pajarito 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteI'm surprised you didn't say "He voted for it before he voted against it."
Didn't have to. You did. Good luck with your choice of persons with character and backbone for your Commander-in-chief.
Character and backbone don't mean shit if it leads to gross incompetence. Most tyrants have character and backbone, I wouldn't want them leading the country based on that alone.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteI think you missed my point - I am saying that it was NOT hindsight as the MAJORITY of the security council was against war - BEFORE and not AFTER the fact.
I know you're from England but I'll bet you're all for that "Global Test" of Kerry's that you must meet before you can take measures to protect your country.
What threat did Iraq pose to the US? NONE. Totally bogus, shameful argument.
Britain grew out of being the neighborhood bully about 80 years ago. About time the US learned the lessons of history.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pajarito 0
QuoteMost everyone in the US was NOT on board. You just talk to people that think like you.
Here is what some of us were saying before the war.
I know you'd probably like to be included in national security decisions of that magnitude but you aren't. Those that do were elected into office to represent you and they decided otherwise. I say again…the guy you’re going to elect into office voted for the war. Like ChasingBlueSky said, he then voted against it. You’re going to try and elect and pretty level headed guy into office there Kallend.
QuoteQuoteWhat is your point again?
If you missed it you won't ever get it...
Go back and re read what I posted. You ask why don't I say something about it? I do, all the time. And I am proactive in trying to make a change.
I also try to help those that are unemployed get jobs......alot more than I can say about Bush.
There was no point.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
pajarito 0
QuoteCharacter and backbone don't mean shit if it leads to gross incompetence. Most tyrants have character and backbone, I wouldn't want them leading the country based on that alone.
Gross incompetence is yet another greatly exaggerated term you guys are using to describe a decision that was agreed upon by both sides including the intelligence community here and abroad. I think it shows panic.
wmw999 2,587
Quotethe guy you’re going to elect into office voted for the war
He voted to authorize the use of force. He didn't vote to use force. It's kind of like the difference between buying a gun, and using it.
There were quite a few speeches made about that time suggesting that force was the last resort, not the next one.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
nigel99 616
If it was a threat to the US then no you don't need international consencus. But even the "prohibited" weapons that Saddam was developing only had a 100km (60 mile) range which mean't that they could POSSIBLY reach bases in Cypress but not much else.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
pajarito 0
QuoteUmmm - almost everyone except Bush and Cheney now admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just another lame attempt at distraction.
Someone as intelligent as you must be, professor, has got to recognize that international terrorism is not limited to what happened on 9-11. Do you think that one attack against one terrorist in retaliation for what happened here is going to protect us in the future? I don't.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteMost everyone in the US was NOT on board. You just talk to people that think like you.
Here is what some of us were saying before the war.
I know you'd probably like to be included in national security decisions of that magnitude but you aren't. Those that do were elected into office to represent you and they decided otherwise. I say again…the guy you’re going to elect into office voted for the war. Like ChasingBlueSky said, he then voted against it. You’re going to try and elect and pretty level headed guy into office there Kallend.
Supposing you are referring to Kerry, he did NOT vote for going to war BEFORE the weapons inspectors had finished their job. He did NOT vote to ask UNMOVIC to leave Iraq before its job was done so the US could hastily invade. That was a poor foreign policy decision by Bush alone.
BTW, since it turns out that I was correct and Bush was wrong wrong WRONG, maybe he should consult me
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pajarito 0
QuoteSo, what is worse? A CIC that sends troops to their death for petty, personal reasons (he tried to kill my pappa!) Or someone that hesitates before sending them to their death?
You have no proof of that assertion. Sounds like just more "Bush Bashing" hatred.
nigel99 616
I would say that Bush has showed "gross incompetence" on the world stage.
I would argue that he has made the world a more dangerous place for the average US citizen. He has just about single handedly undermined and weakened international diplomacy - who knows when those attributes may be needed to avert a major crisis in the future?
I would argue that he has made the world a more dangerous place for the average US citizen. He has just about single handedly undermined and weakened international diplomacy - who knows when those attributes may be needed to avert a major crisis in the future?
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
pajarito 0
QuoteWhat threat did Iraq pose to the US? NONE. Totally bogus, shameful argument.
You don't know that. How on earth would you? Those that had the info concerning this, including Kerry, decided otherwise.
QuoteBritain grew out of being the neighborhood bully about 80 years ago. About time the US learned the lessons of history.
Nice patriotic view you have of your own country. "Totally shameful."
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
kallend 2,147
QuoteI would say that Bush has showed "gross incompetence" on the world stage.
I would argue that he has made the world a more dangerous place for the average US citizen. He has just about single handedly undermined and weakened international diplomacy - who knows when those attributes may be needed to avert a major crisis in the future?
You flatter him, I don't think he's that good.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteI know you'd probably like to be included in national security decisions of that magnitude but you aren't. Those that do were elected into office to represent you and they decided otherwise.
And fired or drove out everyone in the administration who disagreed with them.
QuoteI say again…the guy you’re going to elect into office voted for the war.
Like I said, no matter how many times you say that, it doesn't make it true.
Tell me what bill he voted for that was a vote for war?
rhino 0
WMD report: U.N. let Iraq subvert sanctions
This thing is being blown open... You guys haven't seen the start of it yet...
This thing is being blown open... You guys haven't seen the start of it yet...
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteWhat threat did Iraq pose to the US? NONE. Totally bogus, shameful argument.
You don't know that. How on earth would you? Those that had the info concerning this, including Kerry, decided otherwise.QuoteBritain grew out of being the neighborhood bully about 80 years ago. About time the US learned the lessons of history.
Nice patriotic view you have of your own country. "Totally shameful."
This administration is totally shameful and a disgrace to the USA.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jdhill 0
QuoteHe voted to authorize the use of force. He didn't vote to use force
When Kerry voted against the authorization to use force for the 1st gulf war, he claimed it was because he knew it was a vote to go to war... even though it was "authorization" the same as the one in 2003 was... So if he knew in 1990 that a vote for authorization was a vote for use, but he didn't know that in 2003, what does that make him? Forgetful?
No matter how many time you folks say he only voted for an authorization, he knew it meant use... You never pull a gun unless you are willing to pull the trigger.
J
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
kallend 2,147
QuoteWMD report: U.N. let Iraq subvert sanctions
This thing is being blown open... You guys haven't seen the start of it yet...
Clicky no worky.
You might go back a year and see how many false reports you posted in 2003, before you assume that links you post (assuming they work) have any credibility.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteYou don't know that. How on earth would you? Those that had the info concerning this, including Kerry, decided otherwise.
No, they didn't. That's completely false. Some thought war was the answer, most didn't, including Kerry. Bush ignored all other options. Practially every official that has left his administration has stated that their conclusions were that war in Iraq was the wrong choice, that there wasn't evidence to conclude they were a threat, and the reason they left the administration is because those conclusions were ignored.
pajarito 0
QuoteHe voted to authorize the use of force. He didn't vote to use force. It's kind of like the difference between buying a gun, and using it.
If I, as an SF team leader, authorize my troops to use deadly force because the situation is such that we all agree it is required, I am also responsible for them acting on that authorization. If they use deadly force, I can't then come back, point my finger at them, and say it's all their fault. Unless, they break the rules of war. I don't think the President has been found to have done that in regard to using the authorization that was given him. I think it is shameful to try and hang him over what even John Kerry himself said was necessary.
QuoteThere were quite a few speeches made about that time suggesting that force was the last resort, not the next one.
It is the last resort. I think 12 years to comply was adequate. I think any reasonable person would.
QuoteWhen Kerry voted against the authorization to use force for the 1st gulf war, he claimed it was because he knew it was a vote to go to war... even though it was "authorization" the same as the one in 2003 was... So if he knew in 1990 that a vote for authorization was a vote for use, but he didn't know that in 2003, what does that make him? Forgetful?
It makes him someone who looks at 2 completely different situations and views them differently.
nigel99 616
The USA is a major and dominant player in the UN - are you saying that your government colluded in this?
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
I know you're from England but I'll bet you're all for that "Global Test" of Kerry's that you must meet before you can take measures to protect your country.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites