• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Cindy Sheehan arrested........

ludahai said:
But we are the ones who called for the UN resolution. We even got the Soviets pissed off about the whole China representation thing and got them to walk out so the resolution would pass.

The fact remains it was a conflict started by the UN, not by Truman.

ludahai said:
Who fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? U.S. involvement in the region was token prior to 1964.

I'd like to know, I suspect it is the Pentagon who staged it.

ludahai said:
If you have the money, you can get the press time. In many countries, you simply can't. Chavez has access and control of the state broadcaster (PBS is the closest thing to a state broadcaster in the US) and intimidates the independent press. The two do NOT correlate.

I don;t know if you have noticed, but our current ruling party owns its own major media outlet, Fox News.

ludahai said:
I don't know why you are bringing FL into the discussion.

Because all the things you listed as signs of tyranny fit there.

ludahai said:
So, is the glass half empty, or half-full? :2razz:

Neither, it is over-engineered by 50%.

ludahai said:
That book has also been discredited on many fronts. As for KSA being our enemy? I don't regard them as afriend, that is for sure, but it was the Taliban in Afghanistan who hid the criminals who repeatedly attacked the US and US interests, NOT KSA.

That book has not been discredited ANYWHERE. I challenge you to show me a reputable discrediting of that book. the research, and footnoting on it were extensive and accurate. It is the KSA that consistently funds, and provides the religious cover for Islamic terror and this has been true for the last 6 decades at least. You cannot fight Islamic Terror without a serious smack-down of the KSA.

ludahai said:
It isn't mine, it is linked from another site. USE IT USE IT - and spread it to as many people as possible.

Already have my own version. Thanx. I just ordered Koran Toilet paper. LOL
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That makes it a war. I just bought a giant dictionary, an amazing 2500 page monster with an entire page dedicated to just the word "round"...it's gonna give me a hernia...it says:

war (n):
1 An open armed conflict between nations or states [Iraq is a nation, right? The US of A is a nation, right? We're in conflict, right?] or between parties in the same state [Iraqi animals are killing Iraqi citizens, right?] carried on by force of arms [this means "using weapons"] for various purposes [the animals want to enslave the citizens, the citizens don't wish to be enslaved by the animals]; a conflict of arms between hostile parties or nations. [the random use if IED's is nothing if not hostile, right?]

2. the profession, science or art of military operations...

3. any state of violent opposition or contest; [like when animals hijack peaceful airliners, murdering passengers and crew, to attack harmless buildings], inimical act or action [yeah, I'd say that Saddam's payoff's to successful suicide bombers is an inimical act against everyone]; hostility, strife.

war (v)
1to make war, to carry on hostilities; to engage in military operations. [we're engaged military ops in Iraq, right?]

2. to contend; to strive; to be in a state of hostility or contention.

war

Hmmmm....not one single mention of the United States Constitution. You think maybe my two dollar dictionary has made a mistake?
...

You mistake the collequial use of the word with the legal use of the word. The United States of America is not legally at war until the United States Congress issues a formal declaration of war as is their right and duty under the US Constitution.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's okay. I haven't used that word in regard to Hugo yet. I'm sure the time will come, but not yet.
...


Nice to have the next obbgy-man all lined up to keep the people afraid and pliable.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That you responded to....
...

Never. I am not a name caller.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You implied he was a sucker. Your exact words:



That I chose to dress it up in my own unique way doesn't alter the fact that you think that a man that re-enlisted could be doing so because he's been conned.

There's no evidence of "vengeance" in the war in Iraq, that's mere slanderous speculation on your part.
...

Being fooled and being a sucket are two different hings. It is easy to fool people when you have them living in a state of fear, even easier when they are in themilitary and you control all their access to information.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
1) I can imagine what the Surrender Monkeys would have said if the stated primary reason for invading Iraq was strategic control of the center of the board. I can hear the applause when the award for using the word "Belgium" the most times in a single Surrender Monkey article is handed out.

2) Hussein was a threat. The Democrats for the eight years we suffered under their perjurer claimed that Bush the Elder should have moved on Baghdad in the first Gulf War and removed the problem then. I hear the nation's chiropractors made billions fixing all the necks whiplashed by the Democrat heads when Bush the Younger got elected.

3) I'm not the president. The guy we got now is better than the guy he replaced. Which isn't saying much at all.
...

Belgium? What is your problem with Belgium? I would dispute that what we have now is better than what we had too. Clinton was a putz, and a lower medicore President at best, but I think the abomination in office now is the worst we have ever had.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Was Brazil rewards for Japs that killed Americans? Your analogy fails.
...

What? Are some words missing from this?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. The number one enemy of the United States is the internal cadre of Surrender Monkeys and Blame America Firsters that inhibit efficient or even moral action....

I disagree. The Number One Enemy is Fundementalist Islam as controlled by the KSA.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The number two enemy is China....

I place them as number three actuall.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Fairly far down the list is the little kingdom with all the oil. They're only a problem because of internal domestic strife between the rulers and the lunatic fanatic koran thumpers....

Number two is Fundementalis Christianity as controlled by the GOP.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Bush "cozied" up to them because it was necessary to achieve the primary objective of the Taliban. It's called "cost-benefit" analysis. Frankly, a couple of low yield nukes aren't that big a big deal. Islamabad isn't going to run away if their toys get used, now will it?...

When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Whcih is how we got in this mess in the first place when Papa-Doc Bush and Reagan created al-Qaeda in the first place.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, there's never been a representational secular government in an Islamic land. I'm hungry, I think I'll see if I got some Turkey for a sandwich. You want one?...

...nah, no Turkey handy. Got some in the freezer, maybe I should nuke all of it in the microwave?




Yeah, those Iraqis are incredibly unwilling. Our troops had to use bayonets on those millions and millions of voters the last time they had an election...

I said rationality, not democratic Representative government, Two different things.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No it's not I suggest you read the war powers resolution of 1973 again, we are in an official state of war.

This is simply a lie. We are not legally at war until Congress SPECIFICALLY issues a declaration of war. Read your Constitution.


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Al-Qaeda and Saddam were allies it's all right in the 9-11 Commission Report. No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 though that's two different things.

The 9-11 Commission report says that the ties were not meaningful. A few meetings wherein neither side got anything from the other side. The US had more meaningful ties to both al-Qaeda and Iraq than they had with each other.

The fact you repeat this lie again and again will not make it true.
 
Vandeervecken

Tell that to the over 100,000, 58,000, and the 0ver 3,000 that have died in the last 3 conflicts that we were not at war............
 
Navy Pride said:
Vandeervecken

Tell that to the over 100,000, 58,000, and the 0ver 3,000 that have died in the last 3 conflicts that we were not at war............


Dead people have a tendency not to listen.

Fact remains the US has not been in a declared state of war since the end of World War Two.

Facts are facts, you can try and get emotional about it if you like, but the facts still remain.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Dead people have a tendency not to listen.

Fact remains the US has not been in a declared state of war since the end of World War Two.

Facts are facts, you can try and get emotional about it if you like, but the facts still remain.


The point I am trying to make to you is those guys arte just as dead whether a war was declared or not.........Did you know that no war has been declared since WW2.............
 
Vandeervecken said:
The fact remains it was a conflict started by the UN, not by Truman.

Actually, it was started when the North Koreans invaded the South. It was Truman who pressed for UN sanction, but it was most certainly a US-led operation.

I'd like to know, I suspect it is the Pentagon who staged it.

Resulting in an escalation of the conflict under a Democratic administration.


I don;t know if you have noticed, but our current ruling party owns its own major media outlet, Fox News.

The Republican Party owns Fox News? That is news to me. BTW, I don't have a satellite dish, so I can't watch FNC anymore.


Because all the things you listed as signs of tyranny fit there.

How about trying to explain your point on that one.



Neither, it is over-engineered by 50%.

:rofl Good one.


That book has not been discredited ANYWHERE. I challenge you to show me a reputable discrediting of that book. the research, and footnoting on it were extensive and accurate. It is the KSA that consistently funds, and provides the religious cover for Islamic terror and this has been true for the last 6 decades at least. You cannot fight Islamic Terror without a serious smack-down of the KSA.

I am not a friend of the KSA and they have a lot to answer for. However, connecting the Bush Presidency to al-Saud any more than any other presidency since FDR is simply fallacious.


Already have my own version. Thanx. I just ordered Koran Toilet paper. LOL

Quran toilet paper? LOL! I just ordered a whole bunch of Danish cheeze. Should get here in a couple of days.
 
ludahai said:
The Republican Party owns Fox News? That is news to me. BTW, I don't have a satellite dish, so I can't watch FNC anymore.

Actually I've always thought it was the other way around. Sorry J/K, too easy.
 
Vandeervecken said:
You mistake the collequial use of the word with the legal use of the word. The United States of America is not legally at war until the United States Congress issues a formal declaration of war as is their right and duty under the US Constitution.

No I don't. We're at war. You're quibbling because you have some ideological itch to take care of.



Vandeervecken said:
Nice to have the next obbgy-man all lined up to keep the people afraid and pliable.

When he becomes a pain in our ass, we'll take care of him. I'm not going to lie and say everyone would be all lovey-dovey if it weren't for the big bad evil United States. Chavez is a marxist/socialst and he'll need to establish a scapegoat when his economy goes south.

But if you're claiming I'm setting him up in advance, that's ludicrous. If he leaves us alone I see no problem with not killing him.

Vandeervecken said:
Never. I am not a name caller.

You DO have a problem with words, don't you? I lay out an obvious bit of bait, and you went for it, now you're saying you didn't respond to it.


Vandeervecken said:
Being fooled and being a sucket are two different hings. It is easy to fool people when you have them living in a state of fear, even easier when they are in themilitary and you control all their access to information.

No, a sucker's a sucker. You can call him a fool if you wish, but he still responds to flame bait when offered.

Vandeervecken said:
Belgium? What is your problem with Belgium? I would dispute that what we have now is better than what we had too. Clinton was a putz, and a lower medicore President at best, but I think the abomination in office now is the worst we have ever had.

LOL...that's both reference to Germany's "passing through" of neutral Belgium in both world wars and a bit of lifting from Douglase Adams' "Life, The Universe, and Everything", where a movie writer has an award for the most frequent use of the word "Belgium" in a screenplay, the word "Belgium" being somehow obscene, though it's never explained.

As for this guy being the worst, you're wrong. He's both better than the last guy (no perjury gives him and all others 100 points), and neither are the worst. There's a separate thread for this, though.


Vandeervecken said:
What? Are some words missing from this?

Ummm..yeah.

"Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Was Brazil paying rewards for Japs that killed Americans? Your analogy fails...."

What it meant was that Brazil was neutral in WWII, but Iraq was a player in the action of terrorism. Thus your analogy doesn't hold up.



Vandeervecken said:
I disagree. The Number One Enemy is Fundementalist Islam as controlled by the KSA.

Well, that will have to be. We all have our priorities. Sounds like meat for another thread. But the decline of the US started a hundred years ago, or more. Depends on what your benchmark event is.


Vandeervecken said:
When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Whcih is how we got in this mess in the first place when Papa-Doc Bush and Reagan created al-Qaeda in the first place.

Oh, dear, I was almost going to agree with you, then you vomited forth a whole gutful of putrid nonsense. Perhaps the United States should have just let the Soviet Union take Afghanistan and establish themselves in a strategic position against Iraq?

You are aware that it was Carter that started the covert operations in Afghanland, right, and Reagan merely prevented the Democrats from sabotaging American interests in the matter?


Vandeervecken said:
I said rationality, not democratic Representative government, Two different things.

Oh, well no nation has ever had a rational government. They're all run by people who're successful at seizing power or winning elections, not by people who can run a country.
 
Vandeervecken said:
This is simply a lie. We are not legally at war until Congress SPECIFICALLY issues a declaration of war. Read your Constitution.

Read the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

War Powers Resolution


Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The 9-11 Commission report says that the ties were not meaningful. A few meetings wherein neither side got anything from the other side. The US had more meaningful ties to both al-Qaeda and Iraq than they had with each other.

LMFAO Al-qaeda didn't exist during the Afghani-Russo conflict, and your assertions that the U.S. had ties with Iraq are unfounded, we supplied appx .5% of foriegn military aid to Iraq during the Iran war, the bulk came from Russia and the French.
The fact you repeat this lie again and again will not make it true.

It's not a lie.
Saddam's Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17


THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Read the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Um, you need to read it yourself. It clearly states that there are 3 circumstances where the President can use his power as CIC to send the military into hostilities, with the declaration of war being the first one. That means that he can send troops in WITHOUT congress declaring war. How does that make it an official declaration of war? It doesn't.

The AUMF was not a declaration of war, it was an authorization to use military force. There are a lot of people on this thread that seem to think that it is just semantics, but I disagree, along with a bunch of legal scholars. While I agree that the actions on the ground by the troops may be the same, it isn't LEGALLY the same, and yes, that makes a difference. It seems that the president has assumed the same things that some of you here have....that he has the same authority as he would have if Congress had declared war (ie: the domestic spying issue) which is why the courts need to sort it out. It's more than just semantics, it is a legal issue.
 
NYStateofMind said:
Um, you need to read it yourself. It clearly states that there are 3 circumstances where the President can use his power as CIC to send the military into hostilities, with the declaration of war being the first one. That means that he can send troops in WITHOUT congress declaring war. How does that make it an official declaration of war? It doesn't.

The AUMF was not a declaration of war, it was an authorization to use military force. There are a lot of people on this thread that seem to think that it is just semantics, but I disagree, along with a bunch of legal scholars. While I agree that the actions on the ground by the troops may be the same, it isn't LEGALLY the same, and yes, that makes a difference. It seems that the president has assumed the same things that some of you here have....that he has the same authority as he would have if Congress had declared war (ie: the domestic spying issue) which is why the courts need to sort it out. It's more than just semantics, it is a legal issue.

It is semantics but it is much more than that it is a way for congress to look tuff and when the war is popular say: "see look I voted for this war," and then when the popularity of the war goes south they can say: "I never voted to go to war."

We are in a state of war and have been since 9-11. You don't grant the President the war powers unless we are at war.
 
I find it funny that the comment above was made stating that it was interesting/funny that the 'ruling party' has their own media in Fox News...and i can not help but laugh and think how funny it is that in the sea of liberal media and news agencies out there that the Democrats/liberals complain about the 1 alternative to Liberally dominated/slanted media...and how they can seemingly be so afraid of 1 tiny organization. Maybe it is because so many Americans are turning off the Liberal media, much the same way they turned off the Democrat's messages (or lack thereof) in 2000 and 2004, to hear something other than liberal 'spin and propoganda' - a different view of the world other than that seen through the DNC's glasses.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It is semantics but it is much more than that it is a way for congress to look tuff and when the war is popular say: "see look I voted for this war," and then when the popularity of the war goes south they can say: "I never voted to go to war."

We are in a state of war and have been since 9-11. You don't grant the President the war powers unless we are at war.
You can say that as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. The US Congress has not declared war since WW II. Fact.
 
:rofl So we are NOT at war, huh? I will make sure to call my buddies and commrades over there right now still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and tell them! They sure will be glad to know - but what do you want me to tell them when they ask just what the H@LL we are in?! :rofl

So, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda declares war on US, kills Americans in the bombings of the kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, two African Embassies, as well as in the attacks on 9-11, and your response is that it isn't war until WE - our congress - says its war! :doh

So I can get this straight, what exactly WAS the last 'WAR' we were in, pray tell? WWII? Holy Cr@p, what a bunch of political BS!

When we have gotten to a point where we send the combined might of our military into several nations, fight an enemy that has inflicted death upon our people - even on our own soil, spending years abroad fighting, and losing over 2K brave men and women in the defense of this country and we can NOT even agree/admit that we are in a state of war because of political fighting between the 2 major parties, we have reached a point of complete INSANITY, a point of politics gone completely WRONG!

God, help us!
 
NYStateofMind said:
You can say that as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true. The US Congress has not declared war since WW II. Fact.

For all intents and purposes we are officially at war, whenever the war powers are given to the President we are officially at war you can not give the war powers to the President when not in an official state of war. Does that not compute????
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
For all intents and purposes we are officially at war, whenever the war powers are given to the President we are officially at war you can not give the war powers to the President when not in an official state of war. Does that not compute????
Not true.

Go back and read what you quoted VERY carefully.
War Powers Resolution


Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
It specifies 3 circumstances in which the President is given authority to send the military into hostile action....note the fact that it doesn't say WAR, it says HOSTILITIES. ONE of those circumstances is in case of a declaration of war. The other two are in other circumstances, the ones you put in bold print yourself. I know this is hard to comprehend, but the AUMF was not a declaration of war, it authorized the president to use his constitutional powers to send the troops into hostilities under the THIRD provision. The president has legally sent our military into hostilities, but we have not declared war. The effect on the ground is the same, but technically, legally, the congress didn't declare war.

"For all intents and purposes" aside, the fact remains that congress did not declare war. FACT. They authorized military action, but didn't declare war. We haven't declared war since WW II. If you can prove that we have, please show me a source!
 
NYStateofMind said:
Not true.

Go back and read what you quoted VERY carefully.
It specifies 3 circumstances in which the President is given authority to send the military into hostile action....note the fact that it doesn't say WAR, it says HOSTILITIES. ONE of those circumstances is in case of a declaration of war. The other two are in other circumstances, the ones you put in bold print yourself. I know this is hard to comprehend, but the AUMF was not a declaration of war, it authorized the president to use his constitutional powers to send the troops into hostilities under the THIRD provision. The president has legally sent our military into hostilities, but we have not declared war. The effect on the ground is the same, but technically, legally, the congress didn't declare war.

"For all intents and purposes" aside, the fact remains that congress did not declare war. FACT. They authorized military action, but didn't declare war. We haven't declared war since WW II. If you can prove that we have, please show me a source!

I know that this hard for you to comprehend but it's called the War Powers Resolution for a reason. What do you think this part means: (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief?

Hmm now what Constitutional Powers are they referring to? Hmm perhaps Article 2 Section 2?

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Whatever your point is it's moot the President has been granted the War Powers end of story.
 
Navy Pride said:
The point I am trying to make to you is those guys arte just as dead whether a war was declared or not.........Did you know that no war has been declared since WW2.............

Actually my point is other than quick raids and instant reactions I do not think we should commit troops without a declaration of war.
 
ludahai said:
Actually, it was started when the North Koreans invaded the South. It was Truman who pressed for UN sanction, but it was most certainly a US-led operation.

Nonetheless it was as an obligation to the UN charter that we went, the democrats did not control the UN.

ludahai said:
Resulting in an escalation of the conflict under a Democratic administration.


Yes it did, then Nixon a republican escalated it even more. So the claim was the Democrats started the war. Now you admit they merely escalated it, something the GOP also did. SO how do you blame that war solely on the Democrats?

ludahai said:
The Republican Party owns Fox News? That is news to me. BTW, I don't have a satellite dish, so I can't watch FNC anymore.

Why would you want to?

ludahai said:
I am not a friend of the KSA and they have a lot to answer for. However, connecting the Bush Presidency to al-Saud any more than any other presidency since FDR is simply fallacious.


Read the book and tell me that. While your at it read, SLEEPING THE THE ENEMY too.

ludahai said:
Quran toilet paper? LOL! I just ordered a whole bunch of Danish cheeze. Should get here in a couple of days.

I already got my cheese. There are several of us discussing printing large versions of the cartoons and picketing the Mosque in the city next door this week. That should be fun.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No I don't. We're at war. You're quibbling because you have some ideological itch to take care of.

We are not at war in the legal sense, and that is my point. We should not EVER commit troops to anything that is more than a quick raid or reaction without a declaration of war. We should either go with everything, or stay home.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When he becomes a pain in our ass, we'll take care of him. I'm not going to lie and say everyone would be all lovey-dovey if it weren't for the big bad evil United States. Chavez is a marxist/socialst and he'll need to establish a scapegoat when his economy goes south.

But if you're claiming I'm setting him up in advance, that's ludicrous. If he leaves us alone I see no problem with not killing him.

Like I said, great to have the next bogey-man all picked out. First you have to give the people something to fear, then someone to blame for it, then you can do as you wish.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What it meant was that Brazil was neutral in WWII, but Iraq was a player in the action of terrorism. Thus your analogy doesn't hold up.

Brazil did help the Axis at least as much as Iraq helped al-Queda. Iraq was WAY down the list of terror sponsors, below AT LEAST KSA, Libya, Syria and Iran.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, dear, I was almost going to agree with you, then you vomited forth a whole gutful of putrid nonsense. Perhaps the United States should have just let the Soviet Union take Afghanistan and establish themselves in a strategic position against Iraq?

You are aware that it was Carter that started the covert operations in Afghanland, right, and Reagan merely prevented the Democrats from sabotaging American interests in the matter?

It was the Regan administration that got us involved with bin Laden, that is a fact.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, well no nation has ever had a rational government. They're all run by people who're successful at seizing power or winning elections, not by people who can run a country.


Some are far more rational than others, but then I wasn't talking of governments I was talking of ideologies. Islam is irrational.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Actually my point is other than quick raids and instant reactions I do not think we should commit troops without a declaration of war.

Well that is exactly what your party, the democrats did in Korea (Truman) and Viet Nam (Kennedy)...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Read the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

I have, can you say the same? Unless you are claiming part of it was a declaration of war on Iraq it isn't relevant anyway. We are not in a declared state of war. I have pointed this out time and again and you keep coming back with the War Powers Act of 1973 which was actually created to limit the use of force by the President as some sort of rebuttal which is absurd.

If I state that I am not pregnant, you do not rebut it by pointing to a condom ad from 30 years ago. Unless you are a fool.



Trajan Octavian Titus said:
LMFAO Al-qaeda didn't exist during the Afghani-Russo conflict, and your assertions that the U.S. had ties with Iraq are unfounded, we supplied appx .5% of foriegn military aid to Iraq during the Iran war, the bulk came from Russia and the French.

Not by that name. However it was the US who armed, trained, and funded bin Laden and the group that became al-Qaeda after we abandoned them when we were done with them. Bad idea to train a dog ti fight then abandon it in some neighborhood. Somebody going to get hurt there.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's not a lie.


Yes it is.

It is a lie when you claim we are in a declared state of war.

It is a lie when you claim that al-Qaeda and Iraq were meaningfully connected.

This has been pointed out to you time and time again. Yet you continue to claim them. One can only assume truth is not important to you.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
We are in a state of war and have been since 9-11. You don't grant the President the war powers unless we are at war.

This is a lie and you know it. Congress has not issued a declaration of war. Bush has not asked for one either.
 
Back
Top Bottom