• 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.

We Got the Government We Deserve!

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm going to make this short and sweet. A government is merely a reflection of its citizens. If the is corruption if government, it is due to the fact there is corruption in our own lives. Now, since Americans pay more attention to Nick and Jessica and their own personnel stuff. Arrogance, narcissism and lying to themselves have become the American way. Which has finally reached the highest office in the land. We now have a President who is arrogant, self-rightous and doesn't give a damn [much like us Americans] about anything except his own personnal agenda.

Back in the sixties, the populace decided Vietnam was not the place to be for our GI's, and public attention could not be ignored by the Nixon adminstration. However, them times are different today. George Bush, according to recent polls, has the lowest approvel rating of any President in history (with the exception of Nixon during the height of Watergate). His approvel rating at the time of his re-election was about 60% [for] and 40% [against] his handling of the war in Iraq. Now it is reversed, with more Americans favoring pulling out. Yet Administration officials talk candidly about being there possibly 12 more years. How can this be? How can they go against the will of the majority? Simple. Americans don't give a damn. In turn, our government doesn't give a damn. But Corporate Americans do!

It is easy to spot examples of Corporate interests driving the direction of this government. The 'eminent domain vote, war in Iraq over the objections of the entire world, 'no-bid' contracts to Halliberton and the largest fiscal spending for a military than at anytime in the history of the world. The United States spends more money on its military than all the nations of the world combined. We spend four times as much as China (our closest in spending). Our Constitution is getting scrapped for the sake of this war on terror. Little by little, rights are being taken away.

And what are the Amercans doing to hold their government accountable. Well, they can't be bothered right now, they're too busy watching Americon Idol or argueing the petty differences between conservatives and liberals.

In normal times (or the old days), these differences would not be so petty. But those days are over. We spend too much time watching the "box" in the corner. As a result, we've been dumbed down. Now we spend more time creating our reality, rather than living in one.

So don't be surprized when you wake up one day and find yourself living in a red, white and blue third world nation. Because, on that day, if you start to get upset, just remind yourself, you got the government you deserve!
 

Attachments

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Billo_Really said:
I'm going to make this short and sweet. A government is merely a reflection of its citizens. If the is corruption if government, it is due to the fact there is corruption in our own lives. Now, since Americans pay more attention to Nick and Jessica and their own personnel stuff. Arrogance, narcissism and lying to themselves have become the American way. Which has finally reached the highest office in the land. We now have a President who is arrogant, self-rightous and doesn't give a damn [much like us Americans] about anything except his own personnal agenda.
Any president serving in his second term has received sufficient backing from the electorate for the agenda he ran on. Why should he not do all in his power to implement it?
Back in the sixties, the populace decided Vietnam was not the place to be for our GI's, and public attention could not be ignored by the Nixon adminstration.
That's true. And the cost of the protests were three more years of war, 20,000 additional US KIA, and more than half a million Souteast Asian KIA. Read the accounts of the NVA leaders General Giap and Colonel Bui Tin. They explain in detail how the protests kept them in the game at the time they were ready to drop out.
However, them times are different today. George Bush, according to recent polls, has the lowest approvel rating of any President in history (with the exception of Nixon during the height of Watergate). His approvel rating at the time of his re-election was about 60% [for] and 40% [against] his handling of the war in Iraq. Now it is reversed, with more Americans favoring pulling out.
That's because these numb skulls fall for the rhetoric of the Administration's opponents whose goal is simply to pull it down.
Yet Administration officials talk candidly about being there possibly 12 more years. How can this be? How can they go against the will of the majority?
The 'majority', in the form of Congressional approval, authorized the President to take the action he did. In case you have forgotten, the US is a representative democracy which means that the peoples' representatives speak for the people. And the peoples' representatives spoke for the people, didn't they?
Simple. Americans don't give a damn. In turn, our government doesn't give a damn. But Corporate Americans do!

It is easy to spot examples of Corporate interests driving the direction of this government.
Nonsense.
The 'eminent domain vote,
This statement belies your understanding of how the government works. What you're complaining about is a supreme court decision made by a majority of liberal justices. Perhaps you should be urging the President to fill the vacant seat with a staunch conservative to avoid similar occurrences in the future.
war in Iraq over the objections of the entire world,
The only nations of any consequence who objected were those who have dirty hands from dealing with Iraq in violation of the UN sanctions, and taking Food for Oil money bribes from Saddam Hussein.
'no-bid' contracts to Halliberton and the largest fiscal spending for a military than at anytime in the history of the world.
Kindly furnish the names of those defense contractors who had the ability to fulfill the requirements who were shut out of the bidding. When no one else can do the job, who is going to bid?
The United States spends more money on its military than all the nations of the world combined. We spend four times as much as China (our closest in spending).
It ain't cheap, is it?
Our Constitution is getting scrapped for the sake of this war on terror. Little by little, rights are being taken away.
Baloney. That's what the Dems would have everyone believe.
And what are the Amercans doing to hold their government accountable. Well, they can't be bothered right now, they're too busy watching Americon Idol or argueing the petty differences between conservatives and liberals.

