Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Suzy: Saddam's regime killed 1,000 people for every person Al Qaeda has killed. No, they are not related, but a shoplifter he is not.
The war on terror is not just a revenge mission to avenge the deaths of 9-11. 9-11 served as a wake-up call that the dangerous scum of the earth needs to be dealt with BEFORE they strike. The monstrous sins of Saddam's past coupled with the monstrous wealth associated with Iraq's oil suddenly looked a whole lot more dangerous after 9-11. Saddam should have been dealt with when he threw out the inspectors in 1998. If Bush had it on his agenda when he took office; GOOD! It was work that needed to be done. Bush and Blair recognize that the 3,000 people killed on 9-11 could just as easily have been 3,000,000. They have now set out to show the scum of the earth that dangerous intentions will lead to certain destruction. Khadafi seems to have gotten the message. Let's hope Kim Jong Il does too. Idea

0 Replies

Quote:

Revel - Good to run across you again. UN 1441 called on Saddam to fall in line with UN 687 which set out the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. Breaking 1441 was breaking (or continuing to break) the cease-fire. So, to argue that Bush didn't state that Saddam broke the cease-fire, but did state that he broke 1441 is to show you don't really understand what 1441 was.

scrat, your right. I stand corrected.

However, it is still true that it was a UN resolution and it required a UN solution with all relevant members agreeing to the serious consequences that was laid out in 1441 and not Bush branching out on his own regardless of what the UN decided. Of which they did not get a chance to decide because they were not through inspecting before Bush decided to cut it short and go to war.

We were not under any kind of urgent threat from Iraq ourselves so we should have gone ahead with the inspections and then whatever the UN decided in which we would get our say just the same as anyone else, no more or less which is the way it should have been all along.

0 Replies

I'm a little confused about this dead mother metaphor, but it seems to me, that by saying Saddam was the murderer, Occom Bill, you're saying that Saddam was the perp of 9/11... which really mixes up the metaphor.

I think we can all agree that Saddam was a bad man & mean to his people. I hope we can all agree that he had nothing to do with 9/11. Hmmm, I see there's been a couple of posts and it's been suggested that we're now not going after the criminals who perpetrated the particular crime of 9/11, but likely criminals who are plotting something.

I see that all terrorism is bad, including the fear that pushes it, and I see that individual instances of it should be judged and punished. (I am particularly annoyed that the United States wouldn't help Germany recently in judiciary evidence to convict a terrorist they'd deemed a likely suspect.)

Really, I see the Iraq War as rage against the mideast and desire for a stable oil supply, probably with some interest in the strange desire for rapture and a whispering by the Saudis that Saddam should be "taken care of."

All this just make me like John Kerry's ideas to push for better gas mileage cars and alternative sources of power that will at least equal in fuel savings what we buy from the mideast.

Which brings me to a worry of mine -- I don't like that we owe international financiers a lot of money. How the heck did we become a debtor nation again? I loved having a solvent budget.

0 Replies

Quote:

All this just make me like John Kerry's ideas to push for better gas mileage cars and alternative sources of power that will at least equal in fuel savings what we buy from the mideast.

Just about every president the past 25 years has pushed for mileage improvements and vowed to have some whiz-bang alternative fuel program, the reality is that as long as crude is plentiful it isn't going to happen.

There are cars now that get better than 50 mpg but not many people want them.

0 Replies

Actually, Brand X, I want one... have you looked at my thread called Hybrid Cars?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Revel - Good to run across you again. UN 1441 called on Saddam to fall in line with UN 687 which set out the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. Breaking 1441 was breaking (or continuing to break) the cease-fire. So, to argue that Bush didn't state that Saddam broke the cease-fire, but did state that he broke 1441 is to show you don't really understand what 1441 was.

scrat, your right. I stand corrected.

However, it is still true that it was a UN resolution and it required a UN solution with all relevant members agreeing to the serious consequences that was laid out in 1441 and not Bush branching out on his own regardless of what the UN decided.

Well, you might think that, and this is a hotly contested point, but that isn't what 1441 reads. Here's the relevant language:

Quote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,...

You'll note that the language does not speak of UN action or require a UN decision, it authorizes Member States to use all necessary means to force Iraq to comply. Again, I acknowledge that others will argue that the plain language used doesn't mean what a plain reading tells us it means, but according to the text of 1441 the US and other member states already had the requisite authority to resume hostilities because resolution 687 explicitly grants it. They didn't need to wait to receive again what they already had.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,...

You'll note that the language does not speak of UN action or require a UN decision, it authorizes Member States to use all necessary means to force Iraq to comply. Again, I acknowledge that others will argue that the plain language used doesn't mean what a plain reading tells us it means,

It doesn't say "any Member State", Scrat.

Imagine if any two or three Member States, even if they are Security Council members, can go around waging wars on the claim that they know better what a UN resolution meant than what the UN says ... China and Russia have just decided that UN resolution 1234 meant they could invade Israel! Right.

Oh, and Bill, you're right about how I mixed up my own murdered-mother metaphor ... that wasnt very smart. But I think I got the general point across ;-)

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

LRRHood -- I don't know which part of the book that Phoenix mentioned that you were questioning but the really shocking flight of the Saudis that was mentioned in the blurb:

Quote:
House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence?

... is well-documented. Here, for example,, in the Boston Globe, those flights are discussed. What it means and what the ramifications of that kind of special treatment are, of course, up to the reader.

I've seen these comments regarding the Saudi's leaving previously and I have to wonder just what the big mystery is here. Reread the Globe comments again - "How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country..." .

Two days after 9/11 Commercial Aviation was reopened across the country. Contrary to the Globe's assertions there was no "special permission" required to fly as of 9/13 at 11am EST. They were free to fly anywhere they chose to.

And at the very same time that same Boston Globe was reporting about how some Bin Laden family members living right here in Cambridge, MA were receiving death threats and the State Police had to provide them with body guards 24/7. That alone would be good enough reason to get them the heck out of here.

0 Replies

Even though it's now okay to detain ANYBODY for questioning, and those seem to be people worthy of answering a few questions...
I wonder what Ashcroft thought of that?

0 Replies

Quote:

Two days after 9/11 Commercial Aviation was reopened across the country. Contrary to the Globe's assertions there was no "special permission" required to fly as of 9/13 at 11am EST. They were free to fly anywhere they chose to.

Looks like someone got caught with their pants down. Right after 9/11 was the time that we should have been the MOST vigilant. Oh well, you all know that the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly!

0 Replies

I'll be honest here... I'm not looking so much at Bush and what he did or didn't do, because I have paid very close attention to the news since the last election... I know what I like and don't like about Bush.

What I am concerned about is Kerry, and not necessarily because I'm considering voting for him, since I'll most likely vote libertarian, but because if Bush doesn't win, we'll be stuck with Kerry. I'm concerned about his voting record. I heard on the news today that Kerry voted against arming the troops for Iraq in protest of the war. I can understand that, but I don't think it was the best way to protest the war. It does, however, tell me that he isn't as wishy washy as I thought.

0 Replies

LRRH - Like you I lean more libertarian (little "l") than Republican (big "R"), but for me there's too much at stake right now to risk a Kerry presidency. I'll vote for Bush as the better man and the man likely to get fewer of the critical calls wrong.

(NOTE TO THE A2K BUSH HATERS' CLUB: I know you disagree with me regarding Bush. Save your fingers and don't waste time saying so yet again. Allow me my opinion, 'kay?) Cool

0 Replies

Scrat, I wouldn't mind voting for Bush, but I just can't stomach that homeland defense intrusion on our freedom and privacy.

0 Replies

But you are needlessly worried. After all if worried, just repeat the Ashcroft formula:
"If I've done notheing wrong, I have nothing to worrry about. "
Don't forget the corrollary:
"The definition of what is wrong must shift constantly, because our government knows what is best for me." Confused

0 Replies

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SwBQF1oX5ZC*iUN6BF6TYKctwKlW9TEI1QAYN3MqjgeqcPwHjdM1mFsyFRL2XOiv4T67bBS*3mfbLf6GObfzAZOMcuJxHCfNPBC!RbUQy6tKy7VGmTf9WA/screaming.gif?dc=4675464206253112032

0 Replies

I like the picture and I get the point.

0 Replies

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

I heard on the news today that Kerry voted against arming the troops for Iraq in protest of the war.

Can you, or anyone, source this?

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

Scrat, I wouldn't mind voting for Bush, but I just can't stomach that homeland defense intrusion on our freedom and privacy.

This one damn near flipped me too. I'm rather fond of the Bill of Rights. The more I consider it though, the more I think that this disgrace can be more easily reconciled by a future administration. If we were to pull out of Iraq right now; I think we'd be able to hear the terrorists victory cheers from here. Right or Wrong, I wouldn't want our leaders to do anything that even smelled like a concession right now.

0 Replies

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

Scrat, I wouldn't mind voting for Bush, but I just can't stomach that homeland defense intrusion on our freedom and privacy.

Which parts, exactly? How are you less free today? How do you have less privacy? (I'm not arguing that you don't have a point here, I'm genuinely asking you to explain what you mean by this. Thanks.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Right or Wrong, I wouldn't want our leaders to do anything that even smelled like a concession right now.

This is another example of how stupid American "pride" gets in the way of logic. Think about what the above quote says. "Right or wrong."
Gee....(says the resident of Munchen in 1944), I don't care that just outside the city thousands of Jews are being killed, I have to stand by my country because I'm proud of it!" Sad to see the "good German" phenomenon is alive and well.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

...I wouldn't want our leaders to do anything that even smelled like a concession right now.

Exactly. Terrorists don't respect concessions, they see them as evidence of weakness, and they prey on those they consider weak.

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know