At the risk of being labeled a mean nasty Repukelican, are you familiar with the Iraq War Resolution and the 12 years preceeding Bush finally declaring war on Iraq?BONE said:
Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low
- Thread starter Racingwolf
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Shall I?
Anyone?
OK...
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
Racingbonewolf,
READ this link. Slowly. Read it again.
Read for comprehension.
Ask questions.
BONE said:
Anyone?
OK...
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
Racingbonewolf,
READ this link. Slowly. Read it again.
Read for comprehension.
Ask questions.
Stop that. We've been round and round about this. ABBers don't want to know about no Iraq War Resolution. They want to proclaim that Bush acted unilaterally and this is an illegal war. If they read the IWR, they'll have to come up with some other Bush Evil Empire mantra and that would just be too much like work.Larry Gude said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Interesting...
Americans like to start wars?
Why should the Spanish/American war not have happened? I know one way it could have been avoided; Spain leave Cuba, so I agree so far as it did not have to happen but it was not by our choice. Or is OK with you if a foreign power with empire dreams has a powerful force and the means to fully support it 90 miles form your shores? Spain had little chance against us, knew it and felt like they had to take a little bit of a beating for honors sake, especially knowing they had nothing to do with the Maine. We threw a bum out of our backyard. They chose how they got thrown out.
Vietnam, as Bruzilla has pointed out so often, was about wether or not communism would be spread unchecked throughout the world or if we would challenge it. We had democratic interests in South Korea. We have them now in Taiwan.
WWI we decidely did NOT have to fight, at all. Wilson dragged a decidely un-interested in going to war nation right into it.
1812, we agree. Kinda hard to make a case against fighting people who burn down your Presidents home.
WWII had to be fought from the standpoint of us wanting to hinder Japanese expansion in the Pacific, including China. We embargo'ed them, they threw the first punch. What would have happened had Hitler not declared war on us? There was no rush to tangle with them.
I think history shows Americans, as we are a people where all classes are busy in the persuit of happiness, tend to take a LONG time to fight, even our own Civil War, but get pretty wound up by the time fists are flying.
I mean, if we loved to start wars, we could be carpet bombing North Korea right now. We've had PLENTY of reason over the years to whack Iran. Syria is no pal. Libya has backed off, thus perhaps avoiding a fight with us. Who would be truly upset of we romped all over France and then gave them their mess right back?
Many in these forums would applaud an 'accidental' bombing of Israel.
We could justifiably, for the love of war, invade Cuba tomorrow.
How about Canada? Maybe a little brotherly rough housing to remind us why we actually love each other?
There's all kinds of tin pots we could put on our wall throughout Africa and the Balkans.
Lotta fights we keep out of for being war starters, dontcha think?
Americans like to start wars?
Why should the Spanish/American war not have happened? I know one way it could have been avoided; Spain leave Cuba, so I agree so far as it did not have to happen but it was not by our choice. Or is OK with you if a foreign power with empire dreams has a powerful force and the means to fully support it 90 miles form your shores? Spain had little chance against us, knew it and felt like they had to take a little bit of a beating for honors sake, especially knowing they had nothing to do with the Maine. We threw a bum out of our backyard. They chose how they got thrown out.
Vietnam, as Bruzilla has pointed out so often, was about wether or not communism would be spread unchecked throughout the world or if we would challenge it. We had democratic interests in South Korea. We have them now in Taiwan.
WWI we decidely did NOT have to fight, at all. Wilson dragged a decidely un-interested in going to war nation right into it.
1812, we agree. Kinda hard to make a case against fighting people who burn down your Presidents home.
WWII had to be fought from the standpoint of us wanting to hinder Japanese expansion in the Pacific, including China. We embargo'ed them, they threw the first punch. What would have happened had Hitler not declared war on us? There was no rush to tangle with them.
I think history shows Americans, as we are a people where all classes are busy in the persuit of happiness, tend to take a LONG time to fight, even our own Civil War, but get pretty wound up by the time fists are flying.
I mean, if we loved to start wars, we could be carpet bombing North Korea right now. We've had PLENTY of reason over the years to whack Iran. Syria is no pal. Libya has backed off, thus perhaps avoiding a fight with us. Who would be truly upset of we romped all over France and then gave them their mess right back?
Many in these forums would applaud an 'accidental' bombing of Israel.
We could justifiably, for the love of war, invade Cuba tomorrow.
How about Canada? Maybe a little brotherly rough housing to remind us why we actually love each other?
There's all kinds of tin pots we could put on our wall throughout Africa and the Balkans.
Lotta fights we keep out of for being war starters, dontcha think?
Terrorist ties - Al Queda training camps found. Paying the families of homicide bombers in Palestine $25,000 by Hussein. Al Zaquari (sp?), known terrorist still operating within that region.BONE said:
WMD - missiles with range beyond what was authorized by the UN. Warheads for Chemical and Biological munitions found. Failure to fully disclose the programs under development or records for the destruction of those programs known in existance as required by UN resolution.
Not to mention the many violations of UN resolutions and the continued acts of war that were ongoing since the first Gulf War was supposedly halted.
And now for Larry's favorite question, have you ever bothered to read the Iraq War Resolution? Didn't think so or you would know why Congress authorized the President to use force.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Larry Gude said:
Actually, we are kind of at war with Canada. Our nuclear submarines routinely tresspass through their territorial waters under the ice cap, and the Canadians know it but can't prove it because the only way that the Canadians could ever confirm would be to send their own nuclear subs under the cap to track them... and they don't have any. And this is why the US refuses to export nuclear technology to Canada, and puts pressure on Great Britain to do the same.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
And THAT...
...speaks VOLUMES. They're more than happy to enjoy their geography and our friendship in terms of national defense.
For all the fussing, they still like big Brother.
...speaks VOLUMES. They're more than happy to enjoy their geography and our friendship in terms of national defense.
For all the fussing, they still like big Brother.
Racingwolf
New Member
vraiblonde said:RacingWolf? Where are you?
I find it interesting that Bush bashers come on here, drop a bomb, then refuse to participate in the discussion that ensues. Larry didn't even disagree with RacingWolf, he just asked a question and got a spew of anger and vitriol in return. Then they accuse "US REPUBLICANS" of attacking them.
Go figure.
That's because I have to work and only get to log on here every once in a while. Besides, what difference would it make if i came back. It's not like my opinion is going to make one bit of difference.
Give me a break about the "spew of anger" I have gotten enough of them in my little "power points" to prove that you all are just as bad!!! I can print some if you would like. You can see by my points what kind of "karma" I really got.
I have been a member of this forum for a few years now and I have noticed that there is no discussion between Democrats and Republicans and the only way to get anything out there is to just put in on a thread and come back later and see how bad you get bashed. This board is mainly Republicans and that is fine, but when you can't seem to see the major problems with our administration it is sad to me. I backed Bush 100% when he went into Afghanistan and I also thought he (intelligence) was telling the truth when he said that Iraq had all this WMD. The thing is, it wasnt true, and I now know that it never was. I am done with the lies and if you ask me, Bush is acting very strange and I find that disturbing.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Racingwolf said:
You've been a member for two years and only have 80 posts. It usually takes that many posts to get Vrai to give an inch of ground on any one subject, yet alone a multitude of them.
As I would hope the Dems on this forum would agree, there is plenty of agreement, disagreement, and agreements to disagree on this forum... but you have to make a case, an argument if you will, and it can't be talking points from the DNC.Since you mention the WMD issue, you are correct in stating that no WMDs were found, but you must also consider two other things: That it is an absolute fact that he did have WMDs, he just didn't have them when we got there. And second, WMDs were not the only reason that Bush stated we needed to take out Hussein. There were a lot of others, but the WMD argument got all the attention in the media.
It is not a Bush love-in to take into account ALL of the facts, rather than just the select few that make a hollow case. If you're going to try to press a point on this forum, you'll be free to do so (unlike places like DU), but you'ld better do your homework and know a lot more facts than you've shown in this case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
wolfie...
