Are we becoming what we are supposedly fighting against

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And they should not have voted for it if they did not want it.

They didn't. No matter how many times you say they did.

[Ron 10]

Quote

They didn't. No matter how many times you say they did.

And they did vote for it. No matter how much you say it was not....It was.

If they were against it, they should have said something then.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And they did vote for it. No matter how much you say it was not....It was.

Would you be so kind as to post the bit of legislation that shows Congress directed Shrub to use military force in Iraq in 2003?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ron 10]

Quote

But not to go to war.

Force meaning killing people.

Quote

Do you agree that the US is not at war?

I think we are fighting a war. We never declared it but people are still dying.

Its a war.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Would you be so kind as to post the bit of legislation that shows Congress directed Shrub to use military force in Iraq in 2003?

Congress voted to use force.

Im not willing to do more work on this.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Its a war.

Then the war has to be illegal, since no official declaration of war took place.

You are either not at war, or are fighting an illegal war.

[rehmwa 2]

Didn't the declaration (war or 'peace keeping' action or whatever) take place 12 years or so ago?

Why isn't it clear that most in Congress were too pansy-assed to make a real declaration one way or the other and ditched it off to the Executive branch?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Why isn't it clear that most in Congress were too pansy-assed to make a real declaration one way or the other and ditched it off to the Executive branch?

Why isn't it clear that Bush was to pansy-assed to ask for a resolution that specifically allowed war?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Why isn't it clear that most in Congress were too pansy-assed to make a real declaration one way or the other and ditched it off to the Executive branch?

Why isn't it clear that Bush was to pansy-assed to ask for a resolution that specifically allowed war?

AGREED - or at least forced Congress to lay it out clearly. A stronger leader would not have accepted such a weak phrasing of such a critical response (unless the delay to get a real answer would have rendered it all pointless). But whether you agree or not, at least he took an action instead of dodging the responsibility.

Edit: when someone on my team is to wishy washy to give a clear answer, I usually replace them eventually and have to make the decisions for them until I do. Bush can't replace members of Congress for lack of balls. But we can.

Edit 2: And this was the "best" we could get out of Congress at the time (9/11, world support, public support). Isn't that sad?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Edit 2: And this was the "best" we could get out of Congress at the time (9/11, world support, public support). Isn't that sad?

Or it shows that Congress specifically did not want to go to war, but did not publicly want to state that since it would show dissent to SH.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>How many more years of delay would've done it for you?

How many wars did it take to render one of the greatest threats to the US in the 60's (Cuba) impotent? Which war did we defeat the USSR in?

When hammers are your favorite tool, all problems look like nails. Good diplomats can use more than one tool (i.e. war) to solve problems.

I appreciate your perspective, however, I want to point out that we probably would've ended up at war over both the missle crisis and the "evil empire" threat had not the soviets backed down in both scenarios.

Hussein had many chances to back down during the lengthy diplomatic phase of our campaign, but declined them all.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Hussein had many chances to back down during the lengthy diplomatic phase of our campaign, but declined them all.

What exactly was he supposed to back down from? He didn't have WMD, and certainly couldn't have launched weapons (he didn't have) inside of 45 minutes.

If my history class was correct, USSR actually had missiles in Cuba. There was an actual threat. JFK stood up to that threat. What threat is Shrub standing up to?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

What exactly was he supposed to back down from? He didn't have WMD, and certainly couldn't have launched weapons (he didn't have) inside of 45 minutes.

Don't tempt me to yet again post the LENGTHY list of prominent US democrats and world leaders who, along with Bush, believed Hussein was armed and dangerous at the time, and needed to be removed.

This is a tired, worn out old armchair quarterback argument on your part, and I don't want to mash through it any more.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,120]

>Hussein had many chances to back down during the lengthy
>diplomatic phase of our campaign, but declined them all.

He did back down. He allowed inspectors in to everywhere they asked to go. He declared he had no WMD's, which turned out to be true. We wanted a war, and thus ignored this.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

He did back down. He allowed inspectors in to everywhere they asked to go. He declared he had no WMD's, which turned out to be true.

Hussein jerked the inspectors and the whole world around for 10 years, including kicking the inspectors out for a few years. It wasn't all sweetness 'n light with Hussein as you seem to portray. Essentially, he thumbed his nose at the US and world every day for years.

I'd like to understand how you know factually that Hussein didn't have WMDs before the invasion, back when he said he didn't have them. I believe he had plenty of time to ship them out or destroy them once he knew the gig was up -- I'd like to hear why you dismiss this as a possibility.

Quote

We wanted a war, and thus ignored this.

This is one point I'll not argue, though we might disagree on the Bush administration's motives. Oil? No. Haliburton? Hardly.

