• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another Mass Grave found in Iraq

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
For all of you Saddam apologists who claim that the Shiite holocaust didn't take place well they just found another mass grave it seems that all one needs to do is to dig a hole anywhere in Iraq and you will find the evidence of Saddam's brutality and genocide:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Construction workers laying a water pipeline in the Iraqi city of Karbala Monday found a mass grave containing the remains of up to 20 people, police in the southern city of Hilla told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/27/iraq.main/index.html
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
For all of you Saddam apologists who claim that the Shiite holocaust didn't take place well they just found another mass grave it seems that all one needs to do is to dig a hole anywhere in Iraq and you will find the evidence of Saddam's brutality and genocide:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Construction workers laying a water pipeline in the Iraqi city of Karbala Monday found a mass grave containing the remains of up to 20 people, police in the southern city of Hilla told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/27/iraq.main/index.html

No one denys Saddam was a bad man.....the issue revolves around our reasoning for invasion. If we use the brutality of dictators as criteria.....there are many far worse to deal with. Care to try Again?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
tecoyah said:
No one denys Saddam was a bad man.....the issue revolves around our reasoning for invasion. If we use the brutality of dictators as criteria.....there are many far worse to deal with. Care to try Again?
Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
How about Slobodan Milosevic?

Yet, I seem to recall a certain conservative party's leadership publicly speaking out against "being the world's policemen" and "nation building". Well, here we are today, and what a HUGE flip-flop in conservative opinion we've undergone. Now, the same thing those "evil, god-hating, un-American libs" were accused of doing in 2000, are perfectly ok because it's the conservatives doing it, right? And anyone who doesn't agree with this must simply be a "Saddam apologist". Does that mean George W. Bush was a Milosevic apologist? By the standards that you apply it would seem that he was.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.

I think you're using the term "genocide" too loosely. Why focus on what Saddam did 20 years ago while there's a genocide in progress in the Sudan?
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
The above stated dictators are enough to answer your question concerning who is worse than Saddam....this was not my question. Am I to understand that our reasons for invasion have changed again, to removal of dictator....rather than imminent threat...I mean...uh...WMDS...I mean creating Democracy...I mean,,,,uh.....wait, why did we do this again?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
How about Slobodan Milosevic?

Yet, I seem to recall a certain conservative party's leadership publicly speaking out against "being the world's policemen" and "nation building". Well, here we are today, and what a HUGE flip-flop in conservative opinion we've undergone. Now, the same thing those "evil, god-hating, un-American libs" were accused of doing in 2000, are perfectly ok because it's the conservatives doing it, right? And anyone who doesn't agree with this must simply be a "Saddam apologist". Does that mean George W. Bush was a Milosevic apologist? By the standards that you apply it would seem that he was.
Exactly, and what happened to Milosevic? We ousted him through war and I didn't see any of you bleeding heart liberals crying about that one. Furthermore; the issue of the war in Kosovo was heatedly debated before the authorization was given for the use of force as it should always be before the U.S. enters a war, however, after troops were deployed you didn't here a ****ing peep from the Right not even from reactionaries who hated Clinton like Rush Limbaugh, that is because the conservatives have honor and put our troops above partisan-politics something the Democrats will not do because they are invested in defeat, perhaps you should reexamine that old idiom of: "politics should end at the waters edge."
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
tecoyah said:
The above stated dictators are enough to answer your question concerning who is worse than Saddam....this was not my question. Am I to understand that our reasons for invasion have changed again, to removal of dictator....rather than imminent threat...I mean...uh...WMDS...I mean creating Democracy...I mean,,,,uh.....wait, why did we do this again?
Ah, the liberal spin of reinventing the reasons for going to war it is you who is reinventing the reasons the reason has always been first and foremost to bring freedom and Democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq hence the name of the war: "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Now here are all of the reasons for going to war not just the one that the Democrats keep focusing on:

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;


(12) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)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) 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) 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) 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) 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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Now let's reexamine stipulation seventeen:

(17) 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;
Sounds like a clear cut piece of evidence that one of the reasons stipulated by the joint resolution of congress was to bring Democracy to Iraq.

Now let's take a closer look at stipulation number 7:

(7) 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;
Now imagine that one of the reasons given in the Joint Resolution of Congress was to stop the Iraqi genocide hmmm very interesting.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Now let's reexamine stipulation seventeen:



Sounds like a clear cut piece of evidence that one of the reasons stipulated by the joint resolution of congress was to bring Democracy to Iraq.

Now let's take a closer look at stipulation number 7:



Now imagine that one of the reasons given in the Joint Resolution of Congress was to stop the Iraqi genocide hmmm very interesting.

