The origin of Bush's plan to remove Saddam

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron, can the proof needed for Impeachment be held to the same standards as the proof that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and subsequent death of thousands?

If the proof for Impeachment is enough to convince the Congress, it is good enough to convince the Congress.

Congress was convinced enough about WMD's to vote to allow the use of force based on the proof given to them at that time. If you have enough proof to convince them to Impeach, then it is good enough.

So the answer is yes. If you can convince Congress to Impeach, just as Congress voted to allow force, then it must be good enough.

So far, I have not seen any moves to try and Impeach the President in Congress.

So if you claim that the proof the Congress used to vote to allow force and send our troops into harms way was not good enough, then the evidence for the President's illegal activities must be *Really* shaky if they have not voted to Impeach him based on it.

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

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Lady: Are you the police?
Elwood: No ma'am, we're the musicians.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[SkyDekker 1,465]

so if some secretive association with a questionable past comes with supposed proof you would be okay with that?

I am not asking about congress, I am asking you.

[Zenister 0]

your use of fallacy detection needs some work, but it is a nice attempt to turn one of my favorite tactics against me, so you DO get two points, but you need more practice..

from your response i gather

1. you have no issues with soldiers dying for their leaders mistakes, nor should that leadership be held responsible.

2. you dont care if those same soldiers also happen to be your friends and family.

Quote

Quote

why was it necessary to go in when we did?

Off the top of my head the UN resolutions seem to come to mind.

strange how you continue to blast the UN and yet use their resolutions as a justification? If UN resolutions are reason enough, why did we not continue to follow THE UN's timelines?? The UN WAS doing their job... Saddam was clearly contained and no threat to anyone other that his own people, continued investigations proved exactly that, as they would have if they had been allowed to continue without US interference.....but of course that wasnt good enough for Bush...

which is it Ron, do they have any authority or not? you cant have it both ways...

Quote

Well at least you finaly admit you have no proof...Then why do you lie so much and so often?

actually i admitted nothing of the sort, nor have i lied once.

IF the standard of proof for impeachment were as flimsy as that used to invade, Bush would be long gone... but as I and those without blinders with the word "there is NO proof" strapped on are well aware, the criminal standard is MUCH more restrictive, and Bush and his 'advisors' would have never made it as far as they did politically if they did not well understand the principle of plausible deniability and know the means by which to enact their goals without leaving an evidence trail back to the top... besides they had their scapegaot anointed and ready all along...

"we had "bad intel"(tm)"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

so if some secretive association with a questionable past comes with supposed proof you would be okay with that?

No.

Quote

I am not asking about congress, I am asking you.

Ah, see part of my choices were made by the fact that Congress thought enough about the evidence to vote to use force. If Congress had said that there was not enough evidence, then I would have been skeptical.

But it didn't the House passed H.J. Res. 114, to authorize the use of force against Iraq by a vote of 296 to 133.

The Senate also held a vote, 77-23 in favor.

They had access to information I didn't, and you didn't.

So, if you have proof, please provide it...Like I said, if it is enough, I'll even support the Impeachment process.

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

[ViperPilot 0]

Zenister, you have never been on a battlefield, you never will be, because if saving innocent lives is not justification for you, then nothing is. My buddies and I do NOT risk our lives on the "flimsiest of evidence," we risk our lives on the fact that we're saving lives, and making this world a safer place, one bit at a time. Yeah, it's tough going, yeah friends have died, and I would do anything to get them back. But the point is, they understand something you don't seem to; sacrifice for the people, the ones who can't defend themselves. Your little feud with Ron basically tells me you don't care about the Iraqi people simply because it doesn't directly benefit you. Well, how bout watching a masked man slice a little girl's head off with a machete, just because he could? Should I and my friends not stop that man, should America stand by as this kind of shit happens repeatedly to innocent civilians? Gitmo is not the Gulag of our time, Saddam's Iraq WAS the Gulag of our time. We had to stop a murderer, whether he directly or indirectly contributed to this murder. I'm sick of the WMD bullshit, drop it and realize that when a soldier runs into a stream of bullets to grab an 8 yr old boy off the open street, he IS DOING THE RIGHT THING. Did he know him, hell no, but he did save his life just because it was the right thing to do. The right thing is not always popular or nice and pretty, but it has to be done. Our jobs are not to die, but to give our all to save the helpless. Don't ever try to tell me that I'm doing what I do for no reason, for some stupid politician...yeah I think things could be done better sometimes, but the overall mission is just.

