Topsez said:
Please provide an example when I haven't given a thoughtful comment.
No problem!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/search.php?searchid=123172
You ask... what's your point when I say the Prez has no checkbook to fight wars... The point is a majority, including a rather large number of Dems support the action and continuing action. If they didn't the war would end because the Prez has no money to fight war... only the congress has the checkbook.
Ah, a majority. Because the majority of America supports this Iraq war. And it's unanimous in Congress, too. :roll:
According to the sources that you personally choose.
Do you deny the facts that they put forth?
Why do you think an overwhelming majority gave the prez the vote of confidence to return to hostilities in Iraq?
When was that?
Keep in mind that this is the Congress that we are speaking of... :roll:
While you are at it why do they continue to give him money to continue the conflict?
He's the president. It is their job.
Perhaps, just perhaps the congress agrees with the mission and its validity...
Exactly, the logic is this:
They got elected,
They are Congress,
They must be right
Do Not Question.
Dems have strong opinions and have often offered challenges to fillibuster for much less actions than war... why don't they read your links?
Ask them.
Like I said above the prez has no checkbook and the libs have blocked or obstructed much less sensitive issues than war... are you saying only the right is supporting the war in Iraq?
Oh, heck no! I would never say that! The right hardly supports it either!
Well, imagine that... you aren't an isolationist but you just want tax to help benifit taxpayers...
Throwing titles at me again? Great tactic, never works.
If helping another country helps the USA, then go for it, I say. Iraq distinctly does not. And when we've got the USA in working order, when we've fixed the economy, made a stable job market, lowered crime rates, you name it, then we should look to the rest of the world, no doubt.
what makes you think the majority of congress doesn't think their actions in approving appropriations for war aren't in the interest of the taxpayers?
Just because Congress does something, ths does not make them, by default, correct.
You continue to state that the US on Islam holly land is why the terror happened. You must want us to stay home if you don't want us to be involved in areas where someone may get upset with us. Must I remind you that the Saudi Arabian clerics were happy to have USAF bases on their holly land when they were afraid of Saddam?
No kidding! They might hate America but they know how to cover their asses. :roll:
Mufassa! They want blood, oh, I'm sorry I angered you... Hey N. Korea go ahead and print a couple more million C notes I wouldn't want you to get angry at us.. you might want blood if I challenge you... Please feel free to kill all Jews and N. Korea I'm not sure what you want but another year of heating oil and food for your people but please make a list so I won't anger you. Where have you shown any backbone to indicate you want anything else but an isolation wall around America where you can have all the tax dollars spent on you.
Oh look at that! Diversion tactics!
"What? My debate stance was shot down? Well you're an idiot!"
That is your answer to this statement.,.If Saddam hadn't threatened to conquer the entire Gulf the Desert Storm invasion of infidels wouldn't have happened.
But we aren't talking about the Gulf, you're trying to divert the debate from areas that threaten your ideas.
Well, what about the alternative of Saddam still being in charge without Desert Storm and taking over OPEC and saying the price of a barrel of oil today is $300.00... and if you dissagree then Saddam blows a takner out of the gulf and it goes to $350. That would be about $17.00 a gallon for your moped vern.
I ride a bike. :mrgreen: But seriously, that could not and would not happen.
Please refresh my memory it is so taxing to go back and forth for such vague comments.
Can't read back through the thread? Oh well. I was saying that the US enough oil to stave off the addiction until we can get onto better stuff, that is, a power source that won't run out on us.
Then you brought up cabbage leaves.
Yep! The Ottoman Empire got their butts handed to them in WW I & II and then when the winners set up the Jewish state in their former home Israel was attacked by the losers and got their butts handed to them once again... Guess they are right about the right place.
Look, they are a small nation in the middle of a sea of nations that hate them with a fiery vengance. Not ideal, if you ask me.
How would cut and run get closer to the goal posts?
Who said anything about cut and run? Can't you get off the mindless talking points? I don't suggest abandoning Iraq. I suggest we remove troops, and then try in every way possible to stabilize Iraq without troops (because that doesn't help, we've seen). Aid the government, help them with food, electricity, whatever the illness is, help cure it.
That is the problem with you fan nuts ... you have identified something you smell is wrong but can't quite put your finger on it....
See above. Finger's right on it.
Your viewpoint would have N. Korea in S. Korea now... wow, we could have saved a lot by not haveing 37,000 troops in S. Korea since the 1950's and wouldn't be worring about N. Koreas threat for heating fuel and rice right now.
Comparing the Korean War with the Iraq war is like comparing salmon to coconuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war
Check it out!
If you had watched Fox News Sunday in the last two weeks you would have heard the Clinton side and the "other side". Also, the O'Reilly Factor had guest that dismissed all of the information you buy as facts.
See, you don't believe me. Write down that link, find an internet cafe or a buddy with a good connection, pop some popcorn, and watch that that thing. Let me assure you, all of the claims made are backed up by soild facts.
Duke