I stand corrected....thank you for clarifying the issue completely....guess the WMD thing had me confused.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
tecoyah said:
I stand corrected....thank you for clarifying the issue completely....guess the WMD thing had me confused.
WMD was one of the reasons but not the only reason it's just the one being focused on by the anti-war liberally dominated media in order to undermine the war effort.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Exactly, and what happened to Milosevic? We ousted him through war and I didn't see any of you bleeding heart liberals crying about that one. Furthermore; the issue of the war in Kosovo was heatedly debated before the authorization was given for the use of force as it should always be before the U.S. enters a war, however, after troops were deployed you didn't here a ****ing peep from the Right not even from reactionaries who hated Clinton like Rush Limbaugh, that is because the conservatives have honor and put our troops above partisan-politics something the Democrats will not do because they are invested in defeat, perhaps you should reexamine that old idiom of: "politics should end at the waters edge."
Oh, but your memory appears to be faulty on this one. Not only did we hear a peep, we heard peeps from everyone who now so vigorously defends this president for doing the same thing.

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

I could go on, but you get the idea. You claim that conservatives "honored" our troops by saying things like this, yet, when a liberal says these things they're "undermining our troops and their mission". So which is it? You can't have it both ways, friend.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
Oh, but your memory appears to be faulty on this one. Not only did we hear a peep, we heard peeps from everyone who now so vigorously defends this president for doing the same thing.

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

I could go on, but you get the idea. You claim that conservatives "honored" our troops by saying things like this, yet, when a liberal says these things they're "undermining our troops and their mission". So which is it? You can't have it both ways, friend.
Hay guess what these statements were made before the U.S. engaged in the war in a debate about whether or not to commit the troops before the decision was made like it should be not after the fact like the Democrats are now doing you proved my point the politics stopped after the troops were commited.

And compare those statements to these they aren't even close to being on the same level:


Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean


JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." -Dick Durbin
 
Last edited:

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Hay guess what these statements were made before the U.S. engaged in the war in a debate about whether or not to commit the troops before the decision was made like it should be not after the fact like the Democrats are now doing you proved my point the politics stopped after the troops were commited.

And compare those statements to these they aren't even close to being on the same level:
Oh, but they ARE.
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." -Dick Durbin
"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Your credibility is coming into question saying that the conservatives stopped after our military was deployed. In fact, these statements were made a month into combat operations. So again I ask... Why was it ok for the conservatives to speak out against our military's mission in 1999, but it's not ok for liberals to do so now?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
While you two throw a quote-party at each other, I'll just say that the Republican Party was as wrong then as the Democrats are now...

The two differences I see are that Milosevic was less of a threat to the US and its allies as Saddam was, and if the genocide in Bosnia happened after 9/11, the Republican Party would've been thinking from a different perspective...
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Sounds like a clear cut piece of evidence that one of the reasons stipulated by the joint resolution of congress was to bring Democracy to Iraq.
Nice try at :spin: . The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 specifically states that an all out invasion and any significant use of our troops should not be and is not an option to achieve that goal.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
Oh, but they ARE.

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)



"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Your credibility is coming into question saying that the conservatives stopped after our military was deployed. In fact, these statements were made a month into combat operations. So again I ask... Why was it ok for the conservatives to speak out against our military's mission in 1999, but it's not ok for liberals to do so now?
That's because this was during the 60 day time limit given to the president to use military force without a joint resolution from congress as specified by the war powers resolution of 1973 this was the time for debate, however, in Iraq there was a joint resolution before the troops even set foot on the ground. If the Democrats had reservations about the war in Iraq they should have made them before they voted for the authorization of force NOT AFTER!!! You are simply ignorant of the facts Clinton sent in the troops without congressional approval that is his right but only for 60 days then it is up to congress whether or not to grant him the war powers this was the time for debate unlike in Kosovo President Bush went to congress first got the needed resolution the Democrats voted for it yet now make there reservations about it after the fact when they should have made there reservations before they granted the President the war powers not after it's a totally different situation:

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 20) -- A bipartisan resolution was introduced on the Senate floor Tuesday that would give President Bill Clinton congressional authorization to "use all necessary force and other means," including U.S. ground troops, to win the current battle in Yugoslavia.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/20/kosovo.congress/
 
Last edited:

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
While you two throw a quote-party at each other, I'll just say that the Republican Party was as wrong then as the Democrats are now...

The two differences I see are that Milosevic was less of a threat to the US and its allies as Saddam was, and if the genocide in Bosnia happened after 9/11, the Republican Party would've been thinking from a different perspective...
I can at least respect you approaching the two with the same standard, even though I have a different view on it... They were absolutely correct in feeling free to criticize the president, in my opinion. I feel the same way about the Democrats doing so today.

The point I was driving at is that most conservatives don't approach the topic with your more subjective viewpoint. Most, even though they were outspoken against the military's mission in Kosovo, feel that Democrats are undermining the troops by speaking out against the mission in Iraq. It's downright conceited of the conservative side to suggest that speaking out against the president during combat operations is only ok if it is them doing it. I commend you for not applying the double-standard, but surely, even you have to admit, that it is applied by most arguing on the Republican side.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
cnredd said:
While you two throw a quote-party at each other, I'll just say that the Republican Party was as wrong then as the Democrats are now...

The two differences I see are that Milosevic was less of a threat to the US and its allies as Saddam was, and if the genocide in Bosnia happened after 9/11, the Republican Party would've been thinking from a different perspective...
No the point is the war powers resolution of 1973 grants the president the authority to dispatch troops without congressional approval but only for 60 days these comments were made in the debate of whether or not to grant the war powers to Clinton because Clinton dispatched the air force and the Navy without congressional approval unlike in Iraq where the president was granted the war powers by the October 22, 2002 joint resolution of congress for the authorization of force against Iraq before a single troops set foot on the ground, but now the Democrats are stating their reservations after they already voted for it! While the Republicans made theirs before, that's the point you're not supposed to go willy nilly into war you'rE SUPPOSED to debate it to do anything else in such a matter would be negligent and in deriliiction of their congressional duty, however, after you give the president the authorization and the troops are dispatched you need to shut the **** up!!!!
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Exactly, and what happened to Milosevic? We ousted him through war and I didn't see any of you bleeding heart liberals crying about that one. Furthermore; the issue of the war in Kosovo was heatedly debated before the authorization was given for the use of force as it should always be before the U.S. enters a war, however, after troops were deployed you didn't here a ****ing peep from the Right not even from reactionaries who hated Clinton like Rush Limbaugh, that is because the conservatives have honor and put our troops above partisan-politics something the Democrats will not do because they are invested in defeat, perhaps you should reexamine that old idiom of: "politics should end at the waters edge."
Repubs bashed the whole thing right to the end. Do I need to post all those quotes again?
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's because this was during the 60 day time limit given to the president to use military force without a joint resolution from congress as specified by the war powers resolution of 1973 this was the time for debate, however, in Iraq there was a joint resolution before the troops even set foot on the ground. If the Democrats had reservations about the war in Iraq they should have made them before they voted for the authorization of force NOT AFTER!!! You are simply ignorant of the facts Clinton sent in the troops without congressional approval that is his right but only for 60 days then it is up to congress whether or not to grant him the war powers this was the time for debate unlike in Kosovo President Bush went to congress first got the needed resolution the Democrats voted for it yet now make there reservations about it after the fact when they should have made there reservations before they granted the President the war powers not after it's a totally different situation:

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 20) -- A bipartisan resolution was introduced on the Senate floor Tuesday that would give President Bill Clinton congressional authorization to "use all necessary force and other means," including U.S. ground troops, to win the current battle in Yugoslavia.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/20/kosovo.congress/
The Republicans were still criticizing the actions during the 2000 elections, man. Your arguments here just don't hold any water. You can't criticize my side without acknowledging, at least, that your side did the same thing.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Repubs bashed the whole thing right to the end. Do I need to post all those quotes again?
Yes you show me where the Republicans in congress voted for the authorization of force in Kosovo and then after that denounced the war go ahead I'm all ears. As I already explained Clinton did not get congressional approval and thus was only allowed to dispatch the troops for 60 days these statements were made in the debate on whether or not to grant Clinton the war powers which is when those issues and reservations about going to war are supposed to be made not after the fact, what the Democrats did is voted for the authorization of force and then turned around and stated their reservations after the fact which is nothing more than partisan politics and putting politics ahead ahead of the war effort.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No the point is the war powers resolution of 1973 grants the president the authority to dispatch troops without congressional approval but only for 60 days these comments were made in the debate of whether or not to grant the war powers to Clinton because Clinton dispatched the air force and the Navy without congressional approval unlike in Iraq where the president was granted the war powers by the October 22, 2002 joint resolution of congress for the authorization of force against Iraq before a single troops set foot on the ground, but now the Democrats are stating their reservations after they already voted for it! While the Republicans made theirs before, that's the point you're not supposed to go willy nilly into war you'rE SUPPOSED to debate it to do anything else in such a matter would be negligent and in deriliiction of their congressional duty, however, after you give the president the authorization and the troops are dispatched you need to shut the **** up!!!!
I don't think that particular rule still applies when the president and vice president went to congress and the American people stating that the war in Iraq would take weeks, maybe months and that Iraqi oil will fund the whole thing. Now, we're at what, $300billion taxpayer dollars and 3 years with no foreseeable end? I think it would be a derilliction of congressional duty NOT to have this debate open and ongoing.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
The Republicans were still criticizing the actions during the 2000 elections, man. Your arguments here just don't hold any water. You can't criticize my side without acknowledging, at least, that your side did the same thing.
It wasn't the same thing at all there wasn't even a joint resolution of congress for the war in Kosovo Clinton exceeded his executive powers and show me a comment made after the authorization for the use of force you can't because there never was one Clinton exceeded his war powers and violated the constitution in the process.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
I don't think that particular rule still applies when the president and vice president went to congress and the American people stating that the war in Iraq would take weeks, maybe months and that Iraqi oil will fund the whole thing. Now, we're at what, $300billion taxpayer dollars and 3 years with no foreseeable end? I think it would be a derilliction of congressional duty NOT to have this debate open and ongoing.
Do you see a timetable in the Joint Resolution of Congress of Oct. 22, 2002 do you, how bout a spending limit, show me where there at where's it at hmmm?

The Democrats have turned the Iraq war into a partisan issue and they need to be voted out of office!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom