- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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
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?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
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.
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?
(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;
(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;
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.
tecoyah said:I stand corrected....thank you for clarifying the issue completely....guess the WMD thing had me confused.
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."
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.
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:
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"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
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.
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?
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...
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...
Repubs bashed the whole thing right to the end. Do I need to post all those quotes again?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."
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/
scottyz said:Repubs bashed the whole thing right to the end. Do I need to post all those quotes again?
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!!!!
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?