Sorry for the long rant, just sometimes I get mad when people tell me my job is to die and I do it for no reason. Well, hope all of you sleep well tonight, because thousands of innocent Iraqi certainly won't. But then again, that's not your problem, is it?

[Ron 10]

Quote

your use of fallacy detection needs some work, but it is a nice attempt to turn one of my favorite tactics against me, so you DO get two points, but you need more practice..

You make it easy when you are so transparent.

Quote

from your response i gather

1. you have no issues with soldiers dying for their leaders mistakes, nor should that leadership be held responsible.

2. you dont care if those same soldiers also happen to be your friends and family

More pleading to emotion....Very lame, the kind of things 3rd graders use.

Quote

strange how you continue to blast the UN and yet use their resolutions as a justification?

Not really. A person can point out a problem, but do nothing to solve it. Kinda like you claiming to know more than the entire Congress, but not providing any evidence.

Quote

If UN resolutions are reason enough, why did we not continue to follow THE UN's timelines??

The original ones, or the new ones they kept making when the old one blew by?

Quote

The UN WAS doing their job... Saddam was clearly contained and no threat to anyone other that his own people, continued investigations proved exactly that, as they would have if they had been allowed to continue without US interference.....but of course that wasnt good enough for Bush...

The UN was not doing its job. If it was so clear he was not a threat then Both the House, Senate, and the UN would not have voted saying Saddam did have WMD's.

The Senate 77-23, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

Senate Leader Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."

Wow so many fools?

Quote

which is it Ron, do they have any authority or not? you cant have it both ways...

You confuse things don't ya?

The UN has no authority. It fails time after time to do what it claims to do.

I would LOVE it if the UN did what it claims it can do....Darfur is a perfect example.

The UN, House, and Senate all voted and all thought Saddam had WMD's....I guess you know better than all of them?

BTW just because you didn't think he did does not mean you knew better....If I claim a 50/50 coin toss it does not mean I know more than the loser.

Quote

IF the standard of proof for impeachment were as flimsy as that used to invade, Bush would be long gone...

Well, it was enough to make most of Congress think it true....Oh and the UN.

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Zenister, you have never been on a battlefield,

ignorance is bliss isnt it.

you risk your lives because you are told to, no more, no less...

you should have never been told to in this instance... did you oath include loyalty to the Iraqi people?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[flifree 0]

great points ron. i have had the same argument/discussion with a co-worker and it's difficult to talk with someone who doesn't deal on the field of issues....he's not making any cogent points backed up by facts. all he can deal in is emotions and personal attacks....an all too common liberal ploy....avoiding the issues by using emotion to sway the uninformed. it's funny, but when you slam the door on people like this guy the insults and attacks get more fervent as they move further away from the issues. don't let him lure you on to his field. this is fun to watch and i salute you b/c you have patience beyond what i have ever had.

[Ron 10]

Quote

you risk your lives because you are told to, no more, no less...

Wow, way to down play the sacrifices of the men and women who wear the uniform.

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


so if some secretive association with a questionable past comes with supposed proof you would be okay with that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No.

Funny, you are okay with it when it costs a couple of thousand people their lives......

[Ron 10]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


so if some secretive association with a questionable past comes with supposed proof you would be okay with that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Funny, you are okay with it when it costs a couple of thousand people their lives......

Whats funny is you ignored the rest of the post.

