Parakeet Award-Winners and Nominees

Post Reply New Topic

No I haven't. WW2, Vietnam, Gulf wars.

Umm ... the US turned away boatloads of Jews that were seeking protection from genocide prior to the US entry to WWII. And we didn't enter it to stop the genocide - I think Pearl Harbor was the precipitating factor, although we might have eventually entered to help our friends in England.

Vietnam war to prevent genocide? Another one that is hard to sell. Wasn't that one really about the cold war, the domino theory, and other geopolitical considerations? We weren't the ones that put an end to the genocidal Khmer Rouge - it was the communist Vietnamese that invaded Cambodia and ended that.

Gulf War 1? Nah. The word genocide means something. It refers to systematic attempts to exterminate a racial group. That wasn't happening in Kuwait. There were atrocities (many of which were trumped up for public consumption in the US). But the Kuwaiti people are not a different race than the Iraqis. Saddam invaded Kuwait for oil, and we rolled him back to reverse that oil grab.

Gulf War 2? Again, no. While the gassing of the Kurds was given as a causus belli against Saddam, US officials (including Rumsfeld) went to Baghdad during and after the time that Saddam was killing Kurds, and they weren't there to stop him. They went to shake his hand and cooperate with him in his struggle against Iran. It's really hard to say that we fought him to end the genocide, when we did nothing to stop it when he was our friend.

Very nice. Reminds me of a psychology experiment where people were shown 4 different photos. The subject matter was unrelated, but the overall style of the photos was consistent. The researchers found that people tended to create a story that links the pictures. The boy eating breakfast in picture one went out and delivered the newspaper that was laying on the grass in picture 2, etc etc.

First you make preposterous statements about the US entering WWII, Vietnam and the Gulf Wars to end genocide. Then, when shown that your arguments are wrong, you respond by posting a string of pictures and cartoons.

Ok, get us started in the picture game. Tell us why you posted the cover of a book about 1000 things in modern history.

الا اذا كنت انت قل لي ماذا يجري غبيه. هل يمكن ان لا نرى هناك اكثر من احد الجانبين الى عمله؟

It seems that maybe iamnotaparakeet bleeds red white & blue, so to speak. He seems to have bought into the current pro-American story line, hook line & sinker. Now there's nothing wrong with any of this, people are free to believe anything they want, but once a person's mind is made up in this way, it's very unlikely to be changed by those who disagree. There are deep subconscious forces in play here. Highly trained scientists will fail to see data that is in conflict with what they believe.

True, I have. Although when this country goes down the hole I am moving to Israel and I'm going to fight with them.

Good general refutation. Although the argument was
made, 'twas never more than a minor issue in the gulf
wars. NEVER was an issue in the other two listed. WWII,
genocide was simply NOT brought up. Indeed, 'twas Japan's
expansion, and power in the Pacific which made us force their
hands by cutting of raw resources. Vietnam? Don't be ludicrous.

We were sending soldiers and supplies to europe before Pearl Harbor, North Vietnam was exterminating south Vietnam because they were interbred with the French. Gulf wars still involved it enough to get public attention even though the government sees things through greedy selfish eyes.

It went down the hole when Jackson
told the Supreme Court to STFU.

Soldiers and supplies (and very few of the former - like
liaisons) were going to Europe, but NOT because of Genocide.
Rather, to keep England in the war. The population had to
be tricked into that war, by the government taking hostile
actions which the average citizen was too dumb or uninformed
to notice.

Likewise, the US did not give one hoot for what was happening
to the people in Vietnam. Had we, we wouldn't have dropped
more munitions than all combatants used during WWII on
SOUTH VIETNAM. A truly hellish and cowardly way to fight
a war. Couldn't afford to lose our own precious lives, but
god damned if we weren't gonna kill a lot of little yellow
men. Pretty much what we did (and do) in Iraq.

And yes, some people in the country might have
thought that the kurds were some sort of shining
cause, for gulf II, but given how we had treated them
in Gulf I, they were clearly not a priority. The big reason
for gulf II in Babushka's mind, was Saddam's attempt on
Daddy's life. He sold it with a deception about 9/11, and
WMDs. All standard fare, in this great democracy. People
DON'T want war. You have to lie to them to get them to
agree.

People are smarter than their leaders, apparently.