I’m not going to painstakingly evidence this because it’s not controversial and you know it, so I’m just lifting this off wiki:
“Following the U.S.-launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, intercommunal violence between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a factions became prevalent.”
Look up the numbers if you’d like. There was a single event that sparked conflict. It came in '03, and it was pretty shocking and awful.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’m not going to painstakingly evidence this because it’s not controversial and you know it, so I’m just lifting this off wiki:
“Following the U.S.-launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, intercommunal violence between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a factions became prevalent.”
Look up the numbers if you’d like. There was a single event that sparked conflict. It came in '03, and it was pretty shocking and awful.[/quote]
The sectarianism was started by the bombing of the Shi’ite Imam Ali mosque.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As I said, it is not logically valid to argue that the invasion was necessary on the grounds that a single guy and a group of his underlings were in the country…[/quote]
Dude, this isn’t going to work. Folks around here are too smart to allow you to funnel the discussion into this falsehood.
NOBODY has argued this.
[/quote]
You should probably read the exchange that preceded that and of which that was an inextricable part. I’m more than aware that you have a laundry list of “reasons” for the invasion. I just spent many words choosing just one of your justifications and refuting it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’m not going to painstakingly evidence this because it’s not controversial and you know it, so I’m just lifting this off wiki:
“Following the U.S.-launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, intercommunal violence between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a factions became prevalent.”
Look up the numbers if you’d like. There was a single event that sparked conflict. It came in '03, and it was pretty shocking and awful.[/quote]
The sectarianism was started by the bombing of the Shi’ite Imam Ali mosque.
[/quote]
Alright, this one I’m not doing.
The sectarian conflict was made possible by the U.S. invasion and the resultant mayhem, lawlessness, and power vacuum.
I can’t waste time arguing that. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…Or do you think it’s better to do what Obama did with OBL?
[/quote]
I see. We now discover that it was Obama and only Obama all along who hunted down bin Laden?
[/quote]
Nobody said that, did they.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still droning on about how the Iraq War was started because of al Qaeda terrorists, huh, smh? I gave the factual synopsis way back yonder.
Talk about moving the goalposts.[/quote]
How about you respond to my thorough refutation of your “facts.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still droning on about how the Iraq War was started because of al Qaeda terrorists, huh, smh?[/quote]
Good Christ. YOU LISTED HUSSEIN’S AQ INVASION and I refuted it.
Talk about moving goalposts indeed. I’m going to quote that list and emphasize the relevant excerpt in a minute.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Second time was to repulse the same belligerent dictator who…invited al Qaeda into his country.
[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still droning on about how the Iraq War was started because of al Qaeda terrorists, huh, smh? [/quote]
See?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One more thing, H-monster (and smh). When I wrote, “almost universally recognized” I wasn’t referring to “scholars and practitioners;” I was referring to the countries of the world.
So you tell me which countries around the world, and especially our allies, who have stated that Barack’s foreign policy is just plumb swell. And tell me how they compare this swell foreign policy that of, say…Bush the Younger, Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, and hell clear back to oh say, Grover Cleveland…no…shit…take it clear back to William Henry Harrison if you want.[/quote]
I’m going to compare Obama with Bush II, and I’m going to use the only objective measure available, which is international opinion polling. I’m going to use data from Pew, which is a top-tier firm.
Confidence in the U.S. President
[Later, if I have free time, I’m going to average these. For now, I’m using 2007 for Bush–before the worldwide recession began in the 3rd Q of '08, but mainly because it’s the year with the most numbers and it’s well into his presidency. I’m using 2013 for Obama, for obvious reasons.]
Country Bush '07 Obama '13
Britain 24 72
France 14 83
Germany 19 88
Israel 57 61
Italy 30 76
Japan 35 70
Mexico 28 49
Spain 7 54
So, if you object, tell me why these data don’t matter, and offer me some actual data of your own.[/quote]
Exit left, pal. I talk responsible foreign policy and you offer me beauty pageant results? Get outta here.[/quote]
Ridiculous.
You’re talking about world opinion , no?
If not, please preset your hard evidence now.
I will wait.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’m not going to painstakingly evidence this because it’s not controversial and you know it, so I’m just lifting this off wiki:
“Following the U.S.-launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, intercommunal violence between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a factions became prevalent.”
Look up the numbers if you’d like. There was a single event that sparked conflict. It came in '03, and it was pretty shocking and awful.[/quote]
The sectarianism was started by the bombing of the Shi’ite Imam Ali mosque.
[/quote]
Alright, this one I’m not doing.
The sectarian conflict was made possible by the U.S. invasion and the resultant mayhem, lawlessness, and power vacuum.
I can’t waste time arguing that. You know it, I know it, we all know it.[/quote]
That simply isn’t so and the numbers show it. The sectarianism reached its peak 2006-2007. It wasn’t due to any power vacuum.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’m not going to painstakingly evidence this because it’s not controversial and you know it, so I’m just lifting this off wiki:
“Following the U.S.-launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, intercommunal violence between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a factions became prevalent.”
Look up the numbers if you’d like. There was a single event that sparked conflict. It came in '03, and it was pretty shocking and awful.[/quote]
The sectarianism was started by the bombing of the Shi’ite Imam Ali mosque.
[/quote]
Alright, this one I’m not doing.
The sectarian conflict was made possible by the U.S. invasion and the resultant mayhem, lawlessness, and power vacuum.
I can’t waste time arguing that. You know it, I know it, we all know it.[/quote]
That simply isn’t so and the numbers show it. The sectarianism reached its peak 2006-2007. It wasn’t due to any power vacuum. [/quote]
And began in '03. Go ahead and find the numbers. And in '06, if Hussein had been around, would the civil war have happened?
Yes, no?
And, if so, would it have been our problem, or would it have destabilized a dictator’s regime without costing an American life.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still droning on about how the Iraq War was started because of al Qaeda terrorists, huh, smh?[/quote]
Good Christ. YOU LISTED HUSSEIN’S AQ INVASION and I refuted it.
[/quote]
You know damn well that was a secondary reason. I never gave it primacy.
You’re starting to feed in your own feeding frenzy. You’re manipulating what others have stated in order to accomplish this so called refutation.
[/quote]
No, and you made absolutely no indication that it was “secondary.” I chose one of your points to illustrate that you were Gish Galluping–presenting a bunch of descredited bullshit in the hopes that I would not go into it. Unfortunately, I did go into it, and I could keep doing it for everything in this thread.
Allow me to explain a bit further. This is how debate works: You made a claim, the claim was challenged. You tried to offer evidence for your claim. I showed that your evidence was A] Panned by experts at the time of its release, and B] Outdated–because new evidence had since been released which exposed it as bullshit. In doing this, I cited opinions of repute and, most importantly, declassified documents and official committee findings.
I other words, there was a claim, and there was evidence set up in opposition vis-a-vis that claim. One set of evidence clearly won out. I am going to repost this, in case you would like the conversation to continue on the issues. I am also awaiting your data in refutation of my global-opinion data–i.e., your data in support of the contention that Obama’s FP is almost universally conisdered far worse than Bush’s (and everybody else’s, but let’s focus here on Obama-Bush).
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Second time was to repulse the same belligerent dictator who…invited al Qaeda into his country.
[/quote]
This was downright dishonest of you. Downright dishonest and a cheap shot. You and your ellipsis have committed sin here, my friend.
[/quote]
Hang on: I told you in the previous post that I was going to find and emphasize the relevant line.
I did not try to hide the redaction, and openly called attention to it.
I am not trying to twist your words. Again, I know that you have more reasons. I simply chose one (because we can’t have ten fights at once).