...I already know you will not engage in a discusion, you'd rather say that no will engage you.
I figure sure as hell you won't read the Iraq War Resolution. So, where does that leave us?
Iraq DID. Ask Hans Blix at the UN. Ask Bill Clinton. Aks France and Russia and Germany. Aks all the inspectors.
If you read the War resolution you will find a very simple premise:
Saddam has done bad.
He seems very likely to continue to do bad.
He has had WMD's in the past.
He interferes endlessly with proving that he has gotten rid of them.
He shows every indication of wanting to re-start or enlarge WMD programs and quite possibly sell or give things away.
At the end of the day, it seems obvious he will have to be dealt with again and again.
What say we deal with him now before he becomes as dangerous as he seems deternmined to?
What we proved by invading is that much of what he has is gone. But where? Syria? Iran? Destroyed?
In any event HE is out of business. You and those like you are bothered by that and I'd love for you to explain why.
...I already know you will not engage in a discusion, you'd rather say that no will engage you.
I figure sure as hell you won't read the Iraq War Resolution. So, where does that leave us?
Iraq DID. Ask Hans Blix at the UN. Ask Bill Clinton. Aks France and Russia and Germany. Aks all the inspectors.
If you read the War resolution you will find a very simple premise:
Saddam has done bad.
He seems very likely to continue to do bad.
He has had WMD's in the past.
He interferes endlessly with proving that he has gotten rid of them.
He shows every indication of wanting to re-start or enlarge WMD programs and quite possibly sell or give things away.
At the end of the day, it seems obvious he will have to be dealt with again and again.
What say we deal with him now before he becomes as dangerous as he seems deternmined to?
What we proved by invading is that much of what he has is gone. But where? Syria? Iran? Destroyed?
In any event HE is out of business. You and those like you are bothered by that and I'd love for you to explain why.
Doesn't stop the rest of usRacingwolf said:
That is completely untrue. Several Dems (or at least left-leaners) engage in debate and discussion on here all the time.
I think we can safely say that most of us have a problem with Bush - just not the same ones you're having.
Then you don't remember the 90's very well. We know he had them - he used them and it was all over the news. And while he may not have had a complete, ready-to-go nuclear weapon, he was working on the capability to have it. And we also know he stonewalled the UN inspectors for years - why would he do that if he didn't have anything to hide?
Don't take this as an attack, because it isn't meant to be one: where did you get the idea that Saddam had no WMD and never did? I'm curious because of what was going on when Clinton was President and made some very strong statements against Iraq, even dropped a bomb on Baghdad to get his point across. There also was a resolution that the Senate approved and Clinton signed that gave him power to use force if Saddam didn't straighten out. And, last but not least, Iraq has always been a safe harbor for terrorists. Saddam was very blatant about giving them money, technology, setting up training camps for them in Iraq.
So, after all this very public evidence of malfeasance, what makes you think that there was no reason to move on Iraq?
Racingwolf
New Member
Bruzilla said:You've been a member for two years and only have 80 posts. It usually takes that many posts to get Vrai to give an inch of ground on any one subject, yet alone a multitude of them.
Since you mention the WMD issue, you are correct in stating that no WMDs were found, but you must also consider two other things: That it is an absolute fact that he did have WMDs, he just didn't have them when we got there. And second, WMDs were not the only reason that Bush stated we needed to take out Hussein. There were a lot of others, but the WMD argument got all the attention in the media.
It is not a Bush love-in to take into account ALL of the facts, rather than just the select few that make a hollow case. If you're going to try to press a point on this forum, you'll be free to do so (unlike places like DU), but you'ld better do your homework and know a lot more facts than you've shown in this case.
I don't see you stating any facts in your "other reasons" for going to war. Please tell me these "other reasons". I am also not talking about the "other reasons" that were told to us after they found out they didnt have any WMD. Yes Iraq did have WMD at one time, and those were the ones that were destroyed after we went there the first time. I want to know were all of the WMD that Bush was talking about in his speeches.
