The Iraq / war on terror thread

[jarmo]

lets be reasonable.

That's funny. Reasonable is something many people don't associate with Bush. 




/jarmo

[Charity Case]

To Charity Case:
Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

My clue is common sense.  If you want proof, well course I don't have proof, any more than Murtha does.  But I'll choose to believe the military men/women that are there on tour over politicians. 

Sorry I didn't answer you the first few times, as I stated I stayed away from this thread for a while.  In any event, I disagree with murtha.

[SLCPUNK]

you're far from alone sandman, and far from wrong.
Every liberal on this board would be all over Bushs ass if he wouldnt have acted on the intelligence AND an attack on America
would have been traced back to that intelligence.
Bush cant win with these people, nor does he or should we, give a shit.
Thats what sets him apart and in my book becomes the greatest president of my time.
he acted, acted boldly and put the countrys security ahead of his political agenda.

the liberals argument sways with the wind.
First it was "all about the oil". Dont hear that much anymore.
Fact is the liberals supported the war before they didnt support it.
Sound familiar?
In my book, good.
Because their blind anti conservative stance will make them... well losers for years to come.
We just got two SCJ put in who will be around for a long long time.
Best thing on the liberal radar screen at the moment is Hillary Clinton.
I think that says it all.

On the contrary the argument has always been the same.

Your party is a lying sack of shit, just like your ashole in the white house. He has changed his story as it sees fit, for the mindless sheep to follow.

It's about oil, positioning ourself in the middle east and imperialism. I've said it the entire time you moron.

[D]

This is why I stop arguing with you all, because you aren't even trying to see my point, u have your minds made up already and absolutely nothing other than what you believe makes sense.

Once again, it all goes back to 9/11.

Did Bush jump the gun? Sure but after 9/11 he couldnt allow another 9/11 so he had to be overtly cautious.

The main thing I hate is the conspiracy theories that the extreme left throw out.

I hear how we are in Iraq for? oil.

Listen how crazy this is.

Bush would have to first get the CIA to lie, would have to somehow brainwash Bill Clinton,Putin and the other notable leaders who felt Sadaam was a threat.

He would then have to purposely withhold intelligence from Congress, trick them into voting yes for the war and then sacrifice the lives of american soliders just so he could become richer.

That is just ludicrous.?

Sadaam stalling the weapons inspectors was reason enough to remove him alone, nevermind the bad intelligence Bush got.

I just dont understand the logic of Democrats sayin our soldiers are defeated and we should pull out.? The reason Iraqi's distrust us so much is because they got behind us in the early 90's, we hung them out to dry costing thousands upon thousands of their lives, so now I guess they are afraid to support us 100 percent cause they are afraid the same thing will happen.


America's problem is, we feel our lives are more valuable and we feel we are better and more important than any other people in the world.

I guarantee if you go ask a high percentage of people against the war they would say that 2,000 US soliders are more important than a million innocent Iraqi's.

That is disgusting.

We made a mistake and thats what it was, a mistake, no evil Bush plot, and now we have to clean that mess up the best we can.

A free and independent Iraq is a great thing. Get over the WMD's and start seeing the bigger picture.

[Surfrider]

It's about oil, positioning ourself in the middle east and imperialism. I've said it the entire time you moron.

Wow, I think you finally have convinced everyone. ?To anyone that bothers to read these posts, I think his second statement here is the key thing to notice. ?Not the insult that you threw out (which you seem to do time and time again without ever being criticized for it), but the fact that you have said it the entire time. ?That is where your bias lies. ?I have all the respect in the world for those such as Murtha that have changed their opinion due to the evidence that is now out there. ?On the other hand, you have had your mind made up that that this war was for Halliburton, oil, imperialism, etc, etc, etc before any of the evidence that you now cite and quote was present. ?First, the evidence that you now cite is hardly conclusive; and second, you simply hated Bush from the start (and anyone that leans right for that matter) and make huge allegations with zero support, and then once something goes wrong here or there you claim that you knew all along. ?The evidence that you have and the allegations you make is equivilent to a someone that has always hated France and then prior to war saying that France was having secret dealings with Saddam and that is why they were against the war. ?And then after the oil for foods scandal breaks claiming that they were right all along.? In other words, drawing your conclusion and then finding facts to support that conclusion.?

