Were Dems Apologists for Saddam?

[Ethereal]

It's been routinely intimated by Democrats that anyone who doesn't buy into the "Russian aggression" narrative being peddled by the political establishment and the corporate media are somehow Putin apologists or stooges.

That raises the question: Were Democrats who expressed reservations and skepticism towards the war in Iraq apologists and stooges for Saddam Hussein? Why or why not?

We could also ask if Democrats who supported Obama's Iran deal were the apologists and stooges for the Iranian Mullahs.

[resister]

We are talking about Democrats here, the standards are a one way street.

[Ethereal]

We are talking about Democrats here, the standards are a one way street.
True. They never hold themselves to the standards they try to impose on others. And that is probably why they will avoid this thread because it exposes their double standards and hypocrisy.

[Ethereal]

So where are all the Saddam apologists? I know there must be a few of them here.

[AZ Jim]

What a stupid suggestion/question. It is not even worthy of an answer but this much I'll say. I remember all Americans being put off by the treatment Saddam forced upon his people. No one cried when he was finally hunted down and hung, but many Democrats were skeptical of the WMD story foisted upon us by Bush as a reason to start his war there. Actually, it served to destabilize the area and was a springboard for ISIS. I don't recall any "apologists" among the Democrats.

[decedent]

It's been routinely intimated by Democrats that anyone who doesn't buy into the "Russian aggression" narrative being peddled by the political establishment and the corporate media are somehow Putin apologists or stooges.


Russia took Crimea with force. It's not a narrative, it's a fact. You continually downplay this invasion and aggression from Russia.

[Ethereal]

What a stupid suggestion/question. It is not even worthy of an answer but this much I'll say. I remember all Americans being put off by the treatment Saddam forced upon his people. No one cried when he was finally hunted down and hung, but many Democrats were skeptical of the WMD story foisted upon us by Bush as a reason to start his war there. Actually, it served to destabilize the area and was a springboard for ISIS. I don't recall any "apologists" among the Democrats.
If being skeptical of the official narrative surrounding Iraq doesn't make one an apologist for Saddam, then why does being skeptical of the official narrative surrounding Russia make one an apologist for Putin?

[Ethereal]

Russia took Crimea with force. It's not a narrative, it's a fact. You continually downplay this invasion and aggression.

That's not a fact. Crimea voted in a referendum to join Russia and independent polling corroborates the results of that referendum. It was a bloodless annexation that was in accordance with the will of the Crimean people. And please explain how one invades a place that they're already occupying in accordance with a treaty.

[AZ Jim]

If being skeptical of the official narrative surrounding Iraq doesn't make one an apologist for Saddam, then why does being skeptical of the official narrative surrounding Russia make one an apologist for Putin?Tell ya what. Go bring out your little chalk board, your chalk and spend the weekend working that out. Monday give us your report. It may be good enough for your show and tell at grade school on Tue. We'll get back to ya....

[Ethereal]

Tell ya what. Go bring out your little chalk board, your chalk and spend the weekend working that out. Monday give us your report. It may be good enough for your show and tell at grade school on Tue. We'll get back to ya....
I didn't think you could rationalize your blatant double standard. Thanks for confirming it with this weak response.

[Ethereal]

Questioning the war in Iraq = Dissent is the highest form of patriotism

Questioning the "Russian aggression" narrative = Treason

Democrats have so many special rules that it's hard to keep up with them all. I should probably make a list.

[Ethereal]

I think all their special rules could be generalized into one, all encompassing rule...

Opposes Democrats = Bad

As long as you remember that one rule, you will understand everything Democrats say and do.

[jimmyz]

Tell ya what. Go bring out your little chalk board, your chalk and spend the weekend working that out. Monday give us your report. It may be good enough for your show and tell at grade school on Tue. We'll get back to ya....
AZ Jim... would you characterize your response above as condescending and not conducive to polite discourse on a political discussion board?

Note: I have been an Ahole on tpF before and I hope for my continued betterment in this regard as do I for you.

[Ethereal]

@AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901)... would you characterize your response above as condescending and not conducive to polite discourse on a political discussion board?

Note: I have been an Ahole on tpF before and I hope for my continued betterment in this regard as do I for you.

It would only be condescending and rude if a non-Democrat had said it. But because AZ Jim is a Democrat, it is a very reasonable and righteous statement that serves to edify all who read it.

[resister]

So where are all the Saddam apologists? I know there must be a few of them here.There are in the same hiding place as the absent partisans in my thread A question for partisans! When backed into a corner and all else fails....:f_run:

[Ethereal]

Decedent, are you going to explain how one invades a territory that they're already occupying? I'm interested to hear your explanation.

[resister]

Tell ya what. Go bring out your little chalk board, your chalk and spend the weekend working that out. Monday give us your report. It may be good enough for your show and tell at grade school on Tue. We'll get back to ya....
Ethereal ^ this right here is the lack of ability of a partisan to defend double standards, if insults fail the next step is...:f_run:

[AZ Jim]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122) Let me ask you, are partisans only of the Democrat party? It has always been my understanding that in politics all sides of an issue were, a word you use often "partisans". No need to answer as I am certain any reply would be as inane as your usual.

[jimmyz]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122) Let me ask you, are partisans only of the Democrat party? It has always been my understanding that in politics all sides of an issue were, a word you use often "partisans". No need to answer as I am certain any reply would be as inane as your usual.

Partisanship is the reason this board exists.

[Ethereal]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122) Let me ask you, are partisans only of the Democrat party? It has always been my understanding that in politics all sides of an issue were, a word you use often "partisans". No need to answer as I am certain any reply would be as inane as your usual.
Partisans always try to distract people from their partisanship by pointing to the bad behavior of others.

[Ethereal]

I think we've figured it out.

If it benefits Democrats, then it's okay. But if it hinders Democrats, then it's bad.

[FindersKeepers]

Russia took Crimea with force. It's not a narrative, it's a fact. You continually downplay this invasion and aggression from Russia.

How did you miss the overwhelming vote by Crimea to join Russia?

[Mister D]

How did you miss the overwhelming vote by Crimea to join Russia?
He was too busy reading about the "epidemic" of cops "murdering" black people. Fake news takes up a lot of his time.

[resister]

Partisanship is the reason this board exists.To a point, but some actually believe their party is infallible and any thing outside of it, is never right about a single thing.

[resister]

I think we've figured it out.

If it benefits Democrats, then it's okay. But if it hinders Democrats, then it's bad.
That is it in a nutshell, don't expect a single Democrat to give a valid, on point answer to your OP. I have learned they will flat out refuse to answer a question on there double standards. There is a process that generally goes like this, they did it to, misdirection, if you pin them down by saying it is wrong on both sides and force them back on topic, then comes the insults, if all else fails, they haul ass.

[jimmyz]

To a point, but some actually believe their party is infallible and any thing outside of it, is never right about a single thing.

Until we talk we will be waring IMO.

[Doublejack]

I simply opposed Iraq intervention due to the great possibility of regional chaos.

Im not psychic .

[resister]

Until we talk we will be waring IMO.Some people can not be talked to, there mind is made up and they will be impossible to reason with. This is way more common to the democrat party, the party leaders deliberately foster no tolorence to dissent.

[decedent]

That's not a fact. Crimea voted in a referendum to join Russia and independent polling corroborates the results of that referendum. It was a bloodless annexation that was in accordance with the will of the Crimean people. And please explain how one invades a place that they're already occupying in accordance with a treaty.

Russia took Crimea with force. This aggression is unacceptable.

[decedent]

How did you miss the overwhelming vote by Crimea to join Russia?

Yep, there was no military involvement at all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/VOA-Crimea-Simferopol-airport.jpg/440px-VOA-Crimea-Simferopol-airport.jpghttp://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/140904065708-01-ukraine-0904-horizontal-large-gallery.jpghttp://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141014151708-01-ukraine-1014-horizontal-large-gallery.jpghttps://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/iprkkFb_h5Em_ycSIIwNvQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-PAR-Par7991018-1-1-0.jpg

[resister]

Yep, there was no military involvement at all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/VOA-Crimea-Simferopol-airport.jpg/440px-VOA-Crimea-Simferopol-airport.jpghttp://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/140904065708-01-ukraine-0904-horizontal-large-gallery.jpghttp://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141014151708-01-ukraine-1014-horizontal-large-gallery.jpghttps://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/iprkkFb_h5Em_ycSIIwNvQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-PAR-Par7991018-1-1-0.jpg
Wow, random ass pics of unmarked mercenaries = proof

[decedent]

Wow, random ass pics of unmarked mercenaries = proof

It looks like military involvement to me. Maybe it's the tanks and mortars?

