SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    You do understand that offering opinions is different from finding guilt or innocence?
  2. SkyDekker
    Yeah, but these are different timetables. See these tables don't tell time, they....uhm....give a time...yeah that's it....give a time....that is materially different and nothing like what those pesky democrats suggested a while ago....
  3. SkyDekker
    true, but if that is truly how it happened than the Agents were less than honest.
  4. SkyDekker
    True, I think they just reserve that for actual political opponents
  5. SkyDekker
    It is kind of funny...but why yell, I would think they already got their point across by showing up....
  6. SkyDekker
    I agree that the President was authorized to do that. With the two main (though I would argue there really is only one main goal, since the UN resolution was is a bit of a hoax) goals. In my eyes, the main goal was to defend the national security of the United States. Regime change in Iraq was a strategy towards that main goal, and therefor wasn't the main goal itself. That was my argument with Gravitymaster. he stated regime change was the main goal, I argued that it was a strategy towards the main goal of defending the Homeland. I still hold that I am right and GM is wrong.
  7. SkyDekker
    Were they designated as a democratic opposition party?
  8. SkyDekker
    Cool....you did read what the president was allowed to do to accomplish that, didn't you? Like this part: To simplify it: He was allowed to help assist defined democratic opposition parties in Iraq. Not allowed to go in and do it himself....
  9. SkyDekker
    Public Law 105-235 states: That doesn't say, change the regime. Non of the "international obligations" involved regime change. So, we are back to the actual authroization as I quoted above. The president was authorized to enforce UN resolutions (which was a bit of a joke since they don't enforce the resolutions against Israel) which leaves one main reason, to protect the Homeland. Certainly no authorization to go into Iraq with the goal of regime change (which would also be illegal under international law). (as a complete side note, I find it funny that Gravitymaster has gone completely silent on this)
  10. SkyDekker
    I said you were there for regime change? Actually it was Gravitymaster that said that. this was the authorization given to the president: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Don't see anything there with regards to regime change. So, if that was the main goal (as GM stated) the president is clearly in breach of that authorization.
  11. SkyDekker
    no, not really, but you are more than welcome to go look for yourself.
  12. SkyDekker
    The bill your government voted on that allowed Bush to use force to defend the homeland. They did not vote on whether or not he was allowed to go into Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change. They voted for the use of force to protect the homeland. If that wasn't the goal from the beginning then they were obviously misled by Bush. There is also the small item of the State of the Union speech....
  13. SkyDekker
    Works okay on my blackberry, specially the PM function when in the middle of a heated exchange.....
  14. SkyDekker
    If that is the case, Bush has to be arrested and charged. He was only allowed a pre-emptive strike to protect the homeland. Hence, the goal was to keep the US safe. Removing Saddam was a stated strategy towards that goal.
  15. SkyDekker
    The goal was to prevent a mushroom cloud from appearing over the US. Sadly enough Iraq never posed that threat.
  16. SkyDekker
    They obviously all need to be shot in the ass
  17. SkyDekker
    libel
  18. SkyDekker
    (((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))) >>>>>>>>>> Boobies.
  19. SkyDekker
    That is a fact prior to having kids. That is not something that changes...unlike women once they say I do.
  20. SkyDekker
    yup, all personel normally stationed with those US units. Afghanistan is the exception. But then Afghanistan actually makes sense. Unfortunately the US focused most of their energy on their president's ego driven war...
  21. SkyDekker
    I am surprised nobody has matched up blue, red and the ranking....
  22. SkyDekker
    pre-nup
  23. SkyDekker
    Canada never sent any tropps to Iraq II. The only Canadian troops ever to fight in Iraq II were those already stationed in the US military. Hence, Canada never withdrew any troops from Iraq II.
  24. SkyDekker
    I know why. Nobody has the answer. Pretty scary when thousands die and nobody knows what for. Well, they only know that their fearless leader told them to....now where did I hear that before?
  25. SkyDekker
    It states pretty clearly that it was based on CNN translations. Didn't you get that on your pro-bush-no-matter-what talking points email? Cause, obviously your reactions aren't based on the actual text of the article....