Now, is there some truth to what you claim/allege? ?Sure. ?Is the way that you come to your conclusions, get your facts, and make your allegations respectable, neutral, thoughtful, non-partisan in a way that makes them believable to someone that isn't far left or have their mind already made up? ?Nope. ?In other words, you work backwards, you draw conclusions and then seek facts to back up that conclusion. ?I have seen it time and time again. ?It is actually quite amusing now.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

you're far from alone sandman, and far from wrong.
Every liberal on this board would be all over Bushs ass if he wouldnt have acted on the intelligence AND an attack on America
would have been traced back to that intelligence.
Bush cant win with these people, nor does he or should we, give a shit.
Thats what sets him apart and in my book becomes the greatest president of my time.
he acted, acted boldly and put the countrys security ahead of his political agenda.

the liberals argument sways with the wind.
First it was "all about the oil". Dont hear that much anymore.
Fact is the liberals supported the war before they didnt support it.
Sound familiar?
In my book, good.
Because their blind anti conservative stance will make them... well losers for years to come.
We just got two SCJ put in who will be around for a long long time.
Best thing on the liberal radar screen at the moment is Hillary Clinton.
I think that says it all.

On the contrary the argument has always been the same.

Your party is a lying sack of shit, just like your ashole in the white house. He has changed his story as it sees fit, for the mindless sheep to follow.

It's about oil, positioning ourself in the middle east and imperialism. I've said it the entire time you moron.

So if you disagree with someone, resort to personal insults and name calling? Great idea 

[RichardNixon]

New question:

There are links between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Why don't we invade those countries too? Surely terrorists in those countries could develop the bomb and give them to terrorists. So why not invade, surely we'd be greeted as liberators.

[Surfrider]

New question:

There are links between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Why don't we invade those countries too? Surely terrorists in those countries could develop the bomb and give them to terrorists. So why not invade, surely we'd be greeted as liberators.

Why not would you support it?

First, Iran was a much different scenario than Iraq.  There was no seise fire against them, there was no history in the UN of resolutions and sanctions against them.  Simply attacking Iran with out trying diplomacy, as we are currently doing, was out of the question without pursuing diplomatic measures. 

As for Saudi Arabia, the problem with them is not necessarily their leadership.  The Royal Family actually helps us in the middle east more than most countries there.  Second, they had no history of developing biological or chemical weapons.  Third, Saudi Arabia is seen to have much different dynamics than Iraq.  In other words, the people there are more radical than those that are currently in charge.  Iraq on the other hand, was seen as having an strong dictator in charge that led by an iron fist over those that generally disagreed with him.  Thus, taking out the Royal Family would probably result in leadership that is worse than we currently have there.  In this respect, Saudi Arabia is very similar to Pakistan.

As for Syria, I think they are high on the radar.  I do not believe that we will attack them anytime soon because of the problems that we have encountered in Iraq and the resistance that the American people would have against such an invasion.  However, I see Syria as being very similar to Iran in that there is no history of sanctions, resolutions, and seise fire agreements in order to attack them right away.  Furthermore, they do not have the history of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq had.

[RichardNixon]

New question:

There are links between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Why don't we invade those countries too? Surely terrorists in those countries could develop the bomb and give them to terrorists. So why not invade, surely we'd be greeted as liberators.

Why not would you support it?

First, Iran was a much different scenario than Iraq.? There was no seise fire against them, there was no history in the UN of resolutions and sanctions against them.? Simply attacking Iran with out trying diplomacy, as we are currently doing, was out of the question without pursuing diplomatic measures.?

As for Saudi Arabia, the problem with them is not necessarily their leadership.? The Royal Family actually helps us in the middle east more than most countries there.? Second, they had no history of developing biological or chemical weapons.? Third, Saudi Arabia is seen to have much different dynamics than Iraq.? In other words, the people there are more radical than those that are currently in charge.? Iraq on the other hand, was seen as having an strong dictator in charge that led by an iron fist over those that generally disagreed with him.? Thus, taking out the Royal Family would probably result in leadership that is worse than we currently have there.? In this respect, Saudi Arabia is very similar to Pakistan.

As for Syria, I think they are high on the radar.? I do not believe that we will attack them anytime soon because of the problems that we have encountered in Iraq and the resistance that the American people would have against such an invasion.? However, I see Syria as being very similar to Iran in that there is no history of sanctions, resolutions, and seise fire agreements in order to attack them right away.? Furthermore, they do not have the history of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq had.

But 911 changed everything. We can't wait for the final evidence that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud. For the safety of the US, we should attack any country associated with terrorists. We could just fly over the middle east and drop hydrogen bombs, bomb it back to the stone age. We should also bomb Canada as well. Terrorists may get into the US via the Canadian border. Bomb Mexico to.

[Surfrider]

New question:

There are links between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Why don't we invade those countries too? Surely terrorists in those countries could develop the bomb and give them to terrorists. So why not invade, surely we'd be greeted as liberators.

Why not would you support it?

First, Iran was a much different scenario than Iraq.? There was no seise fire against them, there was no history in the UN of resolutions and sanctions against them.? Simply attacking Iran with out trying diplomacy, as we are currently doing, was out of the question without pursuing diplomatic measures.?

As for Saudi Arabia, the problem with them is not necessarily their leadership.? The Royal Family actually helps us in the middle east more than most countries there.? Second, they had no history of developing biological or chemical weapons.? Third, Saudi Arabia is seen to have much different dynamics than Iraq.? In other words, the people there are more radical than those that are currently in charge.? Iraq on the other hand, was seen as having an strong dictator in charge that led by an iron fist over those that generally disagreed with him.? Thus, taking out the Royal Family would probably result in leadership that is worse than we currently have there.? In this respect, Saudi Arabia is very similar to Pakistan.

As for Syria, I think they are high on the radar.? I do not believe that we will attack them anytime soon because of the problems that we have encountered in Iraq and the resistance that the American people would have against such an invasion.? However, I see Syria as being very similar to Iran in that there is no history of sanctions, resolutions, and seise fire agreements in order to attack them right away.? Furthermore, they do not have the history of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq had.

But 911 changed everything. We can't wait for the final evidence that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud. For the safety of the US, we should attack any country associated with terrorists. We could just fly over the middle east and drop hydrogen bombs, bomb it back to the stone age. We should also bomb Canada as well. Terrorists may get into the US via the Canadian border. Bomb Mexico to.

Typical response that I would expect.  You don't counter any of the things that I said, which are all very logical reasons, why we went into Iraq instead of these other places.  Did I undercut your argument?

[Charity Case]

you're far from alone sandman, and far from wrong.
Every liberal on this board would be all over Bushs ass if he wouldnt have acted on the intelligence AND an attack on America
would have been traced back to that intelligence.
Bush cant win with these people, nor does he or should we, give a shit.
Thats what sets him apart and in my book becomes the greatest president of my time.
he acted, acted boldly and put the countrys security ahead of his political agenda.

the liberals argument sways with the wind.
First it was "all about the oil". Dont hear that much anymore.
Fact is the liberals supported the war before they didnt support it.
Sound familiar?
In my book, good.
Because their blind anti conservative stance will make them... well losers for years to come.
We just got two SCJ put in who will be around for a long long time.
Best thing on the liberal radar screen at the moment is Hillary Clinton.
I think that says it all.

On the contrary the argument has always been the same.

Your party is a lying sack of shit, just like your ashole in the white house. He has changed his story as it sees fit, for the mindless sheep to follow.

It's about oil, positioning ourself in the middle east and imperialism. I've said it the entire time you moron.

lol, you can always tell the exact moment slc loses an arguement (and it happens in just about every thread).  Funny fucking shit.

[SLCPUNK]

So if you disagree with someone, resort to personal insults and name calling? Great idea 

After a while the stupidity level is just too much.....

I thought your little group probably took the cake. I have seen enough denial, doubletalk, amnesia-on-demand, outright lies, delusional rants, racism, sociopath behavior, and downright cold shit from your crew. It also seems that every time one of you "goes away" that there is another just as cold, bitter and empty to take his place. Shades was the next one in through that revolving door. This time, besides the jr high insults, he brought physical threats to the board.

The most disturbing thing about you guys is that  you waive your hand at  human life. The most precious thing we know and understand right now. You scoff at the deaths of innocents, as if it were some nuisance to even be talked about. Scoff at human rights, scoff at simply being a decent human being. That pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Really, does it not? To face the music like a man, and admit you are wrong when faced with facts shows character. I have never seen one ounce of character from any of you guys. Nothing. Instead you blab away beating your chests and calling everybody cowards because they don't agree with you. I wonder what kind of world you live in where the lives of your fellow Americans can mean so little to you? The lives of innocent children could mean so little? The physical act of murderer is sickening to think about. The thought of that happening on a lie, makes it even worse. But you can't admit you were wrong. No matter how much is brought in front of you, you cover your ears and keep running your mouth.

Shades is one of the worst examples I've seen of this forum for sometime. You guys backing him (especially Mr. big shot "lawyer" GNRNIGHTTRAIN backing him is especially embarrassing. Let me ask you GNRNIGHTRAIN, are you not ashamed to still be lying about who you are after we all know it?s you?) shows your ego in full swing. Ready to pounce on any little thing to make yourselves better about lying and condoning mindless barbaric torture and murder of human beings, and your own countrymen. The good news is that I don?t have to wake up everyday and lie to myself and everybody around me. Better news than that, is that I?ll never be you.

I?d bet any amount of money that none of you guys would act like this outside the internet community. Mostly because people don?t accept this type of behavior in our society. Your rants have gone on so long, and so strong, that this may be surprising to most people outside of the USA. But it is true: you can?t (and know damn well you would not) talk like you do here. It would not be tolerated, even by republicans. A true cowards arena this has become, for the advocacy of torture, murder, racism, and propaganda to run rampant. Congratulations you have all become the ring leaders of your own private pretend world. A world where you actually believe the (at least you appear to) filth you type out day after day. The lies, the hate and the denial at your finger tips, safely hidden away at home. At home, nice and safe where you can not be attacked by the majority of Americans who would be repulsed if you uttered this garbage in public.

The ultimate knee slapper  is how you come back to cry ?name calling?. The same heartless bastards that day after day advocate senseless  violence, torture and the very act of war itself, get their panties in a wad because I called one of their own a ?moron?. LOL, give me a break. Like it has been said before: it is not ?name calling? if it is the truth. And rest assured, I have not lied about anything here today.  He is a moron, and so are the rest of you.

[RichardNixon]

New question:

There are links between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Why don't we invade those countries too? Surely terrorists in those countries could develop the bomb and give them to terrorists. So why not invade, surely we'd be greeted as liberators.

Why not would you support it?

First, Iran was a much different scenario than Iraq.? There was no seise fire against them, there was no history in the UN of resolutions and sanctions against them.? Simply attacking Iran with out trying diplomacy, as we are currently doing, was out of the question without pursuing diplomatic measures.?

As for Saudi Arabia, the problem with them is not necessarily their leadership.? The Royal Family actually helps us in the middle east more than most countries there.? Second, they had no history of developing biological or chemical weapons.? Third, Saudi Arabia is seen to have much different dynamics than Iraq.? In other words, the people there are more radical than those that are currently in charge.? Iraq on the other hand, was seen as having an strong dictator in charge that led by an iron fist over those that generally disagreed with him.? Thus, taking out the Royal Family would probably result in leadership that is worse than we currently have there.? In this respect, Saudi Arabia is very similar to Pakistan.

As for Syria, I think they are high on the radar.? I do not believe that we will attack them anytime soon because of the problems that we have encountered in Iraq and the resistance that the American people would have against such an invasion.? However, I see Syria as being very similar to Iran in that there is no history of sanctions, resolutions, and seise fire agreements in order to attack them right away.? Furthermore, they do not have the history of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq had.

But 911 changed everything. We can't wait for the final evidence that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud. For the safety of the US, we should attack any country associated with terrorists. We could just fly over the middle east and drop hydrogen bombs, bomb it back to the stone age. We should also bomb Canada as well. Terrorists may get into the US via the Canadian border. Bomb Mexico to.

Typical response that I would expect.? You don't counter any of the things that I said, which are all very logical reasons, why we went into Iraq instead of these other places.? Did I undercut your argument?

No you did not undercut my argument. We went into Iraq  and not the other places because the US knew they would fall over like a tipped cow. Whereas the other countries may put up a really fight if we went in.

[Prometheus]

just for shades: you brought me back to this stuff when you made your comments about not waiting on the UN before Iraq......its all rather good on teh justification of the iraq war.



US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

United States signed the UN charter. Senate approval July 28, 1945: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/17604.htm

UN Charter, Article 2, Section 4: http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter1.html
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

UN Charter, Article 33 http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter6.html
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

UN Charter, Article 37 http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter6.html
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

UN Charter, Article 51 http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter7.html
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


GIVEN:

1) That the nation of Iraq has not undertaken an armed attack against the United States of America.
2) That the United States is currently threatening the use of force against Iraq, and may soon undertake such force.
3) That the United States has brought the issues involving the nation of Iraq to the UN Security Council.
4) That the United Nations Security Council has not endorsed the threat or use of force against the state of Iraq as a response to the current issue brought to it by the United States.


SUMMARY:

Given the above, the United States is in violation of the UN Charter, Articles 2 and 37 via threat of force, and may in the future compound this with the actual use of force. According to the charter, Iraq now has the right to petition the UN under Article 33 to redress this grievance, and the right under Article 51 to fight against the United States for self defense. Given that the United States is in violation of the UN charter, and that the United States is a signatory to the UN charter, the US has violated an international treaty ratified by the Senate. Such a violation is, under Article VI, a violation of "the supreme law of the land".

As a side note, perjury ("The voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath; false swearing" (Merriam-Webster)) - such as in violation of a sworn oath to uphold the constitution - is a high crime. High crimes and misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment.


http://www.iowansforpeace.org

[sandman]

So if you disagree with someone, resort to personal insults and name calling? Great idea?

After a while the stupidity level is just too much.....

I thought your little group probably took the cake. I have seen enough denial, doubletalk, amnesia-on-demand, outright lies, delusional rants, racism, sociopath behavior, and downright cold shit from your crew. It also seems that every time one of you "goes away" that there is another just as cold, bitter and empty to take his place. Shades was the next one in through that revolving door. This time, besides the jr high insults, he brought physical threats to the board.

The most disturbing thing about you guys is that? you waive your hand at? human life. The most precious thing we know and understand right now. You scoff at the deaths of innocents, as if it were some nuisance to even be talked about. Scoff at human rights, scoff at simply being a decent human being. That pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Really, does it not? To face the music like a man, and admit you are wrong when faced with facts shows character. I have never seen one ounce of character from any of you guys. Nothing. Instead you blab away beating your chests and calling everybody cowards because they don't agree with you. I wonder what kind of world you live in where the lives of your fellow Americans can mean so little to you? The lives of innocent children could mean so little? The physical act of murderer is sickening to think about. The thought of that happening on a lie, makes it even worse. But you can't admit you were wrong. No matter how much is brought in front of you, you cover your ears and keep running your mouth.

Shades is one of the worst examples I've seen of this forum for sometime. You guys backing him (especially Mr. big shot "lawyer" GNRNIGHTTRAIN backing him is especially embarrassing. Let me ask you GNRNIGHTRAIN, are you not ashamed to still be lying about who you are after we all know it?s you?) shows your ego in full swing. Ready to pounce on any little thing to make yourselves better about lying and condoning mindless barbaric torture and murder of human beings, and your own countrymen. The good news is that I don?t have to wake up everyday and lie to myself and everybody around me. Better news than that, is that I?ll never be you.

I?d bet any amount of money that none of you guys would act like this outside the internet community. Mostly because people don?t accept this type of behavior in our society. Your rants have gone on so long, and so strong, that this may be surprising to most people outside of the USA. But it is true: you can?t (and know damn well you would not) talk like you do here. It would not be tolerated, even by republicans. A true cowards arena this has become, for the advocacy of torture, murder, racism, and propaganda to run rampant. Congratulations you have all become the ring leaders of your own private pretend world. A world where you actually believe the (at least you appear to) filth you type out day after day. The lies, the hate and the denial at your finger tips, safely hidden away at home. At home, nice and safe where you can not be attacked by the majority of Americans who would be repulsed if you uttered this garbage in public.

The ultimate knee slapper? is how you come back to cry ?name calling?. The same heartless bastards that day after day advocate senseless? violence, torture and the very act of war itself, get their panties in a wad because I called one of their own a ?moron?. LOL, give me a break. Like it has been said before: it is not ?name calling? if it is the truth. And rest assured, I have not lied about anything here today.? He is a moron, and so are the rest of you.

 

this is the funniest fucking post i've ever seen. just classic. were you crying when you typed this? i'm guessing you've lost alot of sleep over this. ?

but when you throw insults out at people who disagree with you, it shows your true character. and it shows your lack of intelligence. and it shows how un-american you truly are.

[Surfrider]

No you did not undercut my argument. We went into Iraq because the US and not the other places because the US knew they would fall over like a tipped cow. Whereas the other countries may put up a really fight if we went in.

Well I made a pretty convincing argument to the contrary.  If you don't want to address the points I made, so be it.  It speaks volumes.  When you hear something contrary to what you believe you simply disregard it instead of breaking down the arguments.

[Surfrider]

So if you disagree with someone, resort to personal insults and name calling? Great idea?

After a while the stupidity level is just too much.....

I thought your little group probably took the cake. I have seen enough denial, doubletalk, amnesia-on-demand, outright lies, delusional rants, racism, sociopath behavior, and downright cold shit from your crew. It also seems that every time one of you "goes away" that there is another just as cold, bitter and empty to take his place. Shades was the next one in through that revolving door. This time, besides the jr high insults, he brought physical threats to the board.

The most disturbing thing about you guys is that? you waive your hand at? human life. The most precious thing we know and understand right now. You scoff at the deaths of innocents, as if it were some nuisance to even be talked about. Scoff at human rights, scoff at simply being a decent human being. That pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Really, does it not? To face the music like a man, and admit you are wrong when faced with facts shows character. I have never seen one ounce of character from any of you guys. Nothing. Instead you blab away beating your chests and calling everybody cowards because they don't agree with you. I wonder what kind of world you live in where the lives of your fellow Americans can mean so little to you? The lives of innocent children could mean so little? The physical act of murderer is sickening to think about. The thought of that happening on a lie, makes it even worse. But you can't admit you were wrong. No matter how much is brought in front of you, you cover your ears and keep running your mouth.

Shades is one of the worst examples I've seen of this forum for sometime. You guys backing him (especially Mr. big shot "lawyer" GNRNIGHTTRAIN backing him is especially embarrassing. Let me ask you GNRNIGHTRAIN, are you not ashamed to still be lying about who you are after we all know it?s you?) shows your ego in full swing. Ready to pounce on any little thing to make yourselves better about lying and condoning mindless barbaric torture and murder of human beings, and your own countrymen. The good news is that I don?t have to wake up everyday and lie to myself and everybody around me. Better news than that, is that I?ll never be you.

I?d bet any amount of money that none of you guys would act like this outside the internet community. Mostly because people don?t accept this type of behavior in our society. Your rants have gone on so long, and so strong, that this may be surprising to most people outside of the USA. But it is true: you can?t (and know damn well you would not) talk like you do here. It would not be tolerated, even by republicans. A true cowards arena this has become, for the advocacy of torture, murder, racism, and propaganda to run rampant. Congratulations you have all become the ring leaders of your own private pretend world. A world where you actually believe the (at least you appear to) filth you type out day after day. The lies, the hate and the denial at your finger tips, safely hidden away at home. At home, nice and safe where you can not be attacked by the majority of Americans who would be repulsed if you uttered this garbage in public.

The ultimate knee slapper? is how you come back to cry ?name calling?. The same heartless bastards that day after day advocate senseless? violence, torture and the very act of war itself, get their panties in a wad because I called one of their own a ?moron?. LOL, give me a break. Like it has been said before: it is not ?name calling? if it is the truth. And rest assured, I have not lied about anything here today.? He is a moron, and so are the rest of you.

 

this is the funniest fucking post i've ever seen. just classic. were you crying when you typed this? i'm guessing you've lost alot of sleep over this. ?

but when you throw insults out at people who disagree with you, it shows your true character. and it shows your lack of intelligence. and it shows how un-american you truly are.

I didn't read anything Shades wrote, so I am not going to say I agree or disagree with it.  I haven't read this forum for awhile.  I thought I would check it out, and I clicked on the last page and I saw the typical "moron" comments.  It does seem that someone struck a nerve somewhere.  Was it my post? 

[Surfrider]

just for shades: you brought me back to this stuff when you made your comments about not waiting on the UN before Iraq......its all rather good on teh justification of the iraq war.



US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

United States signed the UN charter. Senate approval July 28, 1945: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/17604.htm

UN Charter, Article 2, Section 4: http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter1.html
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

UN Charter, Article 33 http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter6.html
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

UN Charter, Article 37 http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter6.html
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

UN Charter, Article 51 http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter7.html
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


GIVEN:

1) That the nation of Iraq has not undertaken an armed attack against the United States of America.
2) That the United States is currently threatening the use of force against Iraq, and may soon undertake such force.
3) That the United States has brought the issues involving the nation of Iraq to the UN Security Council.
4) That the United Nations Security Council has not endorsed the threat or use of force against the state of Iraq as a response to the current issue brought to it by the United States.


SUMMARY:

Given the above, the United States is in violation of the UN Charter, Articles 2 and 37 via threat of force, and may in the future compound this with the actual use of force. According to the charter, Iraq now has the right to petition the UN under Article 33 to redress this grievance, and the right under Article 51 to fight against the United States for self defense. Given that the United States is in violation of the UN charter, and that the United States is a signatory to the UN charter, the US has violated an international treaty ratified by the Senate. Such a violation is, under Article VI, a violation of "the supreme law of the land".

As a side note, perjury ("The voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath; false swearing" (Merriam-Webster)) - such as in violation of a sworn oath to uphold the constitution - is a high crime. High crimes and misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment.


http://www.iowansforpeace.org

I have seen this argument made before and certainly who ever wrote this, (iowansforpeace), has no knowledge of Constitutional law.? Here is the problem with this argument:

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

If you read this Clause closely it states that both laws and treaties are the "supreme law of the land."? Since laws and treaties are treated the same under the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land second to only the text of the Constitution, a treaty can override a congressional law just as a congressional law can override a treaty.? For example, if congress passes a law saying marijuana is illegal and then subsequently passes a law saying marijauna is legal, marijuana would be legal under the law because the most recent law controls.? Same thing if one is a treaty and one is a law.?

Accordingly,? when Congress passed H.J.Res. 114 (the resolution authorizing military action in Iraq), it took the form of a congressional law.? Thus, any treaty that the United States had signed that would prevent it from going to war with Iraq was overturned when Congress passed its resolution that was inconsistent with those treaties.? Therefore, any claim that the war was unconstitutional under this theory is just plain wrong.

In addition, under constitutional law you would also have the problem of trying to override the explicit power of the President of the United States as "commander and chief" by these treaties.? Since the President's power is explicit (to reiterate treaties are treated below the text of the actual Constitution), you can't restrict it by law or treaty, but could onyl restrict it by Constitutional Amendment.

This is not to say that the war didn't violate international law, there are strong arguments on both sides of that issue.? However, war was not unconstitutional.? ?

[RichardNixon]

No you did not undercut my argument. We went into Iraq because the US and not the other places because the US knew they would fall over like a tipped cow. Whereas the other countries may put up a really fight if we went in.

Well I made a pretty convincing argument to the contrary.? If you don't want to address the points I made, so be it.? It speaks volumes.? When you hear something contrary to what you believe you simply disregard it instead of breaking down the arguments.

Well, obviously the US wont invade another country now, but invading Iraq was arbitrary. But in 2003, Bush singled out Iraq because he knew that that country would fall over like a tipped cow. He didn't invade other countries in the region because he knew that they would put up a fight. Invading Iraq was totally arbitrary.

I could make a case for invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. They have all harbored d terrorists, and most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

When the US invaded Iraq, Iraq did not have any WMDs or have the capacity to make them. As for Iraq having a history of using them, remember that when Iraq did use chemical weapons in the 1980s, the US didn't give a shit and looked the other way. Iran was no more or less of a threat than Iraq, so why not invade Iran as they are part of the "axes of evil."

As for the people of Saudi Arabia being more radical than the people of Iraq, what does that mean?

Fact is, most of the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, so we should maybe we should have invaded there.

[Surfrider]

Again, little substance to this post.

Well, obviously the US wont invade another country now, but invading Iraq was arbitrary.

You are concluding it was arbitrary with no support.  I put forward the evidence that it was not, but instead of attacking the arguments you simply state a conclusion with no support.

But in 2003, Bush singled out Iraq because he knew that that country would fall over like a tipped cow. He didn't invade other countries in the region because he knew that they would put up a fight. Invading Iraq was totally arbitrary.

First, you are speculating as to what Bush knew/thought.  I will not attempt to do that.  Second, even if this was the case, which I believe there were many other reasons as previously stated, why is this not a legitimate argument?  If Iraq is supporting terrorism, just like all of these countries, why not go after Iraq if you think it would be easier than these?  I doubt very much that you would argue that we should have attacked stronger countries where it would have been more difficult, expensive, and costly in terms of American lives.  Such reasoning is hardly arbitrary.

I could make a case for invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. They have all harbored d terrorists, and most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

I pointed out how all of those were different than Iraq both politically and strategically.  Instead of calling it arbitrary, refute those arguments.  Quit claiming you can do this or that.  If my arguments are wrong then address them individually.

When the US invaded Iraq, Iraq did not have any WMDs or have the capacity to make them.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  Hindsight.  Fruthermore, none of these other countries had WMDs either at the time we invaded Iraq.

As for Iraq having a history of using them, remember that when Iraq did use chemical weapons in the 1980s, the US didn't give a shit and looked the other way.

Pointing out a mistake in the past is no argument against correcting it later.  Furthermore, war makes strange bed fellows.  Just because we supported Stalin against Hitler doesn't mean we shouldn't have challenged him after the war.

Iran was no more or less of a threat than Iraq, so why not invade Iran as they are part of the "axes of evil."

I addressed this in my previous post, I suggest you read it.  Primarily, no seise fire agreement, no history of UN resolutions, and no evidence of WMD programs at that time.

As for the people of Saudi Arabia being more radical than the people of Iraq, what does that mean?

Its pretty self-explanatory.  There are two views in the Muslim word, those that are radical toward the west and see islamic jihad against the west as legitimate; and those that just want to live peacefully within their own country and be part of the rest of the world like Kuwait and Jordan.  Iraq, like Iran, is seen has having a less radical populace.  On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is known for having a radical populace just like Pakistan in which these kids are taught young to hate the west and jews.

Fact is, most of the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, so we should maybe we should have invaded there.

You just refuse to read or reply to anything I write.  I don't know why I bother.