[resister]

It looks like military involvement to me. Maybe it's the tanks and mortars?Sure any where on earth, gotta love how you think random pics with no links equals proof. There uniforms are unmarked and I see no Cyrillic writing anywhere.

WOW, what overwhelming proof, care to actually answer the question in the OP instead of do the liberal thing and desperately misdirect?

Not one single liberal has had the chutzpah to do so. ​BE BOLD, BE THE FIRST TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE!

[decedent]

Sure any where on earth...

The Ukraine, 2014. 10,000 deaths.


If this is news to you then this is truly sad.

[resister]

The Ukraine, 2014. 10,000 deaths.


If this is news to you then this is truly sad.
Since you still evade the question in the OP, how about prove your photos are not random internet photos? Not some other ones, the ones you posted! Since no liberals seem to be able to address the question in the OP.

The collective silence is all the answer thinking people need, consider this thread rhetorical.

[decedent]

Since you still evade the question in the OP, how about prove your photos are not random internet photos? Not some other ones, the ones you posted! Since no liberals seem to be able to address the question in the OP.

The collective silence is all the answer thinking people need, consider this thread rhetorical.

I'm not going to prove the obvious. You did the same thing yesterday about Republican secrecy and when ALL of my claims were conclusively proved, you disappeared. That's trolling, and lacks intellectual honesty.

[resister]

I'm not going to prove the obvious. You did the same thing yesterday about Republican secrecy and when ALL of my claims were conclusively proved, you disappeared. That's trolling, and lacks intellectual honesty.
You mean went to bed at 2 am? Yeah, I usually do disappear around that time. And you did not back up your claims then either, just like now and you still wont address the topic of this thread and accuse me of trolling? Pahhleez! 17608

[resister]

If being skeptical of the official narrative surrounding Iraq doesn't make one an apologist for Saddam, then why does being skeptical of the official narrative surrounding Russia make one an apologist for Putin?Still not one single hard lefty has the nads to answer this question, just like I sagely predicted. A lot of Bs changing the subject though.

[FindersKeepers]

It looks like military involvement to me. Maybe it's the tanks and mortars?

Ukrainian forces were already in Crimea, where they'd been stationed. Crimean citizens began protesting against Ukraine right after the Ukrainian President, the duly elected President, was ousted. Obama had his fingers in that mess, along with the EU. That's how the whole thing started.

Right after the ouster of the duly elected Ukrainian President, the Crimean citizens, who were very pro-Russian, started making plans to secede from the Ukraine.In Crimea's capital, tens of thousands were protesting Ukraine. The protesters started flying Russian flags at the Capital.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140223212525/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/ukraine-crisis-secession-russian-crimea


The Crimean leader begged Putin to help them.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26397323


Crimean lawmakers voted to join Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26465962


The Crimean citizens demanded a referendum so they could vote to join Russia. Obama and the EU cried "you can't do that!"
The G7 crybabies said they would not accept a vote from Crimeans to leave the Ukraine.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-03/12/c_126258900.htm


Meanwhile, Obama was messing around where he ought not. How can you be sure your photos are not Obama-funded "rebels?"
https://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_03_14/US-drone-intercepted-in-Crimean-airspace-Russias-state-corporation-2994/


The citizens had their say -- 95% of the votes were to join Russia. You should check out this site to see the Crimeans celebrating after they won their independence from Ukraine.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26606097


Crimea now formally applies for citizenship with Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26609667


So, how is Crimea today? How do Crimeans feel now that they're a part of Russia? A survey.
https://www.sott.net/article/344605-Western-propaganda-exposed-Survey-shows-Crimean-Tatars-real-opinions

[FindersKeepers]

The Ukraine, 2014. 10,000 deaths.


If this is news to you then this is truly sad.

Let's take a look at the breakdown -- and DATE. The casualties caused by Russia were the smallest and they occurred AFTER the Crimeans joined Russia.

Then, look at how many were killed by Ukrainian forces.


17610

[Peter1469]

Let's say Russia was bad in taking the Crimea. We should the US and / or the west do about it and why?

[DGUtley]

Let's say Russia was bad in taking the Crimea. We should the US and / or the west do about it and why?

Not our fight.

[decedent]

You mean went to bed at 2 am? Yeah, I usually do disappear around that time. And you did not back up your claims then either, just like now and you still wont address the topic of this thread and accuse me of trolling? Pahhleez! 17608

Aaaaaand you're still trolling....

[Ethereal]

Russia took Crimea with force. This aggression is unacceptable.

Typical Democrat response.

Ignore the facts and the evidence and just repeat the lie over and over again until people start to believe it.

[Ethereal]

Yep, there was no military involvement at all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/VOA-Crimea-Simferopol-airport.jpg/440px-VOA-Crimea-Simferopol-airport.jpghttp://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/140904065708-01-ukraine-0904-horizontal-large-gallery.jpghttp://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141014151708-01-ukraine-1014-horizontal-large-gallery.jpghttps://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/iprkkFb_h5Em_ycSIIwNvQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-PAR-Par7991018-1-1-0.jpg

A bunch of pictures with vague context and no known provenance proves nothing.

[Ethereal]

It looks like military involvement to me. Maybe it's the tanks and mortars?
It looks like a bunch of pictures with no context and no attribution and no discernible connection to the point you're trying to make.

In other words, it's just more Democrat propaganda and lies meant to further a dishonest narrative about Russian "aggression".

[Ethereal]

The Ukraine, 2014. 10,000 deaths.


If this is news to you then this is truly sad.
And how many of those deaths have been caused by the illegal regime in Kiev and the neo-Nazi militias they're using to attack the separatists in the east?

[Ethereal]

Aaaaaand you're still trolling....
No he isn't. You've yet to address the thread topic in a meaningful way.

Why does questioning the "Russian aggression" narrative make someone a Putin apologist, stooge, puppet, etc., while questioning the Iraq war does not make one a Saddam apologist? Did Saddam not display "aggression" towards other countries? Did Saddam not murder his own people and run a corrupt regime? According to Democrat "logic", anyone who opposed his removal was an apologist and a stooge for Saddam.

[Mister D]

No he isn't. You've yet to address the thread topic in a meaningful way.

Why does questioning the "Russian aggression" narrative make someone a Putin apologist, stooge, puppet, etc., while questioning the Iraq war does not make one a Saddam apologist? Did Saddam not display "aggression" towards other countries? Did Saddam not murder his own people and run a corrupt regime? According to Democrat "logic", anyone who opposed his removal was an apologist and a stooge for Saddam. decedent can you explain that? :)

[decedent]

Why does questioning the "Russian aggression" narrative make someone a Putin apologist, stooge, puppet, etc., while questioning the Iraq war does not make one a Saddam apologist?

Because it's apples and oranges -- a false equivalency.

I don't recall a war with Russia. I don't recall any President praising Hussein, or asking Hussein to hack America.



Did Saddam not display "aggression" towards other countries?

Yes, which is why I supported the first Gulf war.


In fact, Hussein did much the same thing as Putin: he stole a region and claimed it as part of his country.



Did Saddam not murder his own people and run a corrupt regime?


Yes, he and Putin seem to have this in common.




According to Democrat "logic", anyone who opposed his removal was an apologist and a stooge for Saddam.

^ False.

[Ethereal]

Because it's apples and oranges -- a false equivalency.

I don't recall a war with Russia. I don't recall any President praising Hussein, or asking Hussein to hack America.

Both situations portrayed a foreign autocrat as a threat to America, so they are equivalent in the most essential aspect.


Yes, which is why I supported the first Gulf war.

In fact, Hussein did much the same thing as Putin: he stole a region and claimed it as part of his country.

Yes, he and Putin seem to have this in common.

Indeed, according to you, they have much in common, which is why I cannot understand the differential standards being applied to them.


^ False.

Democrats are calling anyone who challenges the "Russian aggression" narrative a stooge of Putin. If we apply the same standard to the narrative surrounding Saddam Hussein, then that would make Democrats his stooge.

You guys have basically switched places with the 2003 Republicans and the 1950's McCarthyites. Everything is a Russian conspiracy being orchestrated by the Kremlin and anyone who doesn't go along with that narrative is accused of being in on it somehow, unwittingly and otherwise.

[decedent]

Indeed, according to you, they have much in common, which is why I cannot understand the differential standards being applied to them.



There are different standards because one is dead.

[Ethereal]

There are different standards because one is dead.
Or because it is politically advantageous for Democrats to apply differential standards based on the prevailing political winds.

[texan]

We pretty much agree. It definitely opened the door further for more crap. Now you know why those awful guys run those places the way they do and we further upset the order.