freeze Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob The war was Bush's choice. It was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. Therefore, her son's death can be traced back to Bush's decision. They also enlisted assuming that the commander in chief would not send them into harm's way without being honest about the WMDs that don't exist and the imminent threat that Iraq didn't pose. I'm willing to bet you're wrong. I'm willing to bet that if the nation had not been conned into a war based on untruths, you may be right. But the fact is that the nation was sold untruths from the administration, and soldiers have died as a result of these untruths. I'm willing to bet they'd whoop Bush's ass instead. Any war is essentially the president:s choice, although there is a process where the congressional bodies become involved. Not a war of necessity? Ask the thousands upon thousands of iraqi:s who lost their lives so that Hussein could fulfill his 'sport' killing daily fix. Ask the iraqi:s who had to live in poverty while the Hussein clan lived luxuriously while ignoring them. Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US presence in iraq was and is a positive one. And on your point saying that soldiers would whoop bush:s ass instead. nope, sorry. on my way to tokyo i sat next to an american soldier flying home from iraq for a two week visit with his family. a great opportunity for first hand conversation, and his opinion mirrored mine...'i signed up for this job, and wrong or right i will fulfill the duty that i agreed to perform.' your response would be like me not liking my boss at the office, calling my mom to bitch about how horribly depressed i have become, and then her in turn suing the company that i was working for to cover my therapist bills. sorry, isn:t going to work. and when i said that this was a tired argument, i didn:t mean between you and i personally, just in general. i can be pretty much guaranteed that you:re not going to agree with a word i just wrote and will respond with more counters that i:m not going to agree with...that:s why i just wanted to state my opinion and then leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeze Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by the_gooch don't you know that it is pointless to argue with people who have over 3-4 thousand posts on here? :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: nothing agains pmb, but just because someone has 4 million internet posts does not automatically make them an all knowing being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 i think you missed the sarcasm in my comment to spite the hints i left. i tried, i tried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETO Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by the_gooch don't you know that it is pointless to argue with people who have over 3-4 thousand posts on here? :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: </span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by freeze Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US presence in iraq was and is a positive one. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/Genocide2gfx/ManCarriesDeadGirl.jpg'> [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 STOLEN FLICKS. http://www.changemedia.org/photos/peacemarch/images/photos/4.%20Signs/Already%20500K%20Iraqi%20Children%20Dead.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Priest Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by SF1 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/Genocide2gfx/ManCarriesDeadGirl.jpg'> [/b] Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by freeze Any war is essentially the president:s choice, although there is a process where the congressional bodies becomes involved. The Constitution of the United States is specifically constructed such that going to war is not the "president's choice." The President can draw up a declaration of war and put it before the congress, but congress must approve before we go to war. Likewise, congress doesn't have the power to send troops- only the president can direct the actual fighting of the war. Hence, the president can't go to war without the agreement of the congress and congress can't go to war without the president. This is called separation of powers, you might want to read up on it. Not a war of necessity? Ask the thousands upon thousands of iraqi:s who lost their lives so that Hussein could fulfill his 'sport' killing daily fix. Ask the iraqi:s who had to live in poverty while the Hussein clan lived luxuriously while ignoring them. Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war Was Iraq going to invade the United States? Did they pose a grave danger to our well-being? Do they have nuclear weapons cough*northkorea*cough? If the United States is going into the business of democratizing the world, why didn't we start with a a more US-friendly country where we would be sure to succeed and set a good example? Why did we invade the one country where our motives would be most suspect? Why didn't W come right out and say that we were going to invade Iraq because they had a horrible, oppressive dictatorship and it is our moral obligation to overthrow said dictatorships- not because they posed a great threat to our national security? And finally, why did W need a front to go to war? Is the case really that weak? Would you send your child to die for a "front?" The commander in chief has an obligation not to send our troops into harm's way unless it is absolutely neccessary. Based on the arguments supplied during the run-up to the war, it was not neccessary to send our troops into Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KING BLING Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 CAN WE STAY ON TOPIC? > THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0408/gallery.rnc.sunday.update/gal.rnc.dragon.ap.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaname Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by Nekro The Constitution of the United States is specifically constructed such that going to war is not the "president's choice." The President can draw up a declaration of war and put it before the congress, but congress must approve before we go to war. Likewise, congress doesn't have the power to send troops- only the president can direct the actual fighting of the war. Hence, the president can't go to war without the agreement of the congress and congress can't go to war without the president. This is called separation of powers, you might want to read up on it. Was Iraq going to invade the United States? Did they pose a grave danger to our well-being? Do they have nuclear weapons cough*northkorea*cough? If the United States is going into the business of democratizing the world, why didn't we start with a a more US-friendly country where we would be sure to succeed and set a good example? Why did we invade the one country where our motives would be most suspect? Why didn't W come right out and say that we were going to invade Iraq because they had a horrible, oppressive dictatorship and it is our moral obligation to overthrow said dictatorships- not because they posed a great threat to our national security? And finally, why did W need a front to go to war? Is the case really that weak? Would you send your child to die for a "front?" The commander in chief has an obligation not to send our troops into harm's way unless it is absolutely neccessary. Based on the arguments supplied during the run-up to the war, it was not neccessary to send our troops into Iraq. also thanks for all the images guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by freeze Any war is essentially the president:s choice, although there is a process where the congressional bodies become involved. Wrong. US Constitution, Section 8, Clause 10. "Congress shall have power to declare war ..." In this instance, they passed legislation essentially leaving it up to the President's discretion - something abnormal. The norm is Congress declares war, since only they have the constitutional power to do so. So, no, all wars are not the President's choice. Not a war of necessity? Ask the thousands upon thousands of iraqi:s who lost their lives so that Hussein could fulfill his 'sport' killing daily fix. Ask the iraqi:s who had to live in poverty while the Hussein clan lived luxuriously while ignoring them. Following your logic, "wars of necessity" exist all over the world - i.e., wars based on maniacal dictators who keep their countries in poverty. Are you prepared to follow your logic to its natural conclusion and invade other sovereign nations in order to fulfill the precedent the Bush administration has set? Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US presence in iraq was and is a positive one. You can't dismiss one of the single most important facts with an "although ..." Clearly you don't mind being taken into war based on false premises - untruths. I'm avoiding calling them "lies" because I don't know if the Bush administration had the intent to deliberately mislead the nation - or if they're simply incompetent as decision-makers. And don't paint me into a corner as a Saddam-apologist [not that you're attempting to, this is merely a preemptive statement .. call it the Bush Doctrine of Preemption In A 12oz Discussion]. I'm fucking glad the guy is out of power and incarcerated where he can own up to the hell he has put his country through. BUT - and this is the important part - the manner in which the Bushies chose to take him out was fundamentally flawed: untruths re: why we're going in, no planning for the peace, lack of a broad international coalition [uS has 90% of the casualties and 90% of the rebuilding costs], reliance on Chalabi and his merry band of thugs, ignoring the real thread [al Qaeda], etc ad nauseum. And on your point saying that soldiers would whoop bush:s ass instead. nope, sorry. on my way to tokyo i sat next to an american soldier flying home from iraq for a two week visit with his family. a great opportunity for first hand conversation, and his opinion mirrored mine...'i signed up for this job, and wrong or right i will fulfill the duty that i agreed to perform.' Neither of us can prove this point. Fact is, neither of us know what the soldier would do had he known his mother would protest his death in that fashion. But I'm willing to bet that the mother did so for two reasons: 1) to let out some of the anger she had at the Bushies, and 2) to honor her son. We can disagree whether she did so in an appropriate manner, but she's his mom - I'll trust her on that one. your response would be like me not liking my boss at the office, calling my mom to bitch about how horribly depressed i have become, and then her in turn suing the company that i was working for to cover my therapist bills. sorry, isn:t going to work. Except you're not dead. And the degree of anger your mother would feel if you didn't like your boss infinitely smaller than if you had gotten killed. And, I'm confused, where do the therapist bills come in? Are you talking about Rush now? and when i said that this was a tired argument, i didn:t mean between you and i personally, just in general. i can be pretty much guaranteed that you:re not going to agree with a word i just wrote and will respond with more counters that i:m not going to agree with...that:s why i just wanted to state my opinion and then leave it alone. Oh, yeah .. well .. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by KING BLING CAN WE STAY ON TOPIC? > THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION We'll get back to it. Nothing is preventing you and others from discussing it. Two discussions at once in one thread - it can happen, I promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docs Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by Napoleon Dynamite such an idiot! my thoughts on bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Oh, yeah .. well .. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! It's so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.yuck Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I watched part of the speach he put on in wheeling West Virginia tonight. He put on such a compelling performance to re elect him with reasons such as: So his wife can be the first lady for another 4 years and because he likes to hunt and fish. Take that however you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 About the opening prayer. (atrios.blogspot.