What difference does my post count make anyway? Just becasue I have to work every day and not sit on here does not mean my opinions are not real. I suggest you not tell someone to "do their homework" till you decide to do yours. But then again, if you would "do your homework" then you might really see what is happening to our country and not have a blind eye when it comes to Bush!!!! I guess your happy with his pick for Supreme Court since he is gods gift to Republicans. You also must have plenty of money too since his tax cuts didnt do a damn thing for the working class. I sure hope you are not old, because by the time he finishes cutting all of the money out of medicare and other funds for old people, to bring down HIS deficit, you could be in trouble.
OH yeah, Haliburton just won 2 more contract today!!!!! thats 7 this year now!!! Looks like ole Cheney is going to be set for life!!!! And please don't tell me he doesnt get any money from Haliburton anymore because he does!!!
Are you high? Have you not read ANY of the threads on here pertaining to Bush and his Supreme Court picks?Racingwolf said:
Anyway, methinks you are simply a DU flamethrower who is not interested in facts or history or even reading other people's posts. Don't chug your Kool-Aid - you might choke and disturb your tinfoil hat.
Racingwolf
New Member
vraiblonde said:Doesn't stop the rest of us
That is completely untrue. Several Dems (or at least left-leaners) engage in debate and discussion on here all the time.
I think we can safely say that most of us have a problem with Bush - just not the same ones you're having.
Then you don't remember the 90's very well. We know he had them - he used them and it was all over the news. And while he may not have had a complete, ready-to-go nuclear weapon, he was working on the capability to have it. And we also know he stonewalled the UN inspectors for years - why would he do that if he didn't have anything to hide?
Don't take this as an attack, because it isn't meant to be one: where did you get the idea that Saddam had no WMD and never did? I'm curious because of what was going on when Clinton was President and made some very strong statements against Iraq, even dropped a bomb on Baghdad to get his point across. There also was a resolution that the Senate approved and Clinton signed that gave him power to use force if Saddam didn't straighten out. And, last but not least, Iraq has always been a safe harbor for terrorists. Saddam was very blatant about giving them money, technology, setting up training camps for them in Iraq.
So, after all this very public evidence of malfeasance, what makes you think that there was no reason to move on Iraq?
I remember the 90's very well and yes Iraq had them THEN. That's what the weapons inspectors got rid of after the first Gulf War!!
Do you think the women in Iraq have it better off now? They actually had more rights when Saddam was in power. Their "constitution" is going to make sure they have NOTHING, unless their men let them. They now have to wear Burkas(sp) where they didnt before.
There are more terrorist in Iraq now then there had ever been before!!! They never had Al Qaeda there till we went in. They even have women suicide bombers!! We have the BEST soldiers in the world and they have my utmost respect and I can't stand the fact that they are dying over there for a war that will not be won because we don't have enough of them to do the job!! Bush started something that he can't finish!!! Hell, even Colin Powell said he is disgusted with himself for going on TV and telling the American people a pack of lies. He said it was the "lowest point in his life". That goes to show you that he knew ahead of time that the intelligence was not based on facts.
Racingwolf
New Member
vraiblonde said:
See, this is what i am saying. I told you i dont get on here very often and you still have to spew hate!!! But that is ok, because I have already been told by others that you are a pain in the a**
I forgot that you know everything because you sit on here ALL DAY and have nothing else better to do with your time!!!! Maybe you should read the news yourself instead of reading the forums all day. Why don't you put your drink down and go to a different news site instead of FOX so you can hear some REAL news instead of Republican Biased news.
Hate? Where's that? People disagree with you and suspect your motives. They wonder why you make comments that can't possibly be grounded in anything written on here. That being the case, it can't be that you do any amount of reading here to make those claims.Racingwolf said:
Hence, the flamethrower remark. Back up what you say - with something other than ad hominem attacks - or deal with the label.
You *may* have been here long enough to know she *OWNS* this place, and makes a decent living from it. Why *shouldn't* she be here all day? Other schmucks have to take time OFF from their jobs to post - this IS her livelihood.Racingwolf said:
Get a clue.
Oh, and that's not "hate". That's *advice*. Heed it.