Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Russia is invading another country on completely trumped up pretext" [View all]dixiegrrrrl
(60,148 posts)119. Is indeed amazing that people read into a post
what is not there.
Post:
"it is raining"
responses:
"what do you have against cats and dogs"
"you must be an animal hater"
" Not everthing is climate change"
"how come you don't mention last Sat. when it didn't rain?"
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
153 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Russia is invading another country on completely trumped up pretext" [View all]
dixiegrrrrl
Mar 2014
OP
Exactly. I think his inner-radical is still alive, somehwere in there. But he sold out years ago.
reformist2
Mar 2014
#43
I know, have you seen the attacks on Democrats here we were so accustomed to from
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#120
You didnt know anything. You guessed. No one knew because no one had been there.
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#140
Are you trying to justify his vote? Because Bush didnt hold up his end of the bargain? Really? nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#144
There wasnt any evidence to be cooked. IWR and UN SecRes 1441 were passed to try to get evidence via
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#49
Exactly and perfectly right. I break this all down in this article I wrote back in 2009...
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#69
Facts matter. The actual text of IWR matters. The fact that the UN Sec Council's 15 countries
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#138
Such 'cooking of evidence' would be a huge crime, that crime was never prosecuted or
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#62
And that is something I talk about semi-regularly. But again, in the context of this discussion...
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#66
So, you are saying that Russia, China, Syria, and the other 15 countries that didnt know and voted
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#74
That is not an answer. If you think those countries had vested interests that motivated their vote
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#86
Yes "Denizen of the morass" explains away Putin's war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression.
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#91
Nope, you should listen to yourself. You are justifying an unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#139
Assuming we accept all of that, how does that justify a Russian war crime? nt
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#143
You seriously think war is a reasonable reaction to Russia reinstalling Yanukovich or anyone else?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#129
He's such an idiot. He doesn't even realize how ironic that is coming out of his mouth?
Democracyinkind
Mar 2014
#22
So Russia's unprovoked war of aggression is OK because some of you think Kerry voted to give Bush
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#27
It's not "OK" it's just that we don't have a moral leg to stand on to criticize it
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#30
Sure we do. We have a moral reason to criticize it. As you said, it's not OK. (nt)
PosterChild
Mar 2014
#41
First, we don't think Kerry voted to give Bush the power to wage an unprovoked and unjustified war,
A Simple Game
Mar 2014
#60
No, he didn't. I know some of you are heavily invested in that belief, but it isn't true.
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#64
I expect that kind of superficial analysis from the Freepers, not from DUers. The analysis is here
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#73
I know you are so invested in an incorrect version of events you dont want to know the truth.
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#141
I'm the one consistent here. You are the one trying to assert a war crime is ok in one instance and
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#142
LMAO, exactly. Because of that a war crime by Russia/Putin now is OK, of course.
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#61
How long after Iraq do we get to start using diplomacy to stop wars of aggression?
NuclearDem
Mar 2014
#34
Not to mention that the guy we have as President was not in favor of that war. Why should he
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#39
Oh he can and indeed must protest, that isn't the gist of the dialog here though.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#134
The fact that the pot is calling the kettle black doesn't mean that the kettle isn't black.
1monster
Mar 2014
#35
Excellent way of putting it, even if one temporarily accepts the premise of the OP. nt
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#42
I'm confused...do people think Putin is a saint or some representative of democracy?
Rex
Mar 2014
#116
The irony is that progressives realize the hypocrisy of such statements, the republicans and right
lostincalifornia
Mar 2014
#36
I think many progressives are missing the greater irony. I think it is much more important to be
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#54
because I addressed Kerry's remarks does not mean I limit hpocrisy to just Bush.
dixiegrrrrl
Mar 2014
#112
But..but...we got involved for their own good...wellll...kinda...maybe...never mind.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#122
The ironies and hypocrisies seem to abound here. I think you start from the biggest crime and work
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#78
It's twilight zone time on DU with huge support for an unprovoked war of aggression...
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#100
I think pretty much everyone here will agree that what Bush did was a war crime but
Drale
Mar 2014
#82
Crimea was a part of Russia for quite some time before Khrushchev (who was Ukrainian) gave it
LisaL
Mar 2014
#85
Just because you write sarcasm under it, does not mean it isn't true.
Donald Ian Rankin
Mar 2014
#145
I'm not a supporter of Russia's action here, but Kerry saying that makes me cringe
penultimate
Mar 2014
#151