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtab|e Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 http://www.obsess.com/junk/war.gif'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uncle-boy Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by uncle-boy ass and titties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Screw Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 good thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POIESIS Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 i find this whole bizarre thing really amusing yet really unsettling. call me a pessimistic cynical dinkhead, but kerry doesn't do squat for me. i just see an overall continuation of the current trajectory under his management, and the inevitable further solidifying of domestic and interventionist policy. it would be nice if this great groundswell of awareness and opposition really sank deep into the collective mind and people really started to study the system itself instead of so much exclusive scrutiny of the few scumbags running things. unfortunately i don't see that taking hold with kerry getting in, which is why i half agree with some of the progressives who believe 4 more years of bush would really set things on fire and put america's perverted system under intense rethinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POIESIS Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 the ghoul http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v29/Tesseract/condighoul.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by POIESIS i find this whole bizarre thing really amusing yet really unsettling. call me a pessimistic cynical dinkhead, but kerry doesn't do squat for me. i just see an overall continuation of the current trajectory under his management, and the inevitable further solidifying of domestic and interventionist policy. it would be nice if this great groundswell of awareness and opposition really sank deep into the collective mind and people really started to study the system itself instead of so much exclusive scrutiny of the few scumbags running things. unfortunately i don't see that taking hold with kerry getting in, which is why i half agree with some of the progressives who believe 4 more years of bush would really set things on fire and put america's perverted system under intense rethinking. That's true, but the question is could we survive 4 more years of Bush, and if we do survive then at what cost to our liberties? This is the administration that is now able to hold prisoners with no right to fair trail, lawyer, or outside communication indefinitly under the broad definition of "terrorism". Also the administration that quite seriously recommended delaying the upcoming election, which would require a rewrite of the constitution and theoritically put an end to democracy in this country. With no re-election to worry about, Bush will be able to push the real right-wing, God-oriented agendas that everyone has been speculating about for the past four years. And why not start another war if he knows that another president will have to clean it up. Or who knows, could be on some Angela Langsbury shit and have Bush assasinated so Cheney could take power and the real coup would begin. (referencing the original Manchurian Candidate). Either way, I'm fucking voting for Kerry. If anything it will give me more of a chance to be able to go outside thirty years from now without SPF 300 sunscreen on to protect me from the lack of ozone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatita Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I dont necessarily want to vote for Kerry, but hes definitely the lesser of two evils, and Im not voting for the green party. I saw the bike protest as well... a lottttt of people. It was definitely fun. In my opinion, if Bush was re-elected, ALL HELL would break loose. Rioting and looting in all major cities. People would go crazy... especially if another "ballot" miscount happened. I definitely dont want to witness a re-election. I love America, and I especially love NY, but I think Id have to move to Europe or Canada for 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackstand Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by freeze pmb, i didn:t respond to you because pretty much this has become a tired argument...nothing i say will change your mind and nothing you say will change mine. i stated my opinion and you stated yours. you don:t agree with me and i don:t agree with you, just wanted to leave it at that. i responded to sf1 or whatever because for whatever reason, his childish reference to me being a cop just because he doesn:t agree with me pissed me off at the moment. no hard feelings, i just don:t have the energy to engage in an argument that will get neither of us anywhere with the other. Fuck you pig, I hope someone brutally murders you in front of your wife and kids and they cannot stomach their cereal for months after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by POIESIS i find this whole bizarre thing really amusing yet really unsettling. call me a pessimistic cynical dinkhead, but kerry doesn't do squat for me. i just see an overall continuation of the current trajectory under his management, and the inevitable further solidifying of domestic and interventionist policy. it would be nice if this great groundswell of awareness and opposition really sank deep into the collective mind and people really started to study the system itself instead of so much exclusive scrutiny of the few scumbags running things. unfortunately i don't see that taking hold with kerry getting in, which is why i half agree with some of the progressives who believe 4 more years of bush would really set things on fire and put america's perverted system under intense rethinking. What does Kerry have to do to excite you? Fuck lindsay lohan live in prime-time? If you think that Kerry's going to continue doing what bush has been doing, you are a complete moron. Look at the man's record, look at what he's promised to do, then compare it to what bush has done. Where can i start? Bush cut income taxes about 5% across the board. The result was that a few rich people saved a ton of money and the rest of us got a few hundred dollars. It also meant that state and local governments ended up raising payroll taxes. Bush also eliminated the tax on dividends. The net effect was that he cut taxes on the unearned income of the rich while raising taxes on wage-earners. Our wildlife refuges and national parks belong to all of us. Bush wants to let private companies destroy them for profit. Kerry doesn't. I can keep going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POIESIS Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 well i'm sorry to piss on the kerry parade..i should mention that if i was american, i'd be voting kerry as well, just not with any glee. i may be a 'complete moron'(i prefer dinkhead actually), but i think you missed the point of what i was getting at.. which is...this election isn't going to reverse the damage done, nor is american government under kerry going to radically shift america's standing in the world. what are the 2 big