Fallen Soldier's Mom Arrested Outside Laura Bush Event!

Let me get this straight.

You linked to the free republic and expect people to take you seriously?

First a two year old speech by Powell and then a freeper link?

C'MON! Get serious or quit trying.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000:

And what about Arafat's ties to terrorism? And that man won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Khadafi did the same damn thing, and look how we're buddying up to him now.

Boy, the hypocrisy stinks around here.

Try again...

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Brandon wrote

Quote:
When it comes to the defense of our interests and safety, no other county will be as likely to have our interests at heart. Lots of the countries in the UN would love to see us fail or get hurt. See?

Yes I see. Its a sad fact of life that America under Bush's leadership is widely detested. And its not surprising when you were told to leave Iraq alone that some countries take pleasure at your failure there. But it is entirely your own fault. And this afternoon, Bush goes to the UN to beg for help. We will see if he gets any.

My point was that it is unwise to require an international body's permission to use one's military, particularly a body which has many members that don't like you much, as the UN did long before Bush became president.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let me get this straight.

You linked to the free republic and expect people to take you seriously?

First a two year old speech by Powell and then a freeper link?

C'MON! Get serious or quit trying.

Cycloptichorn

Are you asserting, then, that Hussein was not paying off families of suicide bombers?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon9000:

And what about Arafat's ties to terrorism? And that man won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The idea is to stop rulers with ties to terrorism from acquiring WMD. Was Arafat developing WMD?

Dookiestix wrote:

Khadafi did the same damn thing, and look how we're buddying up to him now.

Boy, the hypocrisy stinks around here.

Try again...

In case it escaped your acute notice, we are buddying up to Khadafi precisely because he agreed to verifiably dismantle his WMD program and destroy the weapons.

0 Replies

Hamas was no threat to Americans, and no reason for us to invade. Your point is invalid.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 opines:

Quote:

My point was that it is unwise to require an international body's permission to use one's military, particularly a body which has many members that don't like you much, as the UN did long before Bush became president.

Then how was it that Bush 41 was able to get a massive coalition together to liberate Kuwait? Oh, yea, maybe it was because Saddam actually INVADED a country that time, a country that was a vital outlet for the exportation of oil.

0 Replies

Our stated justification for attacking Iraq immediately was that Saddam constituted an immediate threat; NOT that he 'might' get WMD in the future, Brandon.

Enough of the revisionist history!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon9000 opines:

Quote:
My point was that it is unwise to require an international body's permission to use one's military, particularly a body which has many members that don't like you much, as the UN did long before Bush became president.

Then how was it that Bush 41 was able to get a massive coalition together to liberate Kuwait? Oh, yea, maybe it was because Saddam actually INVADED a country that time, a country that was a vital outlet for the exportation of oil.

Yes, exactly, because Saddam invaded another Middle Eastern country. It didn't mean that the UN members loved us.

It is not wise to give other countries the key to your military. It would be great to have a coalition for large military actions, but requiring the UN's permission to use our miltary would be foolish.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Our stated justification for attacking Iraq immediately was that Saddam constituted an immediate threat; NOT that he 'might' get WMD in the future, Brandon.

Enough of the revisionist history!

Cycloptichorn

From: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_1_33/ai_99233024

Quote:

President Bush declared, "We will not wait for the authors of mass murder to gain weapons of mass destruction." In his subsequent State of the Union Address, he further stated that "time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not standby, as peril draws closer and closer." At West Point, he warned, "If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long."

Anyway, regardless of what Bush said or didn't say, I am saying that the we ought to have invaded Iraq because the probability that Hussein hadn't destroyed his WMD and WMD development programs was significant. Had this been the case, there might have been a finite time window of opportunity before he could use a WMD within a US city and weaken us greatly (then deny responsibility), or complete his development of weapons to the point that we wouldn't have dared to invade and he could then continue his WMD development openly.

0 Replies

There is absolutely no reasoning with the unreasonable.

0 Replies

You still dont get it Brandon.

The US does not need permission from the UN to deploy armed forces. But if its to continue to be a member of the UN, it must use military force in accordance with the law.

or in Kofi Annan's words directed at Bush today

[quote]"Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it; and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it."[/quote]

Bush should have been squirming with embarrassment, but then he probably didn't understand. Colin Powell certainly does and he looked distinctly uncomfortable being back in the UN building where he put on his one-man-show-pack-of-lies last year.

Remember all those satellite photos of buildings and trucks running about? The intercepted conversations between Abdul and Mohammed about what to do with all those wmd the Boss wants hidden? The 5000 litres of anthrax, one small phial like this...holds up small test tube of sugar...is enough to poison everyone .....blah blah

I thought it was a bit disrepectful for some delegates to great it with muffled laughter, but its clear they knew a bit more than I did at the time. I hope someone made a tape of Powell's show, its a superb comedy now.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

You still dont get it Brandon.

The US does not need permission from the UN to deploy armed forces. But if its to continue to be a member of the UN, it must use military force in accordance with the law.

or in Kofi Annan's words directed at Bush today

"Those who invoke the law must also abide by it themselves".

I am glad you don't think that we need a UN okay to use our military. Now, please tell me which law we violated.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

...Remember all those satellite photos of buildings and trucks running about? The intercepted conversations between Abdul and Mohammed about what to do with all those wmd the Boss wants hidden? The 5000 litres of anthrax, one small phial like this...holds up small test tube of sugar...is enough to poison everyone .....blah blah

I thought it was a bit disrepectful for some delegates to great it with muffled laughter, but its clear they knew a bit more than I did at the time. I hope someone made a tape of Powell's show, its a superb comedy now.

Were one single WMD to be used in a western city - ever - you could have a collosal number of deaths, perhaps a million or more in some cases. The proliferation of WMD, and the prospect of people like Saddam or terrorists having the capacity to use them, most likely against civilians, is a grave matter and not funny. If we are not careful, sooner or later some dictator or terrorist will use a WMD in a city. I suppose it already happened when Hussein gassed the Kurds, but I am referring to a much more powerful WMD than was used in that case.

0 Replies

Brandon gets it; Steve doesn't get it.

In the words of Einstein: "To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary
murder"

What if you knew the son of the woman who was moved to get in Laura Bush's face?

Neil Young summarizes:

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

0 Replies

Nixon's party is Bush's party.

Many of us have long memories.
We'll vote for John Kerry.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Our stated justification for attacking Iraq immediately was that Saddam constituted an immediate threat; NOT that he 'might' get WMD in the future. . . .

Enough of the revisionist history!

Quote:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

-Bush, January 2003 (SOTU)

In other words, 'we cannot afford to wait until the threat is imminent!'

So, who is the revisionist historian here?

You might with to re-read the full argument Bush made in that SOTU, as well as the text of the "House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq" passed the previous fall (October 2002).

These documents (and many other statements from Bush administration officials) argued on the basis of Hussein's continuing defiance the terms of the 1991 ceasefire and related U.N. resolutions, his pursuit of and demonstrated willingness to use WMD's (even against his own people), his hostility to the U.S., including attacks on U.S. forces as well as supporting and offering safe haven to terrorists (also that "containment" was not working). Neither roots its argument in Iraq being an "imminent" threat.

0 Replies

We cannot use UN resolutions as arguments to invade Iraq; that would be the height of hypocracy, as the US regularly ignores the UN and does whatever it pleases.

Our ally Israel is in violation of several UN resolutions, as is the US itself. Your argument is hollow.

By our own standards, not following UN resolutions is not justification for invading a soveirgn country.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This neoconservative naivette on display is stunning. I wonder why Brandon9000 cannot remember what Powell and Rice said back in February 2001, when they BOTH insinuated that the sanctions were WORKING, and that Saddam was effectively CONTAINED. Which I guess would be grounds for Bush to be not that concerned and go on vacation alot during his first 8 months in office.

Let's bomb ANY country that is trying to make weapons of mass destruction and pass them on to terrorists. That would be:

Iran
Syria
North Korea
Chenya
Poorly monitored Balkan states

Then we'd have to bomb Israel for breaking ALOT more U.N. resolutions than Iraq could dream of breaking.

Of course, we should have bombed China back during the Tianamen crisis. They slaughtered their own people, they operate a highly clandestine nuclear program, and are threatening Taiwan with invasion.

Honestly, can't you neoconservatives be consistent about anything and check your hypocrisy at the door?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We cannot use UN resolutions as arguments to invade Iraq; that would be the height of hypocracy, as the US regularly ignores the UN and does whatever it pleases.

Our ally Israel is in violation of several UN resolutions, as is the US itself. Your argument is hollow.

The reason we invaded, or the proper reason, was the danger that the WMD would have posed had Hussein still had them, or had he been continuing his development programs acquiring them again.

I think one can argue that we really aren't that sure where the WMD went, when they went, why they went, or whether he might not have reacquired them quietly later when the spotlight was off, but none of that is essential to my argument.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

By our own standards, not following UN resolutions is not justification for invading a soveirgn country.

Cycloptichorn

I find your use of the word sovereign rather unusual in this case. It certainly is immoral under any normal circumstances to remove a government chosen by a nation's people, but in this case, the government was simply a bunch of thugs who held power by force, and arrested, and tortured and/or killed any citizen who dared express a contrary opinion or offend them in any other way.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

This neoconservative naivette on display is stunning. I wonder why Brandon9000 cannot remember what Powell and Rice said back in February 2001, when they BOTH insinuated that the sanctions were WORKING, and that Saddam was effectively CONTAINED. Which I guess would be grounds for Bush to be not that concerned and go on vacation alot during his first 8 months in office.

Let's bomb ANY country that is trying to make weapons of mass destruction and pass them on to terrorists. That would be:

Iran
Syria
North Korea
Chenya
Poorly monitored Balkan states

Then we'd have to bomb Israel for breaking ALOT more U.N. resolutions than Iraq could dream of breaking.

Of course, we should have bombed China back during the Tianamen crisis. They slaughtered their own people, they operate a highly clandestine nuclear program, and are threatening Taiwan with invasion.

Honestly, can't you neoconservatives be consistent about anything and check your hypocrisy at the door?

speaking of "naivette on display"...

0 Replies

Fallen Soldier's Mom Arrested Outside Laura Bush Event!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know