.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

ticapnews said:
The only explanation for Trump praising Saddam is that he is trying to whittle away what support he has left and set the record for lowest percentage of the vote by a major party nominee.
Click to expand...

I like this theory. Perhaps Trump is trying to finish third.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Don't think Saddam would have continued waging war over the last decade. They just didn't have the resources. That would have needed to be his track record to match the outcomes of the Iraq war and ISIS for a break even. Its still quite possible ISIS wouldn't be around and globally things would have been safer.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

I know I'm about to get ripped, but, meh ...

If we can't talk about a historical figure in context, their atrocities and their attributes, how will be be able to recognize the next deviant and head them off.
 
The Sicatoka said:
I know I'm about to get ripped, but, meh ...

If we can't talk about a historical figure in context, their atrocities and their attributes, how will be be able to recognize the next deviant and head them off.
Click to expand...

"At least the trains ran on time" is a punchline, not a way to win points in a debate.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

The Sicatoka said:
I know I'm about to get ripped, but, meh ...

If we can't talk about a historical figure in context, their atrocities and their attributes, how will be be able to recognize the next deviant and head them off.
Click to expand...

Why would you get ripped for that?
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

unofan said:
He's referring to Trump's comments about Saddam.
Click to expand...

OK, it begins to make sense. So the argument is that speaking about Saddam per se should not be grounds for immediate defenestration? I agree with that -- it depends on what is said and what conclusions the speaker is pointing to.

If the argument is that we shouldn't have regime changed in Iraq because we created a power vacuum and however bad Hussein was we actually made the region far worse for its people, on top of which we murdered a hundred thousand innocent bystanders and a few thousand of our own troops, plus wasted a couple trillion dollars, then... yeah, I think that's a good argument.

If the argument is that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy because he was stringing up Islamists then I would counter that argument by saying oppression by autocrats like Saddam and Mubarek is what created the terrorist movement in the first place. IINM many of the political-religious fanatics who formed Al Qaeda were radicalized because of their imprisonment and torture at the hands of the US-backed regime in Egypt in the 80s. The system we had in place before, where we supported local strongmen who brutalized their people, to maintain a stable oil supply, was unconscionable.

But in neither case would I hoot the argument down. That's not how to address questions that are offered in sincerity.

Obviously there are trolls who say things like that just to get a rise out of people, and they deserve to be ripped or better still just ignored. But Sicatoka doesn't strike me as that at all. He's opinionated and can be dismissive and severe in his criticism but, hey, like I should complain about that. :p
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

unofan said:
"At least the trains ran on time" is a punchline, not a way to win points in a debate.
Click to expand...

Yup. And ol' Benny Muss' was a murderous co-conspirator in one of the largest murder sprees in recorded history.

I'm saying we need to be able to talk about both the good and the bad so the next time someone rationalizes mass murder with train schedules we're wise enough to throw the BS flag before the murder spree is closer to ten million than not.

Saddam? Sure, he didn't have terrorists running around; they were obliterated along with his own people during his heinous activities. We need to talk about all of it to understand it.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Kepler said:
Obviously there are trolls who say things like that just to get a rise out of people, and they deserve to be ripped or better still just ignored. But Sicatoka doesn't strike me as that at all. He's opinionated and can be dismissive and severe in his criticism but, hey, like I should complain about that. :p
Click to expand...

Sometimes that's what it takes ... but you already knew that. ;)
 
The Sicatoka said:
Yup. And ol' Benny Muss' was a murderous co-conspirator in one of the largest murder sprees in recorded history.

I'm saying we need to be able to talk about both the good and the bad so the next time someone rationalizes mass murder with train schedules we're wise enough to throw the BS flag before the murder spree is closer to ten million than not.

Saddam? Sure, he didn't have terrorists running around; they were obliterated along with his own people during his heinous activities. We need to talk about all of it to understand it.
Click to expand...

And Trump somehow failed to note those other "heinous activities." (And no, saying "Saddam was a bad guy, but..." doesn't cover it).

If you're arguing that a hypothetical full blown historical discussion needs to cover everything, you won't get an argument from me. But to the extent you may be attempting to rationalize what Trump actually said, you deserve to get ripped for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top