Like I said before, get all your evidence together and give it to Congress. If they think its good enough they will start the Impeachment process. If I get to see the evidence and it is compelling, then I will join you and ask for the Impeachment.

So far you have done nothing but claim to know more than the UN, 296 members of the House, and 77 Members of the Senate. All the time not providing one shread of evidence.

What are you using to get your info? Tarrot cards? Tea leaves?

Its put up time. Show your proof, or stop bothering me with your pleas using only emotion.

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What are you using to get your info? Tarrot cards? Tea leaves?

Its put up time. Show your proof, or stop bothering me with your pleas using only emotion.

It is just very funny you did not hold your beloved president to the same standard.....Seems like emotion was involved more than thinking in that decision....but who cares about a couple of thousand lives right Ron.....

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

you risk your lives because you are told to, no more, no less...

Wow, way to down play the sacrifices of the men and women who wear the uniform.

not at all, it is a soldiers job to follow orders. you may become a soldier for a wide variety of personal reasons, but when told to charge the machine gun nest (and likely die doing so) you do it because you were ordered to... if you dont you shouldnt be a soldier in the first place.....

soliders follow orders, politicians give them...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

issue?

ok lets line them up.

not one, but three seperate sources all point to Bush having a predilection to Regime change, BEFORE his election, BEFORE 9/11 and BEFORE the final results of the weapon inspectors..

he just needed an excuse the American public would accept... "bad Intel" became that excuse..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[wmw999 2,574]

Field of issues.
OK.
What was the war about? I think the issue is that for nearly everything that the war is supposedly about (not that there's any single reason, obviously), there is a countering reason that is quite strong.

WMD? Lots of intel said they weren't there. Yes, there was intel that said it was, but there was more that said it wasn't. And, well, they probably weren't.

Disobeying UN resolutions? a. That's the UN's problem. b. going to war over it is probably overkill.

Brutality? There have been more brutal, more vicious leaders whom we haven't attacked. It can't be that alone, or we stand the possibility of being inconsistent.

Link to AlQaeda? There don't appear to be any significant links from before 9/11. I'm sure there are some, but not a lot.

The President's decision so we stand by it? As a voter, I don't think that's enough to go to war without more reasons. My right, as a voter. I don't like that judgement, and that's also my right.

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)

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

You risk your lives because you are told to, no more, no less...

you should have never been told to in this instance... did you oath include loyalty to the Iraqi people?

I risk my life because I choose to. Yes I'm given orders, but I wouldn't be in that position in the first place had I not CHOSEN to do so. Apparently I never should have been told to rescue innocent people and promote freedom. The oath and values I live by promote helping those that can't help themselves and spreading freedom throughout the world. And that's what I'm doing. It's not about loyalty to the Iraqi people, it's about helping them because most can't help themselves. Doing the right thing does not necessarily equal undying loyalty. I'm loyal to my job, and my job right now is to help the less fortunate. Why is it wrong for me to do this? Why is it so easy for you to sentence Iraqi people to death? Because if we weren't there, then guess what, the death toll would be far higher and that basically amounts to the world sentencing innocent people to die. For me, sitting in an office, at home on the couch watching the news, or whatever, is not would I should be doing when so many have it so much worse. You try living in a country where your friends and family are killed and mamed constantly. Would you just say, "that's ok world, my family and I aren't worth anything anyways. It's ok for you to just sit back and watch us die, don't worry about it." Why is it so hard for people to understand that it's a good thing to help others even if it doesn't directly benefit you? Anyways, get back to your nice, safe life...hope you enjoy it, because thousands around the world aren't. But that's fine by you, right?

[Ron 10]

Quote

It is just very funny you did not hold your beloved president to the same standard.....Seems like emotion was involved more than thinking in that decision....but who cares about a couple of thousand lives right Ron.....

Try facts, not emotion. Crying to me does not work, and it seems you can't back anything up with evidence.

As for evidnece ot go...The UN and Congress saw enough to vote to use force.

Go fish.

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Try facts, not emotion. Crying to me does not work, and it seems you can't back anything up with evidence

I am not crying at all, am happy my country was smart enough to send our troops into Iraq to get Bush's jollies off......

would those be the same kinds of facts Bush used.....

[flifree 0]

Quote

WMD? Lots of intel said they weren't there. Yes, there was intel that said it was, but there was more that said it wasn't. And, well, they probably weren't.

well, we know he used them on his own people after the gulf war. with the UN giving him 11 years to hide them sufficiently we will never know for sure.

Disobeying UN resolutions? a. That's the UN's problem. b. going to war over it is probably overkill.

Quote

given the UN's scandal over doing business with saddam(oil for food) while at the same time trying to enforce policy on him....i don't put much stock in the international glee club that is the UN. no one in the UN will be happy until they have control of our armed forces and the US is fighting under a UN flag.

***Brutality? There have been more brutal, more vicious leaders whom we haven't attacked. It can't be that alone, or we stand the possibility of being inconsistent.

who for example that were/are a direct threat to the united states?

Quote

Link to AlQaeda? There don't appear to be any significant links from before 9/11. I'm sure there are some, but not a lot.

i wasn't aware there needed to be a certain number of links to justify. one is all i need to see. i bet if i had asked you how many links to al qaeda do you need to see for us to invade iraq on 9/11 you would have said 1, but that is merely speculation.

The President's decision so we stand by it? As a voter, I don't think that's enough to go to war without more reasons. My right, as a voter. I don't like that judgement, and that's also my right.***

and as a registered voter Wendy that is well within your rights to vote the other way.
Wendy W.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The President's decision so we stand by it? As a voter, I don't think that's enough to go to war without more reasons. My right, as a voter. I don't like that judgement, and that's also my right.

No, but we are in now so there is not much else to do.

The UN, and both the House and Senate thought there was enough evidence to go....I am betting that they had more access to information than you or I. If you think they were wrong..Punish them. Vote them out at the first chance you get. If you can find evidence of illegal activities, press charges.

So far no one has shown any proof of illegal activities, but they claim it all the time.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

I am not crying at all, am happy my country was smart enough to send our troops into Iraq to get Bush's jollies off......

would those be the same kinds of facts Bush used.....

Hell, for some facts almost anything would do...But you have yet to prove anything better than emotional cries, or quotes taken out of context.

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hell, for some facts almost anything would do...

exactly, like facts needed to invade a country......

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The UN WAS doing their job... Saddam was clearly contained and no threat to anyone other that his own people, continued investigations proved exactly that,

Among other things, Saddam continued to send money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and had increased the bounty. Yeah, he was well contained all right, with absolutely no links to terrorist activity.

This notion of criminal court standards of evidence is a bit funny to me. Foreign policy does not follow such standards. Never has, only will for countries too weak to have any other options.

As for impeachment - get real. LBJ made up the Gulf of Tonkin incident and 50,000 soldiers died as a result. Had he ran in 68, would the voters have still picked Nixon as a vote of no confidence? Dunno, but they certainly weren't about to impeach him.

[wmw999 2,574]

Quote

No, but we are in now so there is not much else to do.

I agree with you there. We have to go forward from where we are, not from where each of us wishes we were.

Quote

The UN, and both the House and Senate thought there was enough evidence to go....I am betting that they had more access to information than you or I. If you think they were wrong..Punish them. Vote them out at the first chance you get. If you can find evidence of illegal activities, press charges

They're mostly elected officials who will lose their job if they piss off enough people. When you play the patriotism/loyalty card 1 1/2 years after an attack on the US very few public servants will have the cojones to vote as they really say.

Not to mention, of course, that the resolution was to authorize the President's use of force. Not to go to war straight away. There's a big difference. Policemen have authorizations to shoot civilians. They're expected to show a lot of judgement in picking civilians to shoot. And different people have different standards for their police.

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)