55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 09:45 am
@Foxfyre,
There is not a single claim or suggestion above which is free of your ideological presumptions, foxfyre. I'm afraid that I concluded a long while ago that unless you are struck by a bolt of lightening which facilitates a new framework of thought that conversation with you on these matters is of no good purpose at all.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 09:49 am
@blatham,
And yet you, the vision and shining example of fair, open minded, unbiased nonpartisanship, continue to make conversation while explaining to me that I am too inferior to be worthy of your exalted consideration. Ah well. Takes all kinds to make the world go round somebody used to tell me.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 09:50 am
@ican711nm,
4TH AMENDMENT OF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF HEALTHCARE MEDICAL INSURANCE
(1) Tax each and every dollar of personal gross income the same amount.
(2) Allow each tax payer to deduct directly from their total computed tax on their annual personal gross incomes, 90% of the annual cost of their private medical insurance upto 30% of their total computed tax.
(3) Allow each taxpayer for whom 30% of their computed tax on their personal gross income exceeds the cost of the purchase of their private medical insurance, to deduct upto that excess what they donate to the purchase of the private medical insurance of others.
(4) The shall be no federal taxes on businesses. or property beguests.
(5) There shall be no dollars exempted from personal gross income, and there shall be no other deductions than those to pay for healthcare.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 09:51 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Your use of "unkind" charged against anybody else is lost on you.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 10:19 am
@JTT,
JTT, you believe a lot of bunk!

The article you posted about Iraq deaths is FALSE!
Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Documented civilian deaths from violence

92,519 " 101,006

Deaths per day from suicide attacks and vehicle bombs (now includes non-vehicle suicide attacks)

Deaths per day from gunfire / executions
...
Monthly table

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Jan 3 568 1035 1430 2806 743 276
Feb 2 604 1201 1449 2536 1008 343
Mar 3976 957 786 1789 2614 1538 416
Apr 3437 1256 1025 1590 2436 1261 484
May 545 619 1226 2103 2769 760 332
Jun 593 833 1215 2426 2108 670 135
Jul 650 762 1444 3159 2568 584
Aug 790 823 2165 2743 2333 592
Sep 553 943 1330 2408 1221 535
Oct 493 947 1201 2924 1185 528
Nov 478 1533 1208 2969 1043 473
Dec 529 906 996 2662 903 522
12,049 10,751 14,832 27,652 24,522 9,214 1,986

Less than 15% of these Iraqi deaths were caused by USA military actions.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 10:27 am
@JTT,
JTT, The article you posted about USA reasons for invading Iraq is false.
The USA had 13 sufficient reasons for invading Iraq.

Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false. The true reasons are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq. The false reasons are therefore irrelevant.

All 23 of the reasons are numbered by me in brackets. The 13 reasons subsequently proven true are: 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. The 10 reasons subsequently proven false in one or more respects are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19.

Please note, that underlined reasons 10 and 11 are each independently sufficient and independently proven reasons for invading Iraq.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

[1:TRUE] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

[2: TRUE] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

[3: FALSE] Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

[4: FALSE] Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

[5: FALSE] Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

[6: FALSE] Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[7: TRUE] Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[8: FALSE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

[9:TRUE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[10:TRUE] Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11:TRUE] Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

[12: FALSE] Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

[13: FALSE] Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[14: FALSE] Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

[15: FALSE] Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

[16:TRUE] Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

[17:TRUE] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[18:TRUE] Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

[19: FALSE] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

[20:TRUE] Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[21:TRUE] Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[22:TRUE] Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

[23:TRUE] Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:03 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false. The true reasons are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq. The false reasons are therefore irrelevant.

That is funny ican..
Let's start with #1.
Quote:
[1:TRUE] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
While it is true. It is only a recitation of history and is not a reason to invade Iraq in 2002. In fact there is NOTHING in #1 that could be used as a pretext for an invasion let alone support your claim that it is sufficient reason to invade.

Quote:
[2: TRUE] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Also, nothing more than historical fact and not a reason, let alone a sufficient one.

3 and 4 rely on 1 and 2 as the basis and are false.

7, you claim is true.. BUT....
The news this weekend was about the American Serviceman listed as not being returned was found buried by sand in the desert. SO parts of 7 are clearly false.

10 and 11 together are false.
While Al Qaida may have been in north Iraq, they were not harbored or abetted by Saddam.

16 and 17 merely express the wishes of the Senate and don't represent reasons to invade.

Bottom line, there are NOT 13 reasons to invade in that list ican. There is only your attempt to rewrite history.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:10 am
@parados,
ican thinks he can forget why he even used #1 in his argument, but nobody can forget the Bush administration's promotion of WMDs as the primary justification, and it had nothing to do with Kuwait in 2002. When one starts his justification from lies or non-issues, the remaining actions becomes moot.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
It is interesting that ican included 7. I had to look up the info on Speicher which led me to how the Bush administration changed history there too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher
Quote:
The day after the shoot-down, Speicher was placed on MIA status.[10] On May 22, 1991, after the end of the Gulf War, Speicher's status was changed to Killed in Action/Body Not Recovered (KIA/BNR).[10]


Quote:
In January 2001, the Secretary of the Navy changed Speicher's status to "missing in action."[10] This was the first time the Defense Department had ever made such a change.
Quote:
Speicher's possible situation became a more high-profile issue in the build-up to war. In March 2002, the Washington Times ran five successive front-page articles about it, National Review Online ran a long piece on it,[15] and on September 12, 2002, President George W. Bush mentioned Speicher in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly as part of his case for war against Iraq. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida also took a strong interest in the case.[19] Speicher's status was changed again to "missing/captured" on October 11, 2002, one day after the United States Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. U.S. Secretary of the Navy Gordon England said, "While the information available to me now does not prove definitively that Capt. Speicher is alive and in Iraqi custody, I am personally convinced the Iraqis seized him sometime after his plane went down. Further, it is my firm belief that the government of Iraq knows what happened to Capt. Speicher.


Clearly it was used as a political issue in the build up to the war and has turned out to be false.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:33 am
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:34 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Bottom line, there are NOT 13 reasons to invade in that list ican. There is only your attempt to rewrite history.

Ican's problem is that he thinks each one of the 23 "whereas" clauses in the congressional resolution constituted sufficient cause to invade Iraq. In fact, it's pretty clear that none of them was sufficient, in and of themselves, to justify the invasion, and that congress piled up the "whereas" clauses not because it had so many reasons to invade but because it had so few.

Compare that to the congressional resolution, adopted on Dec. 8, 1941, to declare war on Japan:

Quote:
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.


We only needed one "whereas" in 1941. We needed 23 in 2002.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:43 am
@joefromchicago,
We also didn't have 24/7 news in 1941. Makes quite a difference.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:46 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

We also didn't have 24/7 news in 1941. Makes quite a difference.


So, we listed more reasons to invade b/c of CNN and Fox News?

Love to hear the reasoning behind that one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:48 am
@joefromchicago,
And the next war will require 200 whereas to justify our government for an illegal, unethical, war.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:50 am
@Foxfyre,
you should be honest and call it "a sampling of last week's radical right-wing, screw the country, gop first political cartoons".

i hope you fail.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:54 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

..Ican's problem is that he thinks each one of the 23 "whereas" clauses in the congressional resolution constituted sufficient cause to invade Iraq. ...


and it's a damn good thing he suited up and got himself over there on the pdq so he could personally apprehend, try and execute saddam hussein.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 11:54 am
@Foxfyre,
It really has very little at all to do with superior/inferior. That's not the way I think about it or you. You are, for example, far more tenacious than I am and it isn't your only admirable quality. But on these matters, you are extremely ideological and not really available for a revision in thinking.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 12:09 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

There is not a single claim or suggestion above which is free of your ideological presumptions, foxfyre. I'm afraid that I concluded a long while ago that unless you are struck by a bolt of lightening which facilitates a new framework of thought that conversation with you on these matters is of no good purpose at all.


Hello Bernie ! Glad to see you here and I hope you are well and prospering.

"Ideological presumptions" exist on both sides of the current political divide - even among posters here. It is bemusing to note the criticisms of strident advocates on the left of the stridency of their oposite numbers on the right. Some pretentious users of academic jargon even go so far as to accuse their more plain spoken opponents of 'anti intellectualism', when in fact it is merely disagreement that offends them. (This was my chief impression of Richard Hofstadter's work.)

I don't argue with your observation that conversations here (or otherwise) on these topics generally are "of no good purpose" - at least to the extent that purpose is defined as successful persuasion. However, we can still entertain and amuse each other - and as well provide the stimulation attendant to the generally unaccustomed experience of having one's familiar assumptions questioned.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 12:12 pm
@blatham,
Thank you for your psychoanalysis sir. Had you followed me with any kind of objectivity you would not only have seen revision in my thinking on a number of matters, but a complete reversal in thinking on some issues.

But yes, I will defend my point of view when I believe it is defensible, and I try not to hold points of view that I think I cannot competently defend.

On the other hand, I have not seen you change your opinion about anything over these many years we have been been communicating in this format. The only place I have seen you altering your original point of view is in your opinion of me and that has certainly deteriorated. Whether that is from your own experience and/or prejudices or from the influence of others, I would not venture to guess.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 12:15 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

We also didn't have 24/7 news in 1941. Makes quite a difference.

We also didn't have the Iraqis bombing Pearl Harbor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/14/2025 at 02:53:09