In normal times (or the old days), these differences would not be so petty. But those days are over. We spend too much time watching the "box" in the corner. As a result, we've been dumbed down. Now we spend more time creating our reality, rather than living in one.
Whose fault is that?
So don't be surprized when you wake up one day and find yourself living in a red, white and blue third world nation. Because, on that day, if you start to get upset, just remind yourself, you got the government you deserve!
Every day I thank God that neither Gore nor Kerry made it to the White House. That proves to me that the electorate is much more savvy than you say.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Billo...
However, them times are different today. George Bush, according to recent polls, has the lowest approvel rating of any President in history (with the exception of Nixon during the height of Watergate). His approvel rating at the time of his re-election was about 60% [for] and 40% [against] his handling of the war in Iraq. Now it is reversed, with more Americans favoring pulling out.
Originally posted by Fantasea:
That's because these numb skulls fall for the rhetoric of the Administration's opponents whose goal is simply to pull it down.
What else do you do with an Administration that doesn't obey the law. We violated International Law by attacking a country that did nothing to us.

Originally posted by Billo...
Yet Administration officials talk candidly about being there possibly 12 more years. How can this be? How can they go against the will of the majority?
Originally posted by Fantasea:
The 'majority', in the form of Congressional approval, authorized the President to take the action he did. In case you have forgotten, the US is a representative democracy which means that the peoples' representatives speak for the people. And the peoples' representatives spoke for the people, didn't they?
They authorized under false pretenses. Bush lied to the Nation during his State of the Union speech. Now since Downing Street, we know it is a fact that he was lying to us all along.

Originally posted by Billo...
Simple. Americans don't give a damn. In turn, our government doesn't give a damn. But Corporate Americans do!
It is easy to spot examples of Corporate interests driving the direction of this government.
Originally posted by Fantasea:
Nonsense.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Originally posted by Billo...
The 'eminent domain vote,
Originally posted by Fantasea:
This statement belies your understanding of how the government works. What you're complaining about is a supreme court decision made by a majority of liberal justices. Perhaps you should be urging the President to fill the vacant seat with a staunch conservative to avoid similar occurrences in the future.
Doesn't matter. They are both corporate bitches!

Originally posted by Billo...
war in Iraq over the objections of the entire world,
Originally posted by Fantasea:
The only nations of any consequence who objected were those who have dirty hands from dealing with Iraq in violation of the UN sanctions, and taking Food for Oil money bribes from Saddam Hussein.
Here's a link that will prove your a liar! Some country's maybe, but definately not "only" as you say.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012003B.ww.demos.htm

Originally posted by Billo...
Our Constitution is getting scrapped for the sake of this war on terror. Little by little, rights are being taken away.
Originally posted by Fantasea:
Baloney. That's what the Dems would have everyone believe.
You say that's "Baloney!" Then what the f___ do you call the Patriot Act! It is certainly not giving us more rights. I like my Constitution just the way it is. I don't want any part of it changed because of this "Struggle Against Extremist.......I dunno........something!"

Originally posted by Billo...
So don't be surprized when you wake up one day and find yourself living in a red, white and blue third world nation. Because, on that day, if you start to get upset, just remind yourself, you got the government you deserve!
Originally posted by Fantasea:
Every day I thank God that neither Gore nor Kerry made it to the White House. That proves to me that the electorate is much more savvy than you say.
They might have savvy, but they don't have the balls or brains to impeach him for lying to the Nation that cost 2000 GI lives. So you thank God for electing a President that condones torture. I would like to be around on judgement day to see what your sentence will be for this one.
 

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
I kept telling his parents...

"When he's being bad, you hit his butt; not his head!"....

But did they ever listen?.........
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by cnredd:
I kept telling his parents...

"When he's being bad, you hit his butt; not his head!"....

But did they ever listen?.........
So you advocate child abuse! That's pretty heavy.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
So you advocate child abuse! That's pretty heavy.

