• 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.

My New Bumper Sticker

Donkey1499 said:
The thing is, Bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. He was misled by the crappy intelligence that the CIA, FBI, Russia, and the UK gave him. And chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. Fox News and NBC reported it, but I don't think CNN or ABC did. Also, Bush couldn't of declared war on Iraq if the SENATE and HOUSE didn't give him the ok to do so. Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi were all given the same intelligence that Bush was given. So enough with saying that Bush is a liar when it comes to the Iraq War.

Actually, the Iraq War is over, we're in the re-building stages. But the War on Terror is still being fought, obviously.


Um... Dude, who declared War? Congress declares war and I know of know such declaration. The president is well within his power of executive authority of Commander and Chief to exercise military operations with or without congressional approval. The gulf of Tonkin resolution during the Vietnam era registered and confirmed the presidents ability to wage conflict without declaration for over 90 days.

Can't blame you for the war you don't have, nor have you been exposed to any kind of intelligence!
 
democratleaningright said:
Um... Dude, who declared War? Congress declares war and I know of know such declaration. The president is well within his power of executive authority of Commander and Chief to exercise military operations with or without congressional approval. The gulf of Tonkin resolution during the Vietnam era registered and confirmed the presidents ability to wage conflict without declaration for over 90 days.

Can't blame you for the war you don't have, nor have you been exposed to any kind of intelligence!

Are you retarded? Congress gave Bush the "go ahead" signal to go to Iraq. Or were you sleeping when that happened. Most of Congress approved of the War based on the intelligence given to them and the Bush Admin. If you're pissed off at the War, which is over, then blame Russia and Britains' crappy intelligence. And the Clinton Admin as well.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Why was it "necessary"?


I already noted the reasons. You can ask that on just about everything the government does. why is it necessary for US taxpayers to bail out New Orleans? Why is it necessary to spend billions on AIDS relief in sub-saharan Africa. How about giving Israel billions?

we live in a representative republic. We vote people into office who then decide what is "necessary". In this case, a majority of both houses thought it was "necessary". Having a military that you don't have the resolve to use renders its power less useful. Saddam was a good roach to squash since there were sound legal reasons to do it and squashing him was not going to cause problems with other large powers (going after North Korea in China's backyard for example)
 
TurtleDude said:
I already noted the reasons. You can ask that on just about everything the government does. why is it necessary for US taxpayers to bail out New Orleans? Why is it necessary to spend billions on AIDS relief in sub-saharan Africa. How about giving Israel billions?

we live in a representative republic. We vote people into office who then decide what is "necessary". In this case, a majority of both houses thought it was "necessary". Having a military that you don't have the resolve to use renders its power less useful. Saddam was a good roach to squash since there were sound legal reasons to do it and squashing him was not going to cause problems with other large powers (going after North Korea in China's backyard for example)

Why bail out New Orleans? What is wrong with you? They are fellow Americans in need! They needed aid and America gave it to them.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Why bail out New Orleans? What is wrong with you? They are fellow Americans in need! They needed aid and America gave it to them.

chill out dude-I was merely using this as an example of massive tax expenditures in response to the question of why the war was necessary.

Honest people can debate the role of a federal response into a disaster. Can people suggest that a local government that didn't shore up levees but used the money for marinas etc should be held accountable? Of course. Can we question how much we should pay? of course. How about rebuilding in an area that will probably flood again-for sure.

You also confuse private charity with allocation of the public treasury but my point was NOT to debate NO relief efforts but to note other areas of massive tax expenditures
 
TurtleDude said:
chill out dude-I was merely using this as an example of massive tax expenditures in response to the question of why the war was necessary.

Honest people can debate the role of a federal response into a disaster. Can people suggest that a local government that didn't shore up levees but used the money for marinas etc should be held accountable? Of course. Can we question how much we should pay? of course. How about rebuilding in an area that will probably flood again-for sure.

You also confuse private charity with allocation of the public treasury but my point was NOT to debate NO relief efforts but to note other areas of massive tax expenditures

Hahaha... you're a turtle.

[Don't take this post seriously. I don't how to respond intelligently to your post at this time.]
 
Donkey1499 said:
Hahaha... you're a turtle.

[Don't take this post seriously. I don't how to respond intelligently to your post at this time.]

ROFLMAO

with a thick shell for sure :mrgreen:
 
HEY! I've seen a bumber sticker that's crazy. It goes like this, "Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes." Whoo hooo! It's a knee slapper!!!
 
Donkey1499 said:
The thing is, Bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. He was misled by the crappy intelligence that the CIA, FBI, Russia, and the UK gave him.
Did you know why the intel on Iraq's WMd wasn't as good as it should've been?
In part because US intelligence agencies had placed a higher priority on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation than worrying about Saddam.

As always, citations available upon request.


Donkey1499 said:
And chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. Fox News and NBC reported it, but I don't think CNN or ABC did.
Comprehensive Report of the special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. "
Donkey1499 said:
Also, Bush couldn't of declared war on Iraq if the SENATE and HOUSE didn't give him the ok to do so. Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi were all given the same intelligence that Bush was given. So enough with saying that Bush is a liar when it comes to the Iraq War.
Because it's impossible for more than one politician to be lying at the same time? Or what? In what manner does increasing the number of folks increase the honesty?

Donkey1499 said:
Actually, the Iraq War is over, we're in the re-building stages. But the War on Terror is still being fought, obviously.
So all that stuff going on in Iraq w/ soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, people getting killed, and stuff isn't war?
What would war look like if there were a war going on over there?
How would it be different than the stuff going w/ the soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, and people getting killed?
 
democratleaningright said:
Um... Dude, who declared War? Congress declares war and I know of know such declaration. The president is well within his power of executive authority of Commander and Chief to exercise military operations with or without congressional approval. The gulf of Tonkin resolution during the Vietnam era registered and confirmed the presidents ability to wage conflict without declaration for over 90 days.

Can't blame you for the war you don't have, nor have you been exposed to any kind of intelligence!

This is the authorization that Congress gave the President...House Resolution 114

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114

Actual "Declarations of War" went out with WWII...there hasn't been one since 1942...

You can check out the official Declarations and authorized military engagements here...
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Did you know why the intel on Iraq's WMd wasn't as good as it should've been?
In part because US intelligence agencies had placed a higher priority on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation than worrying about Saddam.

As always, citations available upon request.


Comprehensive Report of the special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. "
Because it's impossible for more than one politician to be lying at the same time? Or what? In what manner does increasing the number of folks increase the honesty?

So all that stuff going on in Iraq w/ soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, people getting killed, and stuff isn't war?
What would war look like if there were a war going on over there?
How would it be different than the stuff going w/ the soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, and people getting killed?

The War for Iraq is over. The War on Terror is currently underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a slight difference. The War on Iraq was over when we took Baghdad. We are also rebuilding Iraq.

There was a small bunker that still contained SMALL amounts of chemical weapons. The rest are probably in Lebanon or Syria.
 
TurtleDude said:
I already noted the reasons.
You listed this as the reasons:
"... to send a message to the other cockroaches that it was necessary ..."

So I ask, "What made it necessary?"

TurtleDude said:
You can ask that on just about everything the government does.
As fascinating as this observation is, I'd still like to know why you described the invasion as necessary.

TurtleDude said:
We vote people into office who then decide what is "necessary". In this case, a majority of both houses thought it was "necessary".
So, you personally don't know why it was necessary, or don't think it was necessary?

TurtleDude said:
Having a military that you don't have the resolve to use renders its power less useful.
There still needs to be a reason for using it even when one has the resolve necessary. And, if Sun-tzu is any sort of a guide re warfare, it should be good reason.

TurtleDude said:
Saddam was a good roach to squash since there were sound legal reasons to do it and squashing him was not going to cause problems with other large powers (going after North Korea in China's backyard for example)
Actually, it has created problems w/ much of the world. Perhaps you have a more narrow definition of 'problems'.
 
WOW... **** Bush!!.. That makes you a real political monster doesn't it... Tell ya what.. Come to the table with something better then Kerry and you can take the bumper sticker off. It was an amazing political statement to start.
 
Donkey1499 said:
The War for Iraq is over. The War on Terror is currently underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a slight difference. The War on Iraq was over when we took Baghdad. We are also rebuilding Iraq.
So, what would it look like if there were a war going on over there?
How would it be different than the stuff going w/ the soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, and people getting killed?

Donkey1499 said:
There was a small bunker that still contained SMALL amounts of chemical weapons. The rest are probably in Lebanon or Syria.
Actually, they probably are not there.What the best info currently available re the WMD to Syria theory says.

Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
(pdf) page1 (page 4 of the pdf)
ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials , examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when
circumstances on the ground improve.
The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.
It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found.
At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
Note that "WMD-related materials" WMDs

But as WMD to Syria devotees and Bigfoot devotees are apt to say, "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. " And of course, they're both right.
However, in the meantime, folks in the reality-based community have to deal with the facts that are available and make the best decisions in light of what's known.
And, based on the evidence available at present, the WMD to Syria transfer theory seems unlikely. But, so does Bigfoot, so who's to say.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So, what would it look like if there were a war going on over there?
How would it be different than the stuff going w/ the soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, and people getting killed?

Actually, they probably are not there.What the best info currently available re the WMD to Syria theory says.

Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
(pdf) page1 (page 4 of the pdf)
ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials , examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when
circumstances on the ground improve.
The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.
It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found.
At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
Note that "WMD-related materials" WMDs

But as WMD to Syria devotees and Bigfoot devotees are apt to say, "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. " And of course, they're both right.
However, in the meantime, folks in the reality-based community have to deal with the facts that are available and make the best decisions in light of what's known.
And, based on the evidence available at present, the WMD to Syria transfer theory seems unlikely. But, so does Bigfoot, so who's to say.

What? I answered that question. We are fighting the War on Terror in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

And about the WMDs in Syria. It's just a thought and a guess. And I don't have to prove my thoughts, so :blah:
 
Donkey1499 said:
What? I answered that question. We are fighting the War on Terror in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
I must have missed it. What did you answer?
Here're the questions again:
So, what would it look like if there were a war going on in Iraq?
How would it be different than the stuff going w/ the soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, and people getting killed?
Could you please highlight your answers?

Donkey1499 said:
And about the WMDs in Syria. It's just a thought and a guess. And I don't have to prove my thoughts, so
So basically, you're saying you've reached a conlusion that's contrary to the best information available and you have no way of justifying it.
This is, of course, your own business, but it makes your conclusions worthless in a debate.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You listed this as the reasons:
"... to send a message to the other cockroaches that it was necessary ..."

So I ask, "What made it necessary?"

As fascinating as this observation is, I'd still like to know why you described the invasion as necessary.

So, you personally don't know why it was necessary, or don't think it was necessary?

There still needs to be a reason for using it even when one has the resolve necessary. And, if Sun-tzu is any sort of a guide re warfare, it should be good reason.

Actually, it has created problems w/ much of the world. Perhaps you have a more narrow definition of 'problems'.

I already explained why I believe it was necessary as supported by the lawful actions of the government. Are you going to try to demur on grounds of playing games as to what Necessary means? If ME stability is a valued situation, if denying terrorists a friendly nation than it was necessary.

Perhaps I should ask you what gives you the credentials to claim the war is not necessary
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I must have missed it. What did you answer?
Here're the questions again:
So, what would it look like if there were a war going on in Iraq?
How would it be different than the stuff going w/ the soldiers, marines, jets, tanks, bombs, grenades, bullets, and people getting killed?
Could you please highlight your answers?

So basically, you're saying you've reached a conlusion that's contrary to the best information available and you have no way of justifying it.
This is, of course, your own business, but it makes your conclusions worthless in a debate.

My answer is: We are fighting the War on Terror in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. The Iraq War was over when we took Baghdad. I never said that we aren't fighting a war over there. As of to what would war look like? Death, destruction and mayhem.

And I don't care if it can be used in a debate. I have gut instinct that tells me those WMDs were moved out of the country. We've been lied to by the gov't/military before (ie. Roswell and Kecksburg).
 
TurtleDude said:
I already explained why I believe it was necessary as supported by the lawful actions of the government. Are you going to try to demur on grounds of playing games as to what Necessary means?
No, I genuinely want to know why you think it was necessary.

TurtleDude said:
If ME stability is a valued situation, if denying terrorists a friendly nation than it was necessary.
What do you make of the fact that it has decreased ME stability (as was predicted by the US Intel Community) and that Iraq is now a much more hospitable nation to terrorists than it was before the invasion (also as predicted)?

TurtleDude said:
Perhaps I should ask you what gives you the credentials to claim the war is not necessary
War is akin to surgery in that the default position is that it's not necessary. There has to be good reason for a surgery or a war to be necessary.
The burden of proof re war is on those who would say that it was necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom