View Full Version : For all those criticizing the War
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 10:00 AM
and the deaths etc....
After reading this, Iraq seems like a much safer place to be.
Murders, robberies and aggravated assaults in the United States increased last year, spurring an overall rise in violent crime for the first time since 2001, according to FBI data.
Murders rose 4.8 percent, meaning there were more than 16,900 victims in 2005. That would be the most since 1998 and the largest percentage increase in 15 years.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/12/D8I6MG9G1.html
jeremy885
6/12/2006, 10:03 AM
Isn't that about the same as in Iraq but they only have like 20 million vs our 300 million in population.
Hatfield
6/12/2006, 10:11 AM
nope jeremy everything is equal...that is a totally legit comparrison...
population, size, density of population....all equal.
people that think you are safer living in a country at war than you are at home are RETARDED.
no other way to slice it.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 10:16 AM
Yeah, I can't disagree with hat on this. In Iraq, you have terrorists trying to kill as many people as possible, in hopes of sparking sectarian violence, and plunging the country into civil war and hopefully establishing the celephate, or at the very least, turn Iraq into another pre-war Afganistan.
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 10:43 AM
Just for the record,
Iraq population 26mil
24,000 civilian deaths during 2003-2005
2,468 American deaths.
Hatfield
6/12/2006, 10:46 AM
Just for the record,
Iraq population 26mil
24,000 civilian deaths during 2003-2005
2,468 American deaths.
just for the record, the US doesn't deem it necessary to track civillian casualties therefore any number you use to support your claim that is provided by the US is suspect at best.
OUstudent4life
6/12/2006, 11:06 AM
Just as an aside...probably the best estimates on Iraqi deaths came from the Lancet study...
Link to the pdf (http://www.bluejayway.net/pdf/lancet_10-29-04_article_on_IRAQ_casualties.pdf)
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 11:19 AM
just for the record, the US doesn't deem it necessary to track civillian casualties therefore any number you use to support your claim that is provided by the US is suspect at best.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php
looks like a comprehensive international study.
Condescending Sooner
6/12/2006, 11:30 AM
How many people killed by Saddam were never reported? There have been several mass graves discovered.
Hatfield
6/12/2006, 11:40 AM
How many people killed by Saddam were never reported? There have been several mass graves discovered.
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? equally relevant question
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 12:01 PM
ashes to ashes dust to dust if it weren't for women our peckers would ruct
mdklatt
6/12/2006, 12:01 PM
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? equally relevant question
It's a very relevant question if you're trying to determine if Iraq is better off now than three years ago.
walkoffsooner
6/12/2006, 12:13 PM
Let's go there on vacation.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 12:15 PM
It's a very relevant question if you're trying to determine if Iraq is better off now than three years ago.
It may be relevant but it's certainly not dispositive. "Better off" can be defined by any number of criteria.
mdklatt
6/12/2006, 12:25 PM
It may be relevant but it's certainly not dispositive. "Better off" can be defined by any number of criteria.
Surely the probability of being the victim of a genocide perpetrated by your own government is pretty high up on the list of quality of life indicators.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 12:28 PM
no denying that.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 12:33 PM
How's the quality of life for the 2,486 American families who needlessly lost a loved one in this war or for the 18,254 US troops who were maimed over there in Iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
etouffee
6/12/2006, 12:35 PM
I guess for that post to have its intended effect, you'd have to buy into the "needlessly" part.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 12:39 PM
I guess for that post to have its intended effect, you'd have to buy into the "needlessly" part.
You're right. Saddam would have blown up the USA with all of his WMDs by now. Oh wait...
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 12:41 PM
You're right. Saddam would have blown up the USA with all of his WMDs by now. Oh wait...
I'm guessing there's a good reason why your spek meter is as red as an infected boil.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 12:41 PM
You're right. Saddam would have blown up the USA with all of his WMDs by now. Oh wait... I guess for that post to have its intended effect, you'd have to buy into the "WMD as the sole justification for the war" part.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 12:46 PM
I guess for that post to have its intended effect, you'd have to buy into the "WMD as the sole justification for the war" part.
The real reason is Saddam tried to kill Dub's Daddy. Bush had his mind made up to start an unjustified, preemptive war. Ask Richard Clarke.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 12:49 PM
I guess for that post to have its intended effect, you'd have to buy into the "WMD as the sole justification for the war" part.
You changed the subject anyway. The war was needless.
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 12:50 PM
How's the quality of life for the 2,486 American families who needlessly lost a loved one in this war or for the 18,254 US troops who were maimed over there in Iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
Probably a bit prouder than the familys of over 3500 who were murdered on 9-11 plus all of the terror attacks that we did not respond to over the past 16 years.
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 12:51 PM
The real reason is Saddam tried to kill Dub's Daddy. Bush had his mind made up to start an unjustified, preemptive war. Ask Richard Clarke.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Yeah! he's a pearl of truth and wisdom. NOT
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 12:51 PM
Probably a bit prouder than the familys of over 3500 who were murdered on 9-11...
Because Iraq had something to do with 9/11 now? NOT.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 12:53 PM
You changed the subject anyway. The war was needless.YOU posted a highly debatable opinion as fact (the war was needless), then YOU brought up WMD.
You changed the subject.
JohnnyMack
6/12/2006, 01:07 PM
Because Iraq had something to do with 9/11 now? NOT.
I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to argue that point last week. Don't waste your time.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:09 PM
I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to argue that point last week. Don't waste your time.
Yeah, I've had this discussion too many times. People choose to believe what they want I guess.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:12 PM
The real reason is Saddam tried to kill Dub's Daddy. Bush had his mind made up to start an unjustified, preemptive war. Uh huh (http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html).
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:18 PM
Great quotes from politicians running for office. Doesn't change the fact that we still needlessly invaded that country. Iraq was not a threat to us.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:20 PM
People choose to believe what they want I guess.
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 01:22 PM
People choose to believe what they want I guess.
Heh heh.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:23 PM
People choose to believe what they want I guess.
We'll see how history frames Bush's decision.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:24 PM
Because history always frames things accurately?
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 01:25 PM
We'll see how history frames Bush's decision.
Did you know that Al Gore created the internet?
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 01:27 PM
I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to argue that point last week. Don't waste your time.
Thats what you get for basing your argument on things other than facts.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:28 PM
Did you know that Al Gore created the internet?
Did you know your President doesn't even read the newspaper?
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:33 PM
Did you know your President doesn't even read the newspaper?I'd be pretty disappointed to learn that my president wasted valuable time reading the newspaper. There are much better sources of information available, especially when you're the president. Besides, most papers these days are written by people who think like you.
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 01:33 PM
Did you know your President doesn't even read the newspaper?
Did you know that he is YOUR president, as well?
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 01:34 PM
In my book, him not reading liberal biased newspapers is a plus. And given how their circulations are plummeting, he isn't alone it seems.
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 01:35 PM
Did you know your President doesn't even read the newspaper?
BTW, with all the other faster avenues of information conveyance avaible to him, why would he need to do so?
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:37 PM
Did you know that he is YOUR president, as well?
I certainly didn't vote for that remedial person.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 01:37 PM
Did you know that he is YOUR president, as well?
Don't bother. Herr would rather wage war on Bush & conservatives than the terrorists in Iraq and elsewere.
See Michael Berg as an example. About as bat**** nuts as Herr is IMO. :D
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 01:38 PM
I certainly didn't vote for that remedial person.
Makes no difference. He's your president.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 01:38 PM
I certainly didn't vote for that remedial person.
No, just the loser. :D
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:41 PM
Don't bother. Herr would rather wage war on Bush & conservatives than the terrorists in Iraq and elsewere.
See Michael Berg as an example. About as bat**** nuts as Herr is IMO. :D
No, I think Bush blew it when he let Bin Laden escape. That's where we should have put our efforts. Where is Bin Laden BTW? I love how he went from being the #1 fugitive to someone we might want to catch if we have time. I criticize Bush because he's been a horrible President and he deserves criticism.
You lose anyone in this war, Tuba? I hope not but I wonder how calm and objective you'd be if your son got his head lopped off. You're more concerned with defending Bush than recognizing all of the abject horror this needless war has wrought.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:43 PM
Makes no difference. He's your president.
I'm well aware of this grim fact. I'm also well aware that the Republicans who have controlled the entire federal government since January 2001 have done a **** poor job.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:45 PM
I certainly didn't vote for that remedial person.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/3425/inigomontoyat1806hr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:45 PM
You read Kos and take it seriously, dontcha Scholz?
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 01:46 PM
No, I think Bush blew it when he let Bin Laden escape. That's where we should have put our efforts. Where is Bin Laden BTW? I love how he went from being the #1 fugitive to someone we might want to catch if we have time. I criticize Bush because he's been a horrible President and he deserves criticism.
You lose anyone in this war, Tuba? I hope not but I wonder how calm and objective if your son got his head lopped off. You're more concerned with defending Bush than recognizing all of the abject horror this needless war has wrought.
Maybe if your boy Clinton would have taken him the two times he had a chance, then it wouldn't be an issue. I don't agree with everything bush is doing but its a tough time and overall I think he is representing us well. I know I don't want the job and it scares the HE!! out of me what kerry or gore would have done. Those were the choices we had.
I just waited on a teacher from a local highschool here is Austin who teaches highschool politics. Her hero as she stated to me was daschle. Now that is scary.
Did you know your President doesn't even read the newspaper?
omg, herr scholz = that dude who played Jack Ryan in the Hunt for Red October. How's Melanie Griffith these days???
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:48 PM
I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, it does.
...receiving or requiring remedial instruction
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 01:48 PM
I'm well aware of this grim fact. I'm also well aware that the Republicans who have controlled the entire federal government since January 2001 have done a **** poor job.
Yeah, brought us out of the recession without a dot com boost, home building still rising, unemployment lower, taxes lower,no attacks since 9-11, I guess that is pretty sh!tty.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 01:52 PM
I criticize Bush because he's been a horrible President and he deserves criticism.
Thats fine to criticize, but maybe if you added somethings like reason, common sense and facts into your criticisms, your opinion might be more relevant.
However, just as is the case with most anti-war loons, you have marginalized yourself. Congrats.
You lose anyone in this war, Tuba? I hope not but I wonder how calm and objective if your son got his head lopped off. You're more concerned with defending Bush than recognizing all of the abject horror this needless war has wrought.
No, I haven't Thank God. A co-worker has though, lost a son right when the war started.
And I wouldn't have cared if it was Bush or Jimmuah Carter persecuting this war, this war is more than just and is the right thing to do. The truth is That the facts have been laid on the table for you multiple time, yet your head is in the sand so firmly you refuse to see them. Zarqawi was a great example of why this war was just. Fought us in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq for medical care and support, based his whole operation there, and did nothing but slaughter untold thousands of people. It was stuff like this that made Bill Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and why nearly every dim supported this war before flip flopping. Yet, even with all that, you still blame Bush.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:52 PM
Unprecedented federal deficits and debt, Americans less safe in the world, everyone hates us, over 20,000 dead or maimed American soldiers, medical costs out of control, energy prices through the roof, discarded an entire American city. Yeah, super. :rolleyes:
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:52 PM
By "have done a **** poor job" I assume you mean "are not who I voted for"
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:54 PM
Discarded the Geneva Convention, squandered all American moral high ground with prisoner abuse in Iraq, Cuba and who knows how many secret prisons in Europe, dragged the American name through the mud...
Bush has made us less safe, not more.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:54 PM
everyone hates us, medical costs out of control, energy prices through the roof, discarded an entire American city.
Discarded the Geneva Convention, squandered all American moral high ground with prisoner abuse in Iraq, Cuba and who knows how many secret prisons in Europe, dragged the American name through the mud... Use hyperbole much?
Last I checked, medical and energy prices are not within the president's control, nor should they be.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 01:55 PM
Nice little article me thinks.
It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.
Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.
In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. ***
All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters. The persistence of violence in Iraq has done grave damage to George W. Bush's job rating, and polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the Democrats. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff last week, she got 45 percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray.
The angry Democratic left and its aiders and abettors in the press seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats. Maybe they're doing just the opposite.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/democrats_are_winning_except_a.html
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 01:55 PM
Thats And I wouldn't have cared if it was Bush or Jimmuah Carter persecuting this war...
Forgive me if I don't believe you.
JohnnyMack
6/12/2006, 01:55 PM
Regardless of what side of the argument you side with in this situation, I ask that you all take a minute to give etouffee some much deserved Princess Bride Spek.
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 01:58 PM
Unprecedented federal deficits and debt, Americans less safe in the world, everyone hates us, over 20,000 dead or maimed American soldiers, medical costs out of control, energy prices through the roof, discarded an entire American city. Yeah, super. :rolleyes:
Debt during a war? unheard of! Less safe in the world, where is your evidence of that? Medical costs have been out of control since Clinton was in office ,remember hillarys plan? Energy prices are though the roof because of those idiots spouting off in Iran, who have gained the power top make nukes from some of our so called allies. the people of New Orleans are responsible for rebuilding the city. They have had moeny and help and all they seem to do is bitch and moan while pills of trash serve as their backdrops. Shut up and pick up the trash and it might start getting better.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 01:59 PM
i for one would like to know exactly how a president "discards" an american city.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 02:00 PM
Debt during a war? unheard of! Less safe in the world, where is your evidence of that? Medical costs have been out of control since Clinton was in office ,remember hillarys plan? Energy prices are though the roof because of those idiots spouting off in Iran, who have gained the power top make nukes from some of our so called allies. the people of New Orleans are responsible for rebuilding the city. They have had moeny and help and all they seem to do is bitch and moan while pills of trash serve as their backdrops. Shut up and pick up the trash and it might start getting better.
Don't start with facts 85, it just angers the moonbats.
Best to just blame Bush for everything wrong in this world. Its a much easier and less brain intensive way of thinking than worrying yourself with facts and stuff.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 02:01 PM
Debt during a war? unheard of!
Well, then taxes for the rich people shouldn't be cut. Republicans are all about deficit spending. No fiscal responsibility. Pass it on to our grandkids. Bush and the Republicans have created the largest federal debt in American history. Ever hear of a budget? That's a 4-letter word to conservatives.
Less safe in the world, where is your evidence of that?
Let me ask you a question. Would you feel safer or less safe travelling around Europe with an American flag on your backpack these days? Bush has created a million new terrorists with his war mongering.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 02:02 PM
i for one would like to know exactly how a president "discards" an american city.
By creating no-bid hurricanes from Haliburton.
Or, by having our terrorists (US Armed Forces) blow up levees.
Take your pick, just remember, its all Bush's fault.
White House Boy
6/12/2006, 02:03 PM
Regardless of what side of the argument you side with in this situation, I ask that you all take a minute to give etouffee some much deserved Princess Bride Spek.
Point well taken.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 02:03 PM
Bush has created a million new terrorists with his war mongering.More hyperbole. You ever considered arguing like... rationally? People do tend to take you more seriously that way. But if doing the copy+paste thing from a comments thread at Kos is easier for you than thinking, that's cool I guess.
Herr Scholz
6/12/2006, 02:06 PM
More hyperbole. You ever considered arguing like... rationally?
Sorry if a war that has crippled our military, bankrupted our country and killed tens of thousands of people needlessly doesn't elicit calm emotions from me.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 02:06 PM
More hyperbole. You ever considered arguing like... rationally? People do tend to take you more seriously that way. But if doing the copy+paste thing from a comments thread at Kos is easier for you than thinking, that's cool I guess.
Wonder if he will copy+paste the comments from Kos where he told the aid workers who were beaten, burned and hung from a bridge to go screw themselves?
Dr.Quack
6/12/2006, 02:07 PM
69% of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance. They aren't necessarily correct, but that's a statistic that ought to give his ardent fans pause. My fear, and the posters on this thread are sad evidence, is that politics in America have become "faith based." It doesn't matter how terribly a president performs, if I voted for him, I can just claim hypothetically that the other guy would have been worse and stand by my man right or wrong. There's no talking you out of it, but defending Bush and his war at this stage in his failed administration looks like a leap of faith to me. I'm not alone. Should a president go on national television and give one justification for a war, then revise that justification three times when the facts turn up inconvenient for the first justification? A democracy should not go to war without great care. The Bush administration's reckless conduct sets a dangerous precedent in a democracy that enjoys the service of a volunteer force. Bush had a responsibility to know the reason for war before starting it, share that reason with the people with 100% honesty and consistency, hold those responsible for embarrassing failures along the way accountable for their actions, and have a solid plan for how to exit Iraq without getting embroiled in a protracted insurgency. I'd say he failed on all counts, and the majority of Americans are not interested in faith-based contradictions of these demonstrable claims.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 02:08 PM
Sorry if a war that has crippled our military, bankrupted our country and killed tens of thousands of people needlessly doesn't elicit calm emotions from me.
Welcome to Liberal FantasyLand™.
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 02:10 PM
Bush had a responsibility to know the reason for war before starting it, share that reason with the people with 100% honesty and consistency, hold those responsible for embarrassing failures along the way accountable for their actions, and have a solid plan for how to exit Iraq without getting embroiled in a protracted insurgency. I'd say he failed on all counts, and the majority of Americans are not interested in faith-based contradictions of these demonstrable claims.
Seems they are interested in it, and Bush was held accountable considering he won re-election 2004, and the GOP gained seats.
And you might want to fact check your statements there bud, as the case for war was laid out for a whole freaking year, and is on record as being more than just eh WMD argument.
But, don't let them facts get in the way.
Dr.Quack
6/12/2006, 02:31 PM
Okay, 69% of Americans are wrong. But what I've seen since that election appears frighteningly close to incompetence. A wartime president won re-election by a very very slender margin over a Northeastern liberal two-years ago. That's true and fine, but not a mandate to rule recklessly. The story for war did change three times. Claiming I'm not basing this statement on facts is silly message-board posturing. You're mistaken and adopting an insulting tone doesn't change what this president said. I'm no raving Liberal. My comments were mainstream opinion that can even be found in key Conservative writings, yet you fire back as though I were raving. That's a sign of intellectual weakness, friend. I want a strong America that's well run. I don't care if that leadership is Republican, Democratic, or Other. Right now, we aren't getting good leadership.
JohnnyMack
6/12/2006, 02:35 PM
Okay, 69% of Americans are wrong. But what I've seen since that election appears frighteningly close to incompetence. A wartime president won re-election by a very very slender margin over a Northeastern liberal two-years ago. That's true and fine, but not a mandate to rule recklessly. The story for war did change three times. Claiming I'm not basing this statement of facts is silly, message-board posturing. You're mistaken and adopting an insulting tone doesn't change what this president said. I'm no raving Liberal. My comments were mainstream opinion that can even be found in key Conservative writings, yet you fire back as though I were raving. That's a sign of intellectual weakness, friend. I want a strong America that's well run. I don't care if that leadership is Republican, Democratic, or Other. Right now, we aren't getting good leadership.
You'll be labelled a commie pinko friend of Sheehan in 5.....4......3......2......1.......
jeremy885
6/12/2006, 02:37 PM
You'll be labelled a commie pinko friend of Sheehan in 5.....4......3......2......1.......
takes one to know one. ;)
Dr.Quack
6/12/2006, 02:44 PM
You'll be labelled a commie pinko friend of Sheehan in 5.....4......3......2......1.......
Yeah, I know. I'm going back to the sports boards where something resembling reason reigns.
jeremy885
6/12/2006, 02:54 PM
Yeah, I know. I'm going back to the sports boards where something resembling reason reigns.
You are quack if you believe that.
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 02:58 PM
You are quack if you believe that.
no AFLAC
OklahomaTuba
6/12/2006, 04:01 PM
The story for war did change three times. Claiming I'm not basing this statement on facts is silly message-board posturing. You're mistaken and adopting an insulting tone doesn't change what this president said. I'm no raving Liberal. My comments were mainstream opinion that can even be found in key Conservative writings, yet you fire back as though I were raving. That's a sign of intellectual weakness, friend. I want a strong America that's well run. I don't care if that leadership is Republican, Democratic, or Other. Right now, we aren't getting good leadership.
Again, saying the story for war changed 3 times complete is BS, and shows your own intellectual weakness for not being able to understand this. WMD was one part of the reason to go to war, but not the only reason, and a simple 3 second search on google will yield an impressive amount of information that pretty much guts your laughable argument. Infact, just for fun, lets look at the authorization to go to war that the congress approved:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Hatfield
6/12/2006, 04:04 PM
without reading all the crap (and articles graciously provided by tuba) this thread has descended into, I would respectfully remind the members of the SO that comparing US living conditions to those of a country at war is petty and shortsighted. I am sure the people actually fighting over there would prefer to live in the US.
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 04:20 PM
Actually the whole point of the thread was, how can so many violent crimes be happening in the greatest country on earth?
Hatfield
6/12/2006, 04:26 PM
Actually the whole point of the thread was, how can so many violent crimes be happening in the greatest country on earth?
obviously it is god's will.
To be fair to Herr Scholz...I was the same way back when Clinton was President. I never acknowledge him as my President. My President was Charlton Heston! F*** n' a, man!
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 06:54 PM
Debt during a war? unheard of!
Well, I'm pretty sure it's the first time there have been tax cuts during a "war."
85Sooner
6/12/2006, 07:04 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure it's the first time there have been tax cuts during a "war."
Kennedy tried to during vietnam. He would be rolling in his grave at the democrats of today.
BTW I get the tax cuts and I am far far far from rich. I don't know where some people get that it is only for the rich.
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 07:07 PM
Kennedy tried to during vietnam.
Kennedy was probably wrong, too. And, I can name a Republican president or two that would be rolling in their graves at the Republicans of today ;) It's a pretty common thing for presidents to not like what their party does generations later.
Maybe the debt is because of too much spending? Cut out all of the social/welfare/feel good programs and we can have more tax cuts!
Let the blue states have their own welfare programs.
BTW, Vaevictis, did you benefit from any of the Bush tax cuts? I'm sure that if you did, you did your good liberal deed by cutting an extra check to the .gov to make up for the difference. Might as well not be a hypocrite! And no one is stopping you from paying Clinton tax rates now. Just because they tell you that you don't have to pay as much, doesn't mean that you do, especially when you blabber your mouth about how much better the higher rate was.
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 08:17 PM
I'm not sure either way, but I'm not cutting a check for extra money unless it's what's due. I'm not averse to paying extra taxes, *if* everyone is in the same boat as I am. I'm all for taking advantages of large numbers; 1 million people paying an extra dollar is something. One person paying an extra dollar isn't.
But, let's do be fair, shall we:
BTW, Jerk, have you heard that there's a "war" on? I'm sure that if you did, you did your good conservative deed and enlisted in the infantry, right? And remember, if you've done it before isn't a reason not to do so now, cause Uncle Sam still wants you!
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 08:22 PM
Maybe the debt is because of too much spending?
Oh, and by the way: Hear hear! Too much spending on wars either:
1. Based on false pretenses, due to dishonesty or incompetence (ie, "intelligence failures").
2. Utter failure to meet mission objectives, with respect to securing weapons of mass destruction, assuming they ever existed.
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 08:27 PM
Oh, and by the way, permit me to correct myself: I will be quite happy to cut extra checks towards paying down the national debt, assuming Congress ever gets some budget discipline. But when they're running up the deficit by 400 billion per year? F. That.
You want a permanent tax cut? Pay off the debt; iirc, it's eating up almost 15-20% of the federal budget every year in interest payments.
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 08:43 PM
Hey, Jerk, I just had an awesome idea. You're a trucker right? If so, heck, you don't even have to enlist to do your patriotic duty. I heard that they need truckers something fierce over there, something about IED's making them scarce. You could do your pro-war patriotic duty, practice your trade, and make a buck at the same time (last I heard, they were paying something like $80k+ for experienced drivers over there).
If you want, I bet I can find the number for you to sign up! Make it even easier on you.
Too much to respond to because I have to go to bed soon. I do not like admitting to my failures here, but I did apply to Air Force OTS with a pilots license, a 3.29 gpa, 20/10 vision. I did above average on parts of my AFOQT and below on other parts, and they did not take me. Their policy was not to say why. So I did volunteer, but they said 'no thanks.' I must have failed that psychological test they gave me- either that or they had many other canidates who were better qualified. Probably the latter. I really wanted to join the military, but after going through that 6 month process, I had enough and didn't want to go through all of the bullsh** like the physical exams. 25 was too old for me to enlist...I didn't want to take orders from some 19 year old corporal. So, here I am. Wish it could have been different. I would love to be over there dropping bombs on AQ safe houses, but it was not meant to be.
But anyway, let me get this straight: You think we'd be better off now with higher taxes and a struggling economy? This is the first year of my life where I'm not living paycheck to paycheck.
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 09:00 PM
Hey man, if you were physically qualified to be a pilot (which is what I understand your intent to be, given the pilot's license and 20/10 vision comment), you should have no problem at all with the infantry requirements. They ain't too picky about the psychological stuff either.
Since you're busting out the hypocrite card, why don't you go down to the local army recruiter and say, "I want MOS 11X." I mean, you support the war, right? There's no better way to support it than on the ground with a rifle in your hand. (well, if you can't get in as a pilot, that is). There's no better way to "support the troops" than to get their back in the field. If you won't do that, then put the hypocrite card away. You got no room to speak at all.
And, fwiw, I am not convinced that lowering taxes is what has resulted in this "not struggling" economy. I'd be far more inclined to attribute it to the absolutely humongous increase in government spending (defense, mostly).
Hey man, if you were physically qualified to be a pilot, you should have no problem at all with the infantry requirements. They ain't too picky about the psychological stuff either.
Since you're busting out the hypocrite card, why don't you go down to the local army recruiter and say, "I want MOS 11X." I mean, you support the war, right? There's no better way to support it than on the ground with a rifle in your hand. (well, if you can't get in as a pilot, that is). If you won't do that, then put the hypocrite card away. You got no room to speak at all.
And, fwiw, I am not convinced that lowering taxes is what has resulted in this "not struggling" economy. I'd be far more inclined to attribute it to the absolutely humongous increase in government spending (defense, mostly).
Problem is I'd go broke on a private's salary. Maybe an 18 year old can live on it, but not a 30 year old with a family, a house payment, several car payments, and about 30 pounds of Science Diet per week for the 100 pound family dog. Maybe if you pay off this stuff for me, then I will. Heck, I love machine guns and rifles. Getting in shape might be a problem, though. Point is, I'm not fresh out of high school with nothing tying me down, no responsibilites, etc. You'd have a good argument if there were an active draft, but there's not. It's an all volunteer army. Anyone joining just so they can get their college paid is joining for the wrong reason. And I think, after sept 11, anyone who did join knew what they were getting into. No one is making you join, but you seem to have no problem advocating that other people pay more of their money to the .gov. They already get enough. They need to cut non-military spending.
I don't want to pay more taxes when there are still useless programs like the NEA and NPR. F*** that.
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 09:18 PM
Look, to be fair, I don't care whether you join or not. I understand having reasons why you can't reasonably do so -- to give you some insight into *my* life, when I got home from work on 9/11, the first words out of my wife's mouth were: "I know how you think, and let us get this straight right now: YOU ARE NOT JOINING THE MILITARY."
I may be a lib, but I come from a long tradition that includes both liberalism *and* the military. When the time comes, I am quite happy to cut a check, or take up arms. But this is not the time for either of them, for various complicated reasons.
I'm not trying to indict you personally with my comments, only drive home my point that you need to put away the hypocrite card, because the situation on both of the issues is waaay more complex than you would make it sound.
(and wrt the "nobody made them join, but you would make someone pay..." Well, nobody says you have to pay taxes to the US government. You are quite welcome to vacate the premises and renounce your citizenship if you don't want to. And when the time comes to pay the piper on this deficit, I may do just that, because I am not sure I'm willing to pay the tab for what was paid for with the deficit that's being run up now -- that is, tax cuts targetted primarily at the very wealthy, and voluntary wars either entered under false pretenses, or managed with total incompetence)
Anyone joining just so they can get their college paid is joining for the wrong reason. I don't know about that.
etouffee
6/12/2006, 09:52 PM
Anyone joining just so they can get their college paid is joining for the wrong reason.
I have no problem with people joining the military for that reason. If they want money for college so bad that they're willing to make that kind of commitment, I think that's pretty admirable. Besides, if that's the wrong reason to join, why does the military advertise it more than any other reason to join?
Vaevictis
6/12/2006, 09:54 PM
The correct way to put it is: "Anyone who joins for the college money and expects to never get shot at is too stupid to go to college anyway."
The only thing you can count on when you join the military is that if you join the Air Force or Navy, you will generally have a warm(ish) bed to sleep in at night and will not likely ever have to deal with trench foot. If you join the Marines or the Army, there's a good chance that the opposite is true.
(well, that and the fact that military intelligence is either stupid or trying to get you killed half the time)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.