Help prevent child abuse, do what your damn parents tell you!:lol:
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Deegan:
Help prevent child abuse, do what your damn parents tell you!
Corporal punishment is child abuse.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Corporal punishment is child abuse.
There is nothing wrong with a few smacks to the backside, responsible, compassionate parents know this, and what crosses that line.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
There is nothing wrong with a few smacks to the backside, responsible, compassionate parents know this, and what crosses that line.
I was spanked growing up, and I have to agree. And I'm as liberal as you can get.:lol:

As my mom said to me in my teenage years when I was railing against her parenting style:

"When your 4-year old throws a brick through your TV, time out just doesn't cut it."
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Billo_Really said:
Bush lied to the Nation during his State of the Union speech.
Since it's too long to fit, I've copied for you the parts of the SOTU address with references to the situation in Iraq. Kindly cite and respond to any lies you find therein.

The excerpts are taken from the entire address on the CNN website: http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2003

And this Nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism.

break

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror...the gravest danger facing America and the world...is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

break

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty, human rights, and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny - and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

break

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons - not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons...lay those weapons out for the world to see...and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors - sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

break

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction - but why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

This dictator, who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages - leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained - by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies. The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs; its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors; and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

break

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means - sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines, and supplies...and freedom.
Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril...from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves.

America is a strong Nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Fantasea:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
11 months before this speech, the State Dept. and the CIA were notified that the British report was a regarding Niger was a forgery. 11 months! Do you think it takes 11 months for information to go from the State Dept. and CIA to the White House? If that's your only way out, you probably do.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903A.shtml

Originally posted by Fantasea:
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq,
Your talking about "curveball". Which was later determined to be un-reliable.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10078

Originally posted by Fantasea:
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction - but why?
No less than 20 claims by Bush (see the link below) that never materialized. Yet the preceding is stated as a fact!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053003D.shtml

Originally posted by Fantasea:
Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.
Another God-damn, bullShit attempt to link Iraq to 911 which is getting disgusting everytime its brought up. The 911 Commission reported there is no credible evidence Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda cooperated in the 911 attacks.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/4899

I could continue, but I'll stop there.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Breaking International Law" is a matter of perspective. A pre-emptive strike on a tyranic regime that posed a threat of WMD OR posed a threat of getting WMD is something that we no longer have to worry about and since the "breaking of thei International Law" involved our safety without the aid of allies that owe us dearly, they can all go to hell. They'll need us again. Russia needs our military help, right now. After our billions to pick up the pieces left behind by the U.S.S.R. and they stabbed us in the back...what did we do?...deploy to their aid.

The entire world breaks "International Law". Why is it that only America is called on the carpet and spot lighted? Why is it that our history involves the helping of less fortunate nations, but our first and only invasion in history for our protection involved no help and accusations of breaking "International Law?" Why is the killing of unarmed black Africans by German troops not breaking "International Law?" Why is the UK, who also attacked across the Iraqi border, not spot lighted as a breaker of "International Law?" Why is the "food for oil" program scandel that saw tens of billions of dollars that went to countries like France, Germany, and other countries not accountable for breaking "International Law?"

....I'll tell you why. Our Liberal masses tell them it's OK to blame America for all that is wrong and to pay attention when we err. It's our liberals that parade our issues for all to see.

When "International Law" is something for which only America is held accountable for, "International Law" is BS. Anything that allows the buildup of arms and the continuance of a rise and organization of a lethal ideology is cowardice. Europe calls this "appeasement" and they payed three times for this. One thing never changes...history teaches the masses nothing.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt;
The entire world breaks "International Law". Why is it that only America is called on the carpet and spot lighted? Why is the killing of unarmed black Africans by German troops not breaking "International Law?" Why is the UK, who also attacked across the Iraqi border, not spot lighted as a breaker of "International Law?" Why is the "food for oil" program scandel that saw tens of billions of dollars that went to countries like France, Germany, and other countries not accountable for breaking "International Law?"
Those are all valid points. As an American, I think my country is better than that. Or at least that is how I was raised. But when we break laws for which we are a signatory too, were not showing that we are as great as I believe us to be.

But I would agree with you, if its bull$hit for us, then it is bull$hit for them. In my world, the door swings both ways.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Billo_Really said:
But when we break laws for which we are a signatory too, were not showing that we are as great as I believe us to be.
How about a few citations? Which laws to which the US is a signatory has it broken?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Your country is better than that. Way better. Today's media would have you think otherwise. The door swings both ways for me too. Honor and credibility cannot exist if the door only swings one way.

I don't see the "International law" breakage though. You've read enough of my comments to know that I see the entire Middle East as a future threat that needs taken care of pre-emptavely before it is something that future generations will have to deal with at a larger scale.

Not to mention, regardless of WMD, getting rid of Saddam and his terror regime was a noble endeavor. Ignoring this fact and focusing on the WMD issue is what gives Europe their excuse for not responding to the aid of others. This is another lesson taught to us through history.
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Billo_Really said:
11 months before this speech, the State Dept. and the CIA were notified that the British report was a regarding Niger was a forgery. 11 months! Do you think it takes 11 months for information to go from the State Dept. and CIA to the White House? If that's your only way out, you probably do.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903A.shtml

Your talking about "curveball". Which was later determined to be un-reliable.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10078

No less than 20 claims by Bush (see the link below) that never materialized. Yet the preceding is stated as a fact!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053003D.shtml

Another God-damn, bullShit attempt to link Iraq to 911 which is getting disgusting everytime its brought up. The 911 Commission reported there is no credible evidence Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda cooperated in the 911 attacks.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/4899

I could continue, but I'll stop there.
I can understand why you stopped. You said that the President told lies in his State of the Union address. However, all of your fuss and bluster notwithstanding, you were unable to identify and respond to a single one.
 

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
Fantasea said:
I can understand why you stopped. You said that the President told lies in his State of the Union address. However, all of your fuss and bluster notwithstanding, you were unable to identify and respond to a single one.
He answered you fully....

He read the whole State of the Union address, and then said to himself, "Let me go to truthout.org so they can tell me how to respond"....
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
cnredd said:
He answered you fully....

He read the whole State of the Union address, and then said to himself, "Let me go to truthout.org so they can tell me how to respond"....
That is true. Sad, but true.

What no one has been able to do, since 2003, is to directly quote any specific phrase or sentence and correctly identify it as a lie.

Why?

Simply because there are no lies to cite.

Perhaps someone else will take a stab at it.

On the other hand, the obfuscation and whining of the other side is becoming so tiresome.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
nonetheless, there is no connection between Iraq and 911. There is a bigger connection between Saudi Arabia and 911, Pakistan and 911, yet we support these countries. I believe we did a good thing in taking Sadaam out, but considering that we're in a war on terror, wouldn't a country relavent to our war be a better choice in invading?
 

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
nkgupta80 said:
nonetheless, there is no connection between Iraq and 911. There is a bigger connection between Saudi Arabia and 911, Pakistan and 911, yet we support these countries. I believe we did a good thing in taking Sadaam out, but considering that we're in a war on terror, wouldn't a country relavent to our war be a better choice in invading?

I wrote this recently...easier to just cut/paste it....

The two places to attack terrorism at its core is Saudi Arabia & Iran.

Attacking Saudi Arabia directly would cause more grief with the rest of the Muslim community, because it would be twisted into a direct attack on Mecca & Medina; the two holiest cities of Islam.

Attacking Iran, currently, is doable, but it is much easier to surround them and isolate them...Afghanistan to the east; Iraq to the west. This would give us access to cross into their land other than just using the southern waterfront. But more importantly, it would be alot better if the Iranians themselves would oust their leadership. Seeing Democratic countries around them instead of dictatorships would, hopefully, change the public's views on their own government and take action.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
I don't see the "International law" breakage though. You've read enough of my comments to know that I see the entire Middle East as a future threat that needs taken care of pre-emptavely before it is something that future generations will have to deal with at a larger scale.
Here's the particular UN Articles and Resolutions in question.

The Crime of Aggression

International Law is surprisingly clear and easy to understand on whether the Iraq war was lawful. First, war was abolished by the adoption of the UN Charter in 1947. Thereafter, contracting states entered into a compact. In return for giving up their right to wage war each vested the right to use force in the collective security provisions of chapter VII of the UN Charter. Second, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter provides that:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".

This has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of International Law, from which states cannot derogate. Thus, the effect of articles 2 (3) and (4) is that the use of force can only be justified as expressly provided under the Charter, and only in situations where it is consistent with the UN's purposes. Third, there are two limited exceptions to the requirement not to use force. The first enshrined in Article 51, preserves states' rights to self-defense. As this was not an exception relied upon by the US or UK I need not dwell on it. The second is where the Security Council have authorized the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. That is the only relevant debate here.

I can remind the Panel that a consensus of international lawyers did not accept that such an authorization existed here, or that the UK and US were entitled to revive Resolution 678 (November 1990) from the start of the first Gulf War. The UK and US argued that the wording of Resolution 1441 (8 November 2002) allowed them to rely on Security Council Resolution 678 as they were entitled to interpret Iraq's behavior post 1441 as constituting a further "material breach" of Resolution 678 (Article 1) in circumstances where Iraq had been given its "final opportunity" to disarm (Article 2) and was warned of the "serious consequences" of non-compliance (Article 13). This is referred to as the revival doctrine. Not surprisingly, that is not the way international law works post the UN Charter. If the Security Council wish to authorize force, they do so in clear terms, latterly using the phrase "all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/WTI062405T.shtml

Originally posted by Fantasea:
I can understand why you stopped. You said that the President told lies in his State of the Union address. However, all of your fuss and bluster notwithstanding, you were unable to identify and respond to a single one.
How would you know with your head stuck up that far? That position has got to hurt your back after a while. Whenever it pops out from there, here's a refresher coarse.
Originally posted by billo...:
11 months before this speech, the State Dept. and the CIA were notified that the British report was a regarding Niger was a forgery. 11 months! Do you think it takes 11 months for information to go from the State Dept. and CIA to the White House? If that's your only way out, you probably do.
This means that Bush knew the documents were unreliable and still went ahead and announced them as a fact. Which it wasn't. Things that are not true, are false. When you say things that you know are false, you lie. Now go wipe your ears, your head is beginning to smell real bad!

Maybe you should actually read the sources before you respond. Then again, it makes sense you don't see Bush lying. If your not concerned about the truth, how could you possibly know its a lie? You have to know one, in order to recognize the other.
Originally Posted by cnredd
He answered you fully....[you ought to know what things are full of]
He read the whole State of the Union address, and then said to himself, "Let me go to truthout.org so they can tell me how to respond"....
You've got to be the poster boy for the Ad hominum croud.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
International Law is surprisingly clear and easy to understand on whether the Iraq war was lawful. First, war was abolished by the adoption of the UN Charter in 1947. Thereafter, contracting states entered into a compact. In return for giving up their right to wage war each vested the right to use force in the collective security provisions of chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Not exactly. International law has three basic sources, international treaties, custom, and general principles of law.

Resolution 678 was still active. The charter itself fully preserves the right of nation-states to individual and collective self-defense, including the customary international law doctrine of "anticipatory" self-defense.

This does not mean that the U.S. was not in violation of it's international obligations, but there was no international law violation.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
C.J. said:
Not exactly. International law has three basic sources, international treaties, custom, and general principles of law.

Resolution 678 was still active. The charter itself fully preserves the right of nation-states to individual and collective self-defense, including the customary international law doctrine of "anticipatory" self-defense.

This does not mean that the U.S. was not in violation of it's international obligations, but there was no international law violation.
There's a difference between pre-emptive and preventive war. Both of which might be considered ""anticipatory" self-defense." There was a dearth of information that Iraq was likely to initiate either a direct attack or an attack via proxy on the US. This relegates the attack on Iraq to the realm of a preventive war.

If Iraq had been an imminent threat to the US then the war was not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of preemption.

"Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."
As we all know, "[f]or centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat..."

Yet, since Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, just a "grave and gathering" one, the war was an example of a "preventive war".
"Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries.
Invading Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive.
 
Last edited:

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
There's a difference between pre-emptive and preventive war. Both of which might be considered ""anticipatory" self-defense." There was a dearth of information that Iraq was likely to initiate either a direct attack or an attack via proxy on the US. This relegates the attack on Iraq to the realm of a preventive war.

If Iraq had been an imminent threat to the US then the war was not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of preemption.

"Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."
As we all know, "[f]or centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an Legal scholars andimminent danger of attack. international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat..."

Yet, since Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, just a "grave and gathering" one, the war was an example of a "preventive war".
"Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries.
Invading Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive.
First off understand what my view was before the war. I bought the Administrations claims hook line and sinker. What I did not buy was that a ground war was the way to go, so I opposed it then as I do now.

International law cannot overrule our constitution, and therefore any action considered legal by our system. I don't believe anything in International law says a country cannot handle a "grave and gathering" threat.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
nkgupta80 said:
nonetheless, there is no connection between Iraq and 911. There is a bigger connection between Saudi Arabia and 911, Pakistan and 911, yet we support these countries. I believe we did a good thing in taking Sadaam out, but considering that we're in a war on terror, wouldn't a country relavent to our war be a better choice in invading?
The use of the word "nonetheless" indicates that the user has accepted all of the premises to which it pertains. Usually what follows is related to changing the subject to something else.

1. I apreciate your acceptance and tacit, at least, agreement with the contents of my post to which you are responding.

2. I am in agreement with all of what you wrote, except for the part about "no connection between Iraq and 9-11".

There is sufficient fuzz on that peach as to render it inedible by me. As with WMD, just because we haven't discovered a few freight containers buried in 169,235 square miles of Iraqi desert doesn't prove that none exist.

All it proves is that we haven't discovered any.
 
Top Bottom