Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
That's the British Attorney General. So I ask again, what is new?

Now you fucking tell me.

 

I didn't see Attorney General on the list of British cabinet members, so I assumed they didn't have one and meant the American one.

 

This makes absolutely no sense. Bush was continuing the policy of getting Saddam out of office. Clinton was looking into arming opposition groups to boot him out. Bush simply used the United States Army to. Not exactly like the comparison you made earlier, eh?

 

Going from "looking into arming opposition groups" to having a full scale invasion is quite a jump.

 

If Iraq was Vietnam, Clinton would be Kennedy, and Bush would be Johnson. I think you can guess what I think the Gulf of Tonkin is comparable to.

Posted

Perhaps I should introduce you to the word "if".

 

I said "IF Iraq was Vietnam," not "Iraq is Vietnam." I was setting up an analogy, not making a direct comparison.

 

If I had said, "If TSM were a toilet, you'd be the tiny piece of crap that keep floating to the top no matter how many times you flush," I wouldn't literally mean that TSM was a porcelain bowl that people defecate in. It means that your relationship to TSM is similar to the relationship between the porcelain bowl and the piece of crap.

Posted
Perhaps I should introduce you to the word "if".

 

I said "IF Iraq was Vietnam," not "Iraq is Vietnam." I was setting up an analogy, not making a direct comparison.

But by bringing the word Vietnam into the discussion, regardless of your intentions, draws people to assume you are making a comparison.

Posted

I suppose if I said "If TSM were the Empire from Star Wars, Dames would be the Emperor, and Dr. Tom would be Darth Vader" one of you'd jump up and say "BUT TSM isn't the Empire!" See, I wasn't comparing TSM to the Empire, I was comparing the relationship of Dames and Dr. Tom to TSM to the relationship between the Emperor and Vader to the Empire. I'm not actually comparing TSM to the Empire. See how that works?

 

Similarly, I was comparing the relationship between Clinton and Bush with Iraq to the relationship Kennedy and Johnson had to Vietnam. Clinton and Kennedy wanted to help without actually committing ground troops to do the fighting, while both Bush and Johnson ignored any restraints, found a legal justification, and committed full military participation to the war.

 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET, OR DO I NEED TO WHIP OUT SOME CRAYONS AND FINGER PUPPETS?

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...