Based on the intel, I think Bush was convinced that we needed to invade Iraq for far more noble reasons, and only Hussein's unconditional resignation would've stopped it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jcd11235 0]

Funny how the Whitehouse said at the beginning of Shrub's adminastration that Iraq did not have WMD and was not a threat to the United States. And in September of 2003, Bush said "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm)

Just because the right still can't asnswer old questions does not illegitimize those questions.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Funny how the Whitehouse said at the beginning of Shrub's adminastration that Iraq did not have WMD and was not a threat to the United States. And in September of 2003, Bush said "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."

Still waiting for something a bit more credible than Michael Moore for info about Bush claiming Saddam didn't have WMDs.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,120]

>Hussein jerked the inspectors and the whole world around for 10 years . .

Agreed. Then we threatened him and he backed down.

>I'd like to understand how you know factually that Hussein didn't
>have WMDs before the invasion, back when he said he didn't have
>them.

Because UN inspectors are much better than you or I at looking for evidence, and in six months of inspections they found nothing. Now, you may be a better inspector than the inspectors there, and you may have spent more time in Iraq than them. But if you haven't, your claim that you think he had WMD's doesn't carry much weight.

> I believe he had plenty of time to ship them out or destroy
> them once he knew the gig was up -- I'd like to hear why you
> dismiss this as a possibility.

Not at all; indeed, he well may have destroyed them (or more likely just allowed them to deteriorate) at some point during the many years of US bombings. If you believe that, then our threat worked. He backed down.

Imagine where we would be today if JFK had invaded the USSR because they could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no missiles in Cuba.

>Oil? No.

I think it is just as silly to believe the war was "all about oil" as to believe that oil had absolutely nothing to do with the war. It was one of the many factors that led to us wanting regime change in Iraq. Indeed, PNAC lists it as a reason to do so; it recommends military action to safeguard "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil."

>I think Bush was convinced that we needed to invade Iraq for far
> more noble reasons, and only Hussein's unconditional resignation
> would've stopped it.

I think 90% of why he wanted to invade Iraq was contained in the PNAC document, which in turn lists stability of oil supplies as one important goal of the US. I agree that no amount of evidence of disarmament would have stopped Bush from invading.

[jcd11235 0]

Just because Moore used the footage does not void its credibility. Colon Powell on film at a white house podium is pretty damn credible, if you ask me. And I wouldn't expect Fox News to set aside their bias long enough to illuminate Shrub's flip-flop.

Watch the film before you attack the credibility of its individual parts, or it's whole.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[akarunway 1]

Essentially, he thumbed his nose at the US and world every day for years..----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the US doesn't do the same thing. What makes us so much better than the rest of the world?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Because UN inspectors are much better than you or I at looking for evidence, and in six months of inspections they found nothing. Now, you may be a better inspector than the inspectors there, and you may have spent more time in Iraq than them. But if you haven't, your claim that you think he had WMD's doesn't carry much weight.

I may not be a very good inspector, but I'm smart enough to realize how easy it would've been to hide/shift a few warehouses full of chemicals in a country the size of California to avoid detection by the inspection teams.

As late as a couple months before the invasion, Blix was complaining and warning about a lack of cooperation from the Iraqis, and that they "faced war" if things didn't change. The inspections were a cat and mouse game, right to the end. If there was nothing to hide, why the games? The REAL inspections were conducted by US troops during the initial occupation, but by then it was of course too late.

Quote

I think it is just as silly to believe the war was "all about oil" as to believe that oil had absolutely nothing to do with the war. It was one of the many factors that led to us wanting regime change in Iraq. Indeed, PNAC lists it as a reason to do so; it recommends military action to safeguard "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil."

Agree 100%.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Just because Moore used the footage does not void its credibility. Colon Powell on film at a white house podium is pretty damn credible, if you ask me. And I wouldn't expect Fox News to set aside their bias long enough to illuminate Shrub's flip-flop.

Nothing besides Moore still?

. . =(_8^(1)

[jcd11235 0]

If you can give me a valid reason why the clip is not credible just because moore used it, then I will find you a different source for the clip. Of course, it would be the same clip, saying the same thing, from the same White House adminastration, so what would be the point? If you just don't want to believe the evidence of the Whitehouse being caught in a lie, there is little that can be done to help.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

What makes us so much better than the rest of the world?

The US is made up of human beings, and therefore is a mixture of good, bad, and ugly.

The biggest positive we have here is that our systems of government and economy do a lot to lessen (but certainly not eliminate) the power of men to be inhumane to other men, and enhance the production of innovation and creativity.

Beyond that, we're primarily a nation of selfish assholes, much like the rest of the world.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Michele 1]

Quote

If you can give me a valid reason why the clip is not credible just because moore used it, then I will find you a different source for the clip.

Michael Moore is a very creative editor. iThis would not be the first time he edited a speech to make it say something it didn't...

Is there another source? I'd suggest you find it, and link it. That way, this argument can be put to rest.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~