mnealtx 0 #101 May 18, 2006 Shiny side out, Juan....the tinfoil goes shiny side out!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,010 #102 May 19, 2006 >you may have voted for him, but the supreme court ILLEGALLY >appointed him . . . The only thing more tiresome than Bush supporters who pretend that he didn't win the popular vote are Bush detractors who imagine that he did not win the electoral college vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #103 May 24, 2006 liberal,conservative, democrat republican, when you register to vote you sign a CONTRACT that you willnot speak against the government and allow all your property to be liened. if it is your right to vote, why are you registered? Registrars register property.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #104 May 24, 2006 Quote>Your example is completely different. A mortgage is not a tax. It is a financial obligation; surely paying less on a mortgage or on income tax is ALWAYS better, yes?Quote Yes, and right now, a person can do both. Quote>Just like they stood up in 1941 when the Japanese were rounded >up and put in camps? Hysteria and fear often lead to people sacrificing their rights for a feeling of security. To our credit, we fixed that problem once we realized that it was a huge mistake. I think we will show similar wisdom here, once we get beyond the fear. I agree, and I'm fairly pleased that we did not repeat that little jewel of history.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #105 May 24, 2006 >>It is a financial obligation; surely paying less on a mortgage or >>on income tax is ALWAYS better, yes? >Yes . . . I'm afraid I disagree. It is often a mistake to not pay off a loan, especially if it puts you much deeper into debt. You could easily end up owing more than your house is worth, and never being able to pay off the mortgage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #106 May 24, 2006 Quoteliberal,conservative, democrat republican, when you register to vote you sign a CONTRACT that you willnot speak against the government and allow all your property to be liened. if it is your right to vote, why are you registered? Registrars register property. Cool - does that mean I can claim support payments against the government, since I had to sign both kids in with the school registrar when they were 5 years old?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #107 May 25, 2006 QuoteQuote>Your example is completely different. A mortgage is not a tax. the latin definition of mortgage is:debt for life It is a financial obligation; surely paying less on a mortgage or on income tax is ALWAYS better, yes?Quote Yes, and right now, a person can do both. Quote>Just like they stood up in 1941 when the Japanese were rounded >up and put in camps? Hysteria and fear often lead to people sacrificing their rights for a feeling of security. To our credit, we fixed that problem once we realized that it was a huge mistake. I think we will show similar wisdom here, once we get beyond the fear. I agree, and I'm fairly pleased that we did not repeat that little jewel of history.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #108 May 30, 2006 QuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. You bat 1000% when you can look back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #109 May 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. You bat 1000% when you can look back. Uh, Bush gathered all intelligence and cherry-picked what he would show to COngress, who then agreed to go to war. Furthermore, just because they decide to go to war, can they ever decide at this juncture that war is no longer the best option? So a vote for war is a vote forever? This modern-day Viet Nam can and should end, just as the actual VN ended..... do we need to wait 12 years and 58k fatalities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #110 May 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. . WRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #111 May 31, 2006 Quotecan they ever decide at this juncture that war is no longer the best option? So a vote for war is a vote forever? Sure they can. But it is called being responsible. You make a choice, you have to see it through. You can't stop and then claim you never supported it. I can see how people are getting sick of the war. But the people who supported it are as much to blame now as then. Saying it is now bad does not absolve them of the fact they supported it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #112 May 31, 2006 QuoteWRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies What exactly do you think a "use of force" is? The time they could object to it was then. I think a good number supported it since it was a popular idea. Now that it is not popular, they are against it. Simple politics really. Support what is popular. Does that mean I don't think we should get out? Nope. But to claim they were mislead, lied to...ect is nothing more than excusing them for not doing their job. Or allowing them to continue to swing with the winds of what is popular opinion. You want someone to blame for being in Iraq? How about Saddam since he really never complied? The UN for never doing what they said they would do? Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". Not just the one guy you seem to love to blame for everything. I blame all of the above, you only blame Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #113 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteWRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies What exactly do you think a "use of force" is? The time they could object to it was then. I think a good number supported it since it was a popular idea. Now that it is not popular, they are against it. Simple politics really. Support what is popular. Does that mean I don't think we should get out? Nope. But to claim they were mislead, lied to...ect is nothing more than excusing them for not doing their job. Or allowing them to continue to swing with the winds of what is popular opinion. You want someone to blame for being in Iraq? How about Saddam since he really never complied? The UN for never doing what they said they would do? Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". Not just the one guy you seem to love to blame for everything. I blame all of the above, you only blame Bush. I blame the guy who went on TV and spread the lies during his SOTU address, and the guy who stood in front of the UN Security Council and told lies about non-existent weapons. Those who believed the lies were just gullible. And, I might add, quite a few of us are on record as not believing the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #114 May 31, 2006 >How about Saddam since he really never complied? We required him to get rid of his WMD's and he did. The last report of UNMOVIC said he was cooperating with inspections. >The UN for never doing what they said they would do? The UN said they would agree to the use of force if inspections did not prove he had complied with our demands. We didn't want to wait, so we attacked. Our call, our responsibility. Up until we attacked the UN was doing exactly what they said they would - running the inspection process. >Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". They did not, but this lie is a very popular one. They gave the president the authorization to use force IF ALL ELSE FAILED. Read the authorization if you don't believe me. As soon as he got that he attacked, without waiting for inspections to complete. Our soldiers are now paying the price for that rash decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #115 May 31, 2006 QuoteI blame the guy who went on TV and spread the lies during his SOTU address, and the guy who stood in front of the UN Security Council and told lies about non-existent weapons. Those who believed the lies were just gullible. Ah, so if a guy made a bad decision based on what information he had. He is evil. But if others made a bad decision based on the information they had ,his bad information, they are not evil? So Bush can be wrong and he is evil. Where as anyone else can be wrong and it is still Bush's fault? QuoteAnd, I might add, quite a few of us are on record as not believing the lies. Great thing about a yes or no choice is that some will be right, and some will be wrong no matter what happens. You, with less information than the folks in Congress and the Senate made a good guess. They with more information than you, and more resources, and more time, and it being their job to look at these things thought differently than you and your guess. They voted to allow force. If they had doubts they should not have voted to allow force. But that would have been unpopular. So maybe they either voted to be popular, or were wrong. People when wrong tend to try and push that blame for the bad choice they made to someone else. So either, the government whose job it is to make these tough choices was wrong and are now trying to not look stupid, or they were just doing what they needed to do to get re-elected. Either choice is fine really, but they should stand up and be held accountable for their actions. Sir, you can blame one man all you like. I blame them all, since they all failed. Both sides of the part lines, the intelligence groups, the other countries intelligence groups who came the same decisions, ect. But you are free to blame one man and on man alone. That does not speak very well about the United States checks and balances, nor the elected leadership of, well anything, heck the entire system if one man can just do whatever he wishes. I am glad you guessed correctly in the WMD vs no WMD test. Too bad that the President, the House, the Senate, British intelligence, Saudi Intelligence, ect were all wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #116 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe required him to get rid of his WMD's and he did. The last report of UNMOVIC said he was cooperating with inspections. The UN should have done something when Saddam was playing games in 98 instead of just pulling them out. Saddam played games for 12 years with the UN. QuoteThe UN said they would agree to the use of force if inspections did not prove he had complied with our demands. We didn't want to wait, so we attacked. Did, or did not Saddam have 12 years to comply before the US invaded? What took so long? Why did he jack the inspectors around so much? QuoteThey did not, but this lie is a very popular one. They gave the president the authorization to use force IF ALL ELSE FAILED. Read the authorization if you don't believe me. What do you think of this situation. A cop calls in and asks for permission to use deadly force in a situation with a murderer that is reported to have a gun. The beat cops asked the guy to give over his guy for about two hours. Other folks tell you he has a gun, but he claims he does not but will not show his hands. There is a danger that this criminal might be planning to use his weapon to start a gang war. He has used a gun before, been known to give guns to folks to use, and has been known to be looking at getting some new guns. So the cops on the site ask the Police Chief if they can raid the place. The Chief gives the go ahead if the SWAT guys feel its needed. The SWAT guys move in. Are the SWAT guys to blame, or the Chief if no guns are found? Are both to blame? I say both, you only want to blame the SWAT guys. But wait! Bush could have been the Chief, and the intel agencies the SWAT team. I say both are to blame for the bad intelligence and the use of force. You want to remove the blame from the Congress and place it on one man. If thats true, and the Congress was so unneeded and worthless. Then the system is lost. QuoteOur soldiers are now paying the price for that rash decision. How many years was there a resolution telling Saddam to disarm and prove it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jloirsdaan 0 #117 May 31, 2006 QuotePlease accept my apology No problem, we all make mistakes. Now I just hope these same mistakes aren't made in November of this year and in 2008! Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #118 May 31, 2006 >Did, or did not Saddam have 12 years to comply before the US >invaded? What took so long? Why did he jack the inspectors around >so much? Because he's like us and he despises the UN. Threat of imminent force was required to get him to comply. We threatened him with imminent force. He complied. >Are both to blame? If the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal, and I would hope someone would go down for such an abuse of authority. In most cases it would be the guy who pulled the trigger, or the guy who ordered him to do so. >You want to remove the blame from the Congress and place it on one >man. I want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. I know, in this land of political correctness no one is anyone's fault, but for god's sakes - if you're going to take credit for the good you have to take responsibility for the bad. >If thats true, and the Congress was so unneeded and worthless. >Then the system is lost. It may well be. When the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape. One possible fix for that would be to censure the president when he attempts such things. It might not change anything, but it would at least send a message that the congress of the United States still supports the constitution over a president who wants more power than that document gives him. >How many years was there a resolution telling Saddam to disarm and >prove it? A great many. He ignored it until we forced the issue, and then he disarmed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #119 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteMe too. I'm not apologizing and wonder why you do so. Me neither. Bush was never my first choice but the alternative would have been a lot worse. - Give 'em a break. Just a bunch of good old boys doing what good old boys do best. They are like an older, stuffed shirt version of the Dukes of Hazzard. Just some good old boys, Getting rich off the war. Scratching each others back, Getting rich off Iraq. Meaning noone no harm, So the boys lost an arm. Just to prove that we care, The replacement will be covered by our version of health care. (You need to really move the cadence along quick on that last line)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #120 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe threatened him with imminent force. He complied. He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The problem there was with a history of playing games that lasted for 12 years. A guy that used WMD's before. A guy that was known to murder people and to support terrorism. Given that information, I can see how a guy would lean towards thinking that Saddam was still playing games. QuoteIf the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, why trust this team is correct when the others failed? QuoteI want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. And I think that the people who gave permission also have to share the blame. It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable to get good information. The information they did get showed that it was possible that Saddam still had WMD's. The the blame goes to the UN for waiting for 12 years and not doing a good job when they actually did anything. Congress and Bush also have fault since Congress allowed the President to use force and he did. But to blame one man is very short sighted and just looking for a scape goat. QuoteWhen the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape They GAVE it to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #121 May 31, 2006 >He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he >was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The weapons inspectors who were there in Iraq thought he was complying. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief in everything the adminstration said. After all, they didn't want to get the proof about his nuclear weapon arsenal "in the form of a mushroom cloud!" That's scary. In retrospect AND at the time, it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. >It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable >to get good information. And the good information they DID get was assiduously ignored, because it conflicted with the desire for war. >And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, >why trust this team is correct when the others failed? Because it's your team, and they're on the radio telling you it's clear. >They GAVE it to him. As did we. We want a king, not a president - and every time we let him get away with another power grab, we move a little closer to that happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #122 May 31, 2006 Quote>The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief .......... it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. That's amazing - you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? You think which type of people want a 'king'? So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? This is the most fervid I've read you in a while. It doesn't make much sense other than the bashing those who disagreed with you part. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #123 May 31, 2006 Your wriggling does not become you. "The buck stops here". Bush ordered the attack. Bush was wrong. Bush should accept the blame. End of story.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #124 May 31, 2006 >you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? Of course - we all know that what happens here is of vital national importance. Why else would we spend so much time posting? But to be serious - A lot of people want a strong ruler here. ("Here" being the US, not this tiny part of the net.) The president was never intended to be a strong ruler - keep in mind that the US Constitution was written right after we had fought a bloody war to escape rule by a king. But when people become afraid, they often want a strong leader to rally behind. That, I think, is one reason that the additional powers that have been accruing to the presidency have been tolerated; they are seen as giving a strong leader more power, and that results in the populace being safer. (Note that this gradual shift of power from Congress to the president did not start with Bush; it just took another jump with him in office.) >So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of >the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? Where the heck did you get that? Skepticism of BOTH is good. In both cases, investigations into potential wrongdoings is a great way to allay that skepticism (or prove it valid.) Killing people because we don't care to wait for the investigations to complete is a huge mistake. We've already made that mistake once - the best we can hope for now is to not make it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #125 May 31, 2006 Quote>Skepticism of BOTH is good. thank you - so those that claim you walk in lock step with the UN on this issue is just as ridiculous as you doing that to others ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 5 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,010 #105 May 24, 2006 >>It is a financial obligation; surely paying less on a mortgage or >>on income tax is ALWAYS better, yes? >Yes . . . I'm afraid I disagree. It is often a mistake to not pay off a loan, especially if it puts you much deeper into debt. You could easily end up owing more than your house is worth, and never being able to pay off the mortgage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 May 24, 2006 Quoteliberal,conservative, democrat republican, when you register to vote you sign a CONTRACT that you willnot speak against the government and allow all your property to be liened. if it is your right to vote, why are you registered? Registrars register property. Cool - does that mean I can claim support payments against the government, since I had to sign both kids in with the school registrar when they were 5 years old?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #107 May 25, 2006 QuoteQuote>Your example is completely different. A mortgage is not a tax. the latin definition of mortgage is:debt for life It is a financial obligation; surely paying less on a mortgage or on income tax is ALWAYS better, yes?Quote Yes, and right now, a person can do both. Quote>Just like they stood up in 1941 when the Japanese were rounded >up and put in camps? Hysteria and fear often lead to people sacrificing their rights for a feeling of security. To our credit, we fixed that problem once we realized that it was a huge mistake. I think we will show similar wisdom here, once we get beyond the fear. I agree, and I'm fairly pleased that we did not repeat that little jewel of history.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #108 May 30, 2006 QuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. You bat 1000% when you can look back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #109 May 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. You bat 1000% when you can look back. Uh, Bush gathered all intelligence and cherry-picked what he would show to COngress, who then agreed to go to war. Furthermore, just because they decide to go to war, can they ever decide at this juncture that war is no longer the best option? So a vote for war is a vote forever? This modern-day Viet Nam can and should end, just as the actual VN ended..... do we need to wait 12 years and 58k fatalities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #110 May 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. . WRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #111 May 31, 2006 Quotecan they ever decide at this juncture that war is no longer the best option? So a vote for war is a vote forever? Sure they can. But it is called being responsible. You make a choice, you have to see it through. You can't stop and then claim you never supported it. I can see how people are getting sick of the war. But the people who supported it are as much to blame now as then. Saying it is now bad does not absolve them of the fact they supported it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #112 May 31, 2006 QuoteWRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies What exactly do you think a "use of force" is? The time they could object to it was then. I think a good number supported it since it was a popular idea. Now that it is not popular, they are against it. Simple politics really. Support what is popular. Does that mean I don't think we should get out? Nope. But to claim they were mislead, lied to...ect is nothing more than excusing them for not doing their job. Or allowing them to continue to swing with the winds of what is popular opinion. You want someone to blame for being in Iraq? How about Saddam since he really never complied? The UN for never doing what they said they would do? Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". Not just the one guy you seem to love to blame for everything. I blame all of the above, you only blame Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #113 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteWRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies What exactly do you think a "use of force" is? The time they could object to it was then. I think a good number supported it since it was a popular idea. Now that it is not popular, they are against it. Simple politics really. Support what is popular. Does that mean I don't think we should get out? Nope. But to claim they were mislead, lied to...ect is nothing more than excusing them for not doing their job. Or allowing them to continue to swing with the winds of what is popular opinion. You want someone to blame for being in Iraq? How about Saddam since he really never complied? The UN for never doing what they said they would do? Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". Not just the one guy you seem to love to blame for everything. I blame all of the above, you only blame Bush. I blame the guy who went on TV and spread the lies during his SOTU address, and the guy who stood in front of the UN Security Council and told lies about non-existent weapons. Those who believed the lies were just gullible. And, I might add, quite a few of us are on record as not believing the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #114 May 31, 2006 >How about Saddam since he really never complied? We required him to get rid of his WMD's and he did. The last report of UNMOVIC said he was cooperating with inspections. >The UN for never doing what they said they would do? The UN said they would agree to the use of force if inspections did not prove he had complied with our demands. We didn't want to wait, so we attacked. Our call, our responsibility. Up until we attacked the UN was doing exactly what they said they would - running the inspection process. >Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". They did not, but this lie is a very popular one. They gave the president the authorization to use force IF ALL ELSE FAILED. Read the authorization if you don't believe me. As soon as he got that he attacked, without waiting for inspections to complete. Our soldiers are now paying the price for that rash decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #115 May 31, 2006 QuoteI blame the guy who went on TV and spread the lies during his SOTU address, and the guy who stood in front of the UN Security Council and told lies about non-existent weapons. Those who believed the lies were just gullible. Ah, so if a guy made a bad decision based on what information he had. He is evil. But if others made a bad decision based on the information they had ,his bad information, they are not evil? So Bush can be wrong and he is evil. Where as anyone else can be wrong and it is still Bush's fault? QuoteAnd, I might add, quite a few of us are on record as not believing the lies. Great thing about a yes or no choice is that some will be right, and some will be wrong no matter what happens. You, with less information than the folks in Congress and the Senate made a good guess. They with more information than you, and more resources, and more time, and it being their job to look at these things thought differently than you and your guess. They voted to allow force. If they had doubts they should not have voted to allow force. But that would have been unpopular. So maybe they either voted to be popular, or were wrong. People when wrong tend to try and push that blame for the bad choice they made to someone else. So either, the government whose job it is to make these tough choices was wrong and are now trying to not look stupid, or they were just doing what they needed to do to get re-elected. Either choice is fine really, but they should stand up and be held accountable for their actions. Sir, you can blame one man all you like. I blame them all, since they all failed. Both sides of the part lines, the intelligence groups, the other countries intelligence groups who came the same decisions, ect. But you are free to blame one man and on man alone. That does not speak very well about the United States checks and balances, nor the elected leadership of, well anything, heck the entire system if one man can just do whatever he wishes. I am glad you guessed correctly in the WMD vs no WMD test. Too bad that the President, the House, the Senate, British intelligence, Saudi Intelligence, ect were all wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #116 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe required him to get rid of his WMD's and he did. The last report of UNMOVIC said he was cooperating with inspections. The UN should have done something when Saddam was playing games in 98 instead of just pulling them out. Saddam played games for 12 years with the UN. QuoteThe UN said they would agree to the use of force if inspections did not prove he had complied with our demands. We didn't want to wait, so we attacked. Did, or did not Saddam have 12 years to comply before the US invaded? What took so long? Why did he jack the inspectors around so much? QuoteThey did not, but this lie is a very popular one. They gave the president the authorization to use force IF ALL ELSE FAILED. Read the authorization if you don't believe me. What do you think of this situation. A cop calls in and asks for permission to use deadly force in a situation with a murderer that is reported to have a gun. The beat cops asked the guy to give over his guy for about two hours. Other folks tell you he has a gun, but he claims he does not but will not show his hands. There is a danger that this criminal might be planning to use his weapon to start a gang war. He has used a gun before, been known to give guns to folks to use, and has been known to be looking at getting some new guns. So the cops on the site ask the Police Chief if they can raid the place. The Chief gives the go ahead if the SWAT guys feel its needed. The SWAT guys move in. Are the SWAT guys to blame, or the Chief if no guns are found? Are both to blame? I say both, you only want to blame the SWAT guys. But wait! Bush could have been the Chief, and the intel agencies the SWAT team. I say both are to blame for the bad intelligence and the use of force. You want to remove the blame from the Congress and place it on one man. If thats true, and the Congress was so unneeded and worthless. Then the system is lost. QuoteOur soldiers are now paying the price for that rash decision. How many years was there a resolution telling Saddam to disarm and prove it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jloirsdaan 0 #117 May 31, 2006 QuotePlease accept my apology No problem, we all make mistakes. Now I just hope these same mistakes aren't made in November of this year and in 2008! Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #118 May 31, 2006 >Did, or did not Saddam have 12 years to comply before the US >invaded? What took so long? Why did he jack the inspectors around >so much? Because he's like us and he despises the UN. Threat of imminent force was required to get him to comply. We threatened him with imminent force. He complied. >Are both to blame? If the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal, and I would hope someone would go down for such an abuse of authority. In most cases it would be the guy who pulled the trigger, or the guy who ordered him to do so. >You want to remove the blame from the Congress and place it on one >man. I want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. I know, in this land of political correctness no one is anyone's fault, but for god's sakes - if you're going to take credit for the good you have to take responsibility for the bad. >If thats true, and the Congress was so unneeded and worthless. >Then the system is lost. It may well be. When the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape. One possible fix for that would be to censure the president when he attempts such things. It might not change anything, but it would at least send a message that the congress of the United States still supports the constitution over a president who wants more power than that document gives him. >How many years was there a resolution telling Saddam to disarm and >prove it? A great many. He ignored it until we forced the issue, and then he disarmed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #119 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteMe too. I'm not apologizing and wonder why you do so. Me neither. Bush was never my first choice but the alternative would have been a lot worse. - Give 'em a break. Just a bunch of good old boys doing what good old boys do best. They are like an older, stuffed shirt version of the Dukes of Hazzard. Just some good old boys, Getting rich off the war. Scratching each others back, Getting rich off Iraq. Meaning noone no harm, So the boys lost an arm. Just to prove that we care, The replacement will be covered by our version of health care. (You need to really move the cadence along quick on that last line)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #120 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe threatened him with imminent force. He complied. He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The problem there was with a history of playing games that lasted for 12 years. A guy that used WMD's before. A guy that was known to murder people and to support terrorism. Given that information, I can see how a guy would lean towards thinking that Saddam was still playing games. QuoteIf the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, why trust this team is correct when the others failed? QuoteI want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. And I think that the people who gave permission also have to share the blame. It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable to get good information. The information they did get showed that it was possible that Saddam still had WMD's. The the blame goes to the UN for waiting for 12 years and not doing a good job when they actually did anything. Congress and Bush also have fault since Congress allowed the President to use force and he did. But to blame one man is very short sighted and just looking for a scape goat. QuoteWhen the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape They GAVE it to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #121 May 31, 2006 >He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he >was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The weapons inspectors who were there in Iraq thought he was complying. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief in everything the adminstration said. After all, they didn't want to get the proof about his nuclear weapon arsenal "in the form of a mushroom cloud!" That's scary. In retrospect AND at the time, it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. >It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable >to get good information. And the good information they DID get was assiduously ignored, because it conflicted with the desire for war. >And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, >why trust this team is correct when the others failed? Because it's your team, and they're on the radio telling you it's clear. >They GAVE it to him. As did we. We want a king, not a president - and every time we let him get away with another power grab, we move a little closer to that happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #122 May 31, 2006 Quote>The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief .......... it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. That's amazing - you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? You think which type of people want a 'king'? So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? This is the most fervid I've read you in a while. It doesn't make much sense other than the bashing those who disagreed with you part. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #123 May 31, 2006 Your wriggling does not become you. "The buck stops here". Bush ordered the attack. Bush was wrong. Bush should accept the blame. End of story.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #124 May 31, 2006 >you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? Of course - we all know that what happens here is of vital national importance. Why else would we spend so much time posting? But to be serious - A lot of people want a strong ruler here. ("Here" being the US, not this tiny part of the net.) The president was never intended to be a strong ruler - keep in mind that the US Constitution was written right after we had fought a bloody war to escape rule by a king. But when people become afraid, they often want a strong leader to rally behind. That, I think, is one reason that the additional powers that have been accruing to the presidency have been tolerated; they are seen as giving a strong leader more power, and that results in the populace being safer. (Note that this gradual shift of power from Congress to the president did not start with Bush; it just took another jump with him in office.) >So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of >the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? Where the heck did you get that? Skepticism of BOTH is good. In both cases, investigations into potential wrongdoings is a great way to allay that skepticism (or prove it valid.) Killing people because we don't care to wait for the investigations to complete is a huge mistake. We've already made that mistake once - the best we can hope for now is to not make it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #125 May 31, 2006 Quote>Skepticism of BOTH is good. thank you - so those that claim you walk in lock step with the UN on this issue is just as ridiculous as you doing that to others ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 5 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DaVinci 0 #108 May 30, 2006 QuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. You bat 1000% when you can look back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #109 May 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. You bat 1000% when you can look back. Uh, Bush gathered all intelligence and cherry-picked what he would show to COngress, who then agreed to go to war. Furthermore, just because they decide to go to war, can they ever decide at this juncture that war is no longer the best option? So a vote for war is a vote forever? This modern-day Viet Nam can and should end, just as the actual VN ended..... do we need to wait 12 years and 58k fatalities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #110 May 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor some reason, there are people in this country who want a strong leader, someone who never backs down and do what he pleases based on his own decisions, rather than the decisions of the people of the US and their representatives Most people after 9/11 agreed with Iraq. The Representatives voted to use force. NOW people are against the war, and the house/senate claims they didn't vote for the war. . WRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #111 May 31, 2006 Quotecan they ever decide at this juncture that war is no longer the best option? So a vote for war is a vote forever? Sure they can. But it is called being responsible. You make a choice, you have to see it through. You can't stop and then claim you never supported it. I can see how people are getting sick of the war. But the people who supported it are as much to blame now as then. Saying it is now bad does not absolve them of the fact they supported it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #112 May 31, 2006 QuoteWRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies What exactly do you think a "use of force" is? The time they could object to it was then. I think a good number supported it since it was a popular idea. Now that it is not popular, they are against it. Simple politics really. Support what is popular. Does that mean I don't think we should get out? Nope. But to claim they were mislead, lied to...ect is nothing more than excusing them for not doing their job. Or allowing them to continue to swing with the winds of what is popular opinion. You want someone to blame for being in Iraq? How about Saddam since he really never complied? The UN for never doing what they said they would do? Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". Not just the one guy you seem to love to blame for everything. I blame all of the above, you only blame Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #113 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteWRONG. They authorized the use of force as appropriate to deal with a threat that turned out to be nothing but adminstration lies What exactly do you think a "use of force" is? The time they could object to it was then. I think a good number supported it since it was a popular idea. Now that it is not popular, they are against it. Simple politics really. Support what is popular. Does that mean I don't think we should get out? Nope. But to claim they were mislead, lied to...ect is nothing more than excusing them for not doing their job. Or allowing them to continue to swing with the winds of what is popular opinion. You want someone to blame for being in Iraq? How about Saddam since he really never complied? The UN for never doing what they said they would do? Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". Not just the one guy you seem to love to blame for everything. I blame all of the above, you only blame Bush. I blame the guy who went on TV and spread the lies during his SOTU address, and the guy who stood in front of the UN Security Council and told lies about non-existent weapons. Those who believed the lies were just gullible. And, I might add, quite a few of us are on record as not believing the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,010 #114 May 31, 2006 >How about Saddam since he really never complied? We required him to get rid of his WMD's and he did. The last report of UNMOVIC said he was cooperating with inspections. >The UN for never doing what they said they would do? The UN said they would agree to the use of force if inspections did not prove he had complied with our demands. We didn't want to wait, so we attacked. Our call, our responsibility. Up until we attacked the UN was doing exactly what they said they would - running the inspection process. >Or ALL of the guys in DC that voted for "The use of Force". They did not, but this lie is a very popular one. They gave the president the authorization to use force IF ALL ELSE FAILED. Read the authorization if you don't believe me. As soon as he got that he attacked, without waiting for inspections to complete. Our soldiers are now paying the price for that rash decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #115 May 31, 2006 QuoteI blame the guy who went on TV and spread the lies during his SOTU address, and the guy who stood in front of the UN Security Council and told lies about non-existent weapons. Those who believed the lies were just gullible. Ah, so if a guy made a bad decision based on what information he had. He is evil. But if others made a bad decision based on the information they had ,his bad information, they are not evil? So Bush can be wrong and he is evil. Where as anyone else can be wrong and it is still Bush's fault? QuoteAnd, I might add, quite a few of us are on record as not believing the lies. Great thing about a yes or no choice is that some will be right, and some will be wrong no matter what happens. You, with less information than the folks in Congress and the Senate made a good guess. They with more information than you, and more resources, and more time, and it being their job to look at these things thought differently than you and your guess. They voted to allow force. If they had doubts they should not have voted to allow force. But that would have been unpopular. So maybe they either voted to be popular, or were wrong. People when wrong tend to try and push that blame for the bad choice they made to someone else. So either, the government whose job it is to make these tough choices was wrong and are now trying to not look stupid, or they were just doing what they needed to do to get re-elected. Either choice is fine really, but they should stand up and be held accountable for their actions. Sir, you can blame one man all you like. I blame them all, since they all failed. Both sides of the part lines, the intelligence groups, the other countries intelligence groups who came the same decisions, ect. But you are free to blame one man and on man alone. That does not speak very well about the United States checks and balances, nor the elected leadership of, well anything, heck the entire system if one man can just do whatever he wishes. I am glad you guessed correctly in the WMD vs no WMD test. Too bad that the President, the House, the Senate, British intelligence, Saudi Intelligence, ect were all wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #116 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe required him to get rid of his WMD's and he did. The last report of UNMOVIC said he was cooperating with inspections. The UN should have done something when Saddam was playing games in 98 instead of just pulling them out. Saddam played games for 12 years with the UN. QuoteThe UN said they would agree to the use of force if inspections did not prove he had complied with our demands. We didn't want to wait, so we attacked. Did, or did not Saddam have 12 years to comply before the US invaded? What took so long? Why did he jack the inspectors around so much? QuoteThey did not, but this lie is a very popular one. They gave the president the authorization to use force IF ALL ELSE FAILED. Read the authorization if you don't believe me. What do you think of this situation. A cop calls in and asks for permission to use deadly force in a situation with a murderer that is reported to have a gun. The beat cops asked the guy to give over his guy for about two hours. Other folks tell you he has a gun, but he claims he does not but will not show his hands. There is a danger that this criminal might be planning to use his weapon to start a gang war. He has used a gun before, been known to give guns to folks to use, and has been known to be looking at getting some new guns. So the cops on the site ask the Police Chief if they can raid the place. The Chief gives the go ahead if the SWAT guys feel its needed. The SWAT guys move in. Are the SWAT guys to blame, or the Chief if no guns are found? Are both to blame? I say both, you only want to blame the SWAT guys. But wait! Bush could have been the Chief, and the intel agencies the SWAT team. I say both are to blame for the bad intelligence and the use of force. You want to remove the blame from the Congress and place it on one man. If thats true, and the Congress was so unneeded and worthless. Then the system is lost. QuoteOur soldiers are now paying the price for that rash decision. How many years was there a resolution telling Saddam to disarm and prove it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jloirsdaan 0 #117 May 31, 2006 QuotePlease accept my apology No problem, we all make mistakes. Now I just hope these same mistakes aren't made in November of this year and in 2008! Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,010 #118 May 31, 2006 >Did, or did not Saddam have 12 years to comply before the US >invaded? What took so long? Why did he jack the inspectors around >so much? Because he's like us and he despises the UN. Threat of imminent force was required to get him to comply. We threatened him with imminent force. He complied. >Are both to blame? If the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal, and I would hope someone would go down for such an abuse of authority. In most cases it would be the guy who pulled the trigger, or the guy who ordered him to do so. >You want to remove the blame from the Congress and place it on one >man. I want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. I know, in this land of political correctness no one is anyone's fault, but for god's sakes - if you're going to take credit for the good you have to take responsibility for the bad. >If thats true, and the Congress was so unneeded and worthless. >Then the system is lost. It may well be. When the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape. One possible fix for that would be to censure the president when he attempts such things. It might not change anything, but it would at least send a message that the congress of the United States still supports the constitution over a president who wants more power than that document gives him. >How many years was there a resolution telling Saddam to disarm and >prove it? A great many. He ignored it until we forced the issue, and then he disarmed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #119 May 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteMe too. I'm not apologizing and wonder why you do so. Me neither. Bush was never my first choice but the alternative would have been a lot worse. - Give 'em a break. Just a bunch of good old boys doing what good old boys do best. They are like an older, stuffed shirt version of the Dukes of Hazzard. Just some good old boys, Getting rich off the war. Scratching each others back, Getting rich off Iraq. Meaning noone no harm, So the boys lost an arm. Just to prove that we care, The replacement will be covered by our version of health care. (You need to really move the cadence along quick on that last line)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #120 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe threatened him with imminent force. He complied. He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The problem there was with a history of playing games that lasted for 12 years. A guy that used WMD's before. A guy that was known to murder people and to support terrorism. Given that information, I can see how a guy would lean towards thinking that Saddam was still playing games. QuoteIf the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, why trust this team is correct when the others failed? QuoteI want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. And I think that the people who gave permission also have to share the blame. It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable to get good information. The information they did get showed that it was possible that Saddam still had WMD's. The the blame goes to the UN for waiting for 12 years and not doing a good job when they actually did anything. Congress and Bush also have fault since Congress allowed the President to use force and he did. But to blame one man is very short sighted and just looking for a scape goat. QuoteWhen the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape They GAVE it to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #121 May 31, 2006 >He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he >was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The weapons inspectors who were there in Iraq thought he was complying. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief in everything the adminstration said. After all, they didn't want to get the proof about his nuclear weapon arsenal "in the form of a mushroom cloud!" That's scary. In retrospect AND at the time, it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. >It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable >to get good information. And the good information they DID get was assiduously ignored, because it conflicted with the desire for war. >And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, >why trust this team is correct when the others failed? Because it's your team, and they're on the radio telling you it's clear. >They GAVE it to him. As did we. We want a king, not a president - and every time we let him get away with another power grab, we move a little closer to that happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #122 May 31, 2006 Quote>The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief .......... it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. That's amazing - you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? You think which type of people want a 'king'? So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? This is the most fervid I've read you in a while. It doesn't make much sense other than the bashing those who disagreed with you part. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,034 #123 May 31, 2006 Your wriggling does not become you. "The buck stops here". Bush ordered the attack. Bush was wrong. Bush should accept the blame. End of story.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,010 #124 May 31, 2006 >you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? Of course - we all know that what happens here is of vital national importance. Why else would we spend so much time posting? But to be serious - A lot of people want a strong ruler here. ("Here" being the US, not this tiny part of the net.) The president was never intended to be a strong ruler - keep in mind that the US Constitution was written right after we had fought a bloody war to escape rule by a king. But when people become afraid, they often want a strong leader to rally behind. That, I think, is one reason that the additional powers that have been accruing to the presidency have been tolerated; they are seen as giving a strong leader more power, and that results in the populace being safer. (Note that this gradual shift of power from Congress to the president did not start with Bush; it just took another jump with him in office.) >So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of >the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? Where the heck did you get that? Skepticism of BOTH is good. In both cases, investigations into potential wrongdoings is a great way to allay that skepticism (or prove it valid.) Killing people because we don't care to wait for the investigations to complete is a huge mistake. We've already made that mistake once - the best we can hope for now is to not make it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #125 May 31, 2006 Quote>Skepticism of BOTH is good. thank you - so those that claim you walk in lock step with the UN on this issue is just as ridiculous as you doing that to others ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 5 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
DaVinci 0 #120 May 31, 2006 QuoteWe threatened him with imminent force. He complied. He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The problem there was with a history of playing games that lasted for 12 years. A guy that used WMD's before. A guy that was known to murder people and to support terrorism. Given that information, I can see how a guy would lean towards thinking that Saddam was still playing games. QuoteIf the accused criminals had said "we have no guns and you can check it out" and a team was in there checking it out, and had reported so far no guns - then firing on him would be pretty criminal And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, why trust this team is correct when the others failed? QuoteI want to place the responsibility on the man who made the decision to invade. And I think that the people who gave permission also have to share the blame. It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable to get good information. The information they did get showed that it was possible that Saddam still had WMD's. The the blame goes to the UN for waiting for 12 years and not doing a good job when they actually did anything. Congress and Bush also have fault since Congress allowed the President to use force and he did. But to blame one man is very short sighted and just looking for a scape goat. QuoteWhen the executive usurps powers that are explicitly given to Congress, then the system is surely in bad shape They GAVE it to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,010 #121 May 31, 2006 >He had 12 years and played games for 12 years. Some thought he >was complying, others thought he was still playing games. The weapons inspectors who were there in Iraq thought he was complying. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief in everything the adminstration said. After all, they didn't want to get the proof about his nuclear weapon arsenal "in the form of a mushroom cloud!" That's scary. In retrospect AND at the time, it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. >It all starts with the failure of the intel groups. They were unable >to get good information. And the good information they DID get was assiduously ignored, because it conflicted with the desire for war. >And if earlier teams reported that the criminal was hiding something, >why trust this team is correct when the others failed? Because it's your team, and they're on the radio telling you it's clear. >They GAVE it to him. As did we. We want a king, not a president - and every time we let him get away with another power grab, we move a little closer to that happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #122 May 31, 2006 Quote>The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't, but that opinion was based on ignorance and a slavish belief .......... it would have been wiser to listen to the inspectors in Iraq who could see the state of his weapons programs, instead of people who knew nothing. That's amazing - you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? You think which type of people want a 'king'? So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? This is the most fervid I've read you in a while. It doesn't make much sense other than the bashing those who disagreed with you part. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #123 May 31, 2006 Your wriggling does not become you. "The buck stops here". Bush ordered the attack. Bush was wrong. Bush should accept the blame. End of story.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,010 #124 May 31, 2006 >you think the war in Iraq was due to people posting on DZ.com? Of course - we all know that what happens here is of vital national importance. Why else would we spend so much time posting? But to be serious - A lot of people want a strong ruler here. ("Here" being the US, not this tiny part of the net.) The president was never intended to be a strong ruler - keep in mind that the US Constitution was written right after we had fought a bloody war to escape rule by a king. But when people become afraid, they often want a strong leader to rally behind. That, I think, is one reason that the additional powers that have been accruing to the presidency have been tolerated; they are seen as giving a strong leader more power, and that results in the populace being safer. (Note that this gradual shift of power from Congress to the president did not start with Bush; it just took another jump with him in office.) >So skepticism of the US government is OK, but skepticism of >the Iraqi government and the UN policymakers is total taboo? Where the heck did you get that? Skepticism of BOTH is good. In both cases, investigations into potential wrongdoings is a great way to allay that skepticism (or prove it valid.) Killing people because we don't care to wait for the investigations to complete is a huge mistake. We've already made that mistake once - the best we can hope for now is to not make it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #125 May 31, 2006 Quote>Skepticism of BOTH is good. thank you - so those that claim you walk in lock step with the UN on this issue is just as ridiculous as you doing that to others ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