issues? iraq and terrorism(don't try and tell me it's the economy..read the polls). iraq will continue under kerry. and terrorism will continue, and we'll keep being pals with the saudi's, israel, and the pak's, and this endless war on terror will continue without scrutinizing the real root of it. not to mention transnational corporations will still be at the table of every policy decision. america didn't catch a bad rap exclusively under bush in the last 4 years(yes i am completely aware how bad he has fucked things up). we all know the extent of their gangsterism and it's effects, okay? i'm talking about the real state of things, the whole insanely complex ball of wax, the future past the next 4 years, a future for the world managed under the fist of american capitalism and a war that doesn't recognize boundaries and incurs disgusting atrocities(again, not just the past 4 years). you got 2 choices. the rich guy, or..the rich guy. kerry gets his props..he has fantastic hair, and he even looks like a president. he's even talks a good talk.. but he's a politician, and politicians lie for a living. if you look back over the last few decades, the atmosphere of rhetoric from power and fear mongering and some of the expressed concerns by excellent progressive writers at the time, it is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to what is happening now. yet here we all are in 2004. kerry may not rock some silly tax cuts for his rich buddies and make speeches where he confuses the words feces and fetus, but he WILL continue to do the bidding of the military industrial complex and keep the national security state humming along nicely. like i said, it scares me that this groundswell of concern for your policies abroad and at home will fall back asleep when the guy with nice hair gets in. btw, just to keep things on the friendly tip, this is browner..i love you nekro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The one thing Kerry can do that Bush cant is approach the UN and say "I'm sorry this whole thing turned out like it did, can we please be friends again and try to work as a team to help the people who are really being hurt by this war." Bush can NEVER (nor would he) admit to any kind of mistake. oh..... how long untill they unveil a captured Osama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 There is very little difference between the Two Parties The Republicans, just like the Democrats, have billionaire friends and supporters. They also have working-class conservative supporters (like me) and every other stripe of constituent. The Republicans are not a very conservative party---they ran up a huge deficit, they support all manner of foreign involvements around the world, etc., etc., etc. They talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it, they are all about Big Government, just like the Democrats. The neo-conservatives are probably the worst of the lot. Bush will either get elected, or not. If Mr. Kerry becomes President, the Republicans will fall back and retrench, in an attempt to prevent him from passing much legislation that changes the status quo. There will be a few more pieces of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing laws that get through on a heavily spun "bi-partisan" schtick, but the bottom line, none of the major players, Republican or Democrat, give a rat's ass about the "common man." If the Democrats pass some sort of welfare legislation that increases the amount of money given for housing to welfare families, GUESS WHO WINDS UP WITH THE MONEY? It goes to obscenely rich owners of welfare hotels in New York, etc., who are guess what? Major contributors to the Democratic Party. The poor welfare people never even see it. If the Republicans make a big grandstand play for something like "better body armor for Our Boys In Iraq" that means some gigantic Republican Party contributor finally got the contract. So a $400 bullet-resistant vest gets sewn up in camouflage Gor-tex (guess which famous political family owns the GORE Tex patent?) and bought on a mil-spec Government contract for $1,000 apiece. You think for one second if the Demopublicans get elected they will pull out of Iraq? Fuck no, they won't. Who got us into Vietnam? Eisenhower ®, in a small way, Kennedy (D) in a much bigger way, "Mr. Civil Rights" LBJ (D) in a REALLY much bigger way. Nixon ®, facing a nation almost in open rebellion, ended the Draft, declared "victory" and removed the U.S. troops. He also assisted hundreds of thousands of anti-communist Vietnamese government employees, military men and U.S. Embassy employees and their extended families to immigrate to the U.S., all of whom were rabid communist-haters and enthusiastic supporters of the Republican Party. The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin. If you want some genuine change, vote Libertarian. Your candidate won't win, but at least you will have the satisfaction of saying to yourself that you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils. The war in Iraq is about oil. So what? Every war is about something other than whatever the propaganda spin-meisters say it's about. The war in Iraq is about a whole lot of things, including oil, strategic advantage in the Middle East, securing Israel's northern flank, secretly assisting our "enemies" in Iran (ever hear of the Iran-Contra scandal under the Reagan administration? The Iranians were MORE THAN HAPPY to assist Oliver North in slaughtering the Sandinistas by providing AK47's, RPD's, RPG's, etc., as long as we gave them shoulder-fired Stinger missles with which to shoot down Iraqi aircraft. And where did the Stingers come from? ISRAEL. Yeah, they're our "enemies" all right.) There are wheels within wheels here, always. Behind the scenes, the insiders make millions, and regardless of who is in the White House, the System will continue to create the Good Life for those that are on the inside---Democrat, Republican, Communist, Socialist, whatever. In my opinion, it's largely a set up from the start. Not completely, but largely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Sober Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Its all a scam! republicans or democrats, youre just voting to feed another fat fucking elite pig for the rest of thier life. I smell the New World Order! Both parties are throwing low-blows beyond belief. Never have I seen so much propaganda in my life! (maybe besides Obey Giant!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 You're all right! I'm voting Nader! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.