Good god, we are screwed out of our minds (maybe)

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
In summary, a senior commander of Shi'ite militants claimed that the wall of the Najaf mosque was hit by U.S. fire during fighting. However, it was not possible to confirm this accusation independently. The shrine holds great significance for Shi'ites and any damage to it would enrage millions and give Sadr political ammunition. Some believe that the militants may have rigged the mosque with explosives to use as propaganda. Others suggest that the U.S. could have used non-lethal tactics instead of attacking the shrine. There is also debate over the intelligence and strategy of the Bush administration in the war on terror and the stability of the Middle East.
  • #36
Artman said:
The USA waited a long time before entering that war. We were chastised for that too. All that is required for evil to win is for good people to sit around and do nothing. That goes for the civilians in Hitler's country that allowed him to rise and stay in power as well.
Agreed. That's called the "Moral Imperative" and it applies here to.

No, Adam, that doesn't make it "ok," it makes it an obligation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Adam said:
As many as he can. The more hatred he generates, the more people he can force to act against the USA, the more he can use those acts as justifications for whatever he wants to do.

Bush acted on terrorism intelligence. Whether or not it was credible is hard for him to determine which is why he is supported by experts. I'm sure any president in the seat would have gone to war with what he saw in his hands. Did you forget congress read the intelligence too, agreed and gave bush the ability to goto war. Why is this all on bush's head?
 
  • #38
Most of the analysts were scratching their heads at many things that he bush admin said, including the things that colin powell said at the UN presentation. cheney put a lot of pressure on the CIA to come up with stuff.
 
  • #39
Greg Bernhardt said:
Bush acted on terrorism intelligence. Whether or not it was credible is hard for him to determine which is why he is supported by experts. I'm sure any president in the seat would have gone to war with what he saw in his hands. Did you forget congress read the intelligence too, agreed and gave bush the ability to goto war. Why is this all on bush's head?

The intelligence is becoming more and more sketchy, most of their human intelligence was from a guy called "Agent Curveball", who turned out to just be making stuff up. Those pictures we saw of "mobile chemical labs" etc. were just pictures of random stuff, and we didn't know what was inside, some were actually firetrucks.

And Congress didn't give Bush the ability to just go to war, the resolution they passed had many conditions he was required to follow, and he broke many of those conditions. One condition was he go to the UN for a second vote on going to war with Iraq, Bush didn't do that. One condition was that he exhaust ALL possible diplomatic venues, exactly how many weeks was it between the passing of the resolution and the war starting? One condition was to build a large coalition, I don't know if you consider a force where the USA is 90% of the troops a large coalition, I don't. One condition was that preferably before, but no later than within 48 hours of Bush declaring war that he give an adress to congress detailing the exact reasons why he felt diplomacy had failed and why war was the only possible option, he didn't do that either. Hell, Bush didn't even have any sort of like formal vote from his cabinet members before declaring war...

And that's why this is on Bush's shoulders.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
wasteofo2 said:
The intelligence is becoming more and more sketchy, most of their human intelligence was from a guy called "Agent Curveball", who turned out to just be making stuff up. Those pictures we saw of "mobile chemical labs" etc. were just pictures of random stuff, and we didn't know what was inside, some were actually firetrucks.

And Congress didn't give Bush the ability to just go to war, the resolution they passed had many conditions he was required to follow, and he broke many of those conditions. One condition was he go to the UN for a second vote on going to war with Iraq, Bush didn't do that. One condition was that he exhaust ALL possible diplomatic venues, exactly how many weeks was it between the passing of the resolution and the war starting? One condition was to build a large coalition, I don't know if you consider a force where the USA is 90% of the troops a large coalition, I don't. One condition was that preferably before, but no later than within 48 hours of Bush declaring war that he give an adress to congress detailing the exact reasons why he felt diplomacy had failed and why war was the only possible option, he didn't do that either. Hell, Bush didn't even have any sort of like formal vote from his cabinet members before declaring war...

And that's why this is on Bush's shoulders.

You know, it's really important (at least to me, I'm sure others) that we are able to see references/links when people make statements like this. Do you have any references or links?
 
  • #41
Even Powell knew it was rubbish, and was reluctant to give that speech at the UN.
 
  • #42
kat said:
You know, it's really important (at least to me, I'm sure others) that we are able to see references/links when people make statements like this. Do you have any references or links?

Alright, here's the full resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

The real meat of it is towards the bottom.

I based my original statement on things I'd heard, and I should learn that what you hear isn't always right, the president was required to give that report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore, not all of congress, but I'd be willing to bet that the speaker and president pro tempore would have shared the reports with all of congress. Also, Bush wasn't required to build a large coalition, but instead seek action through the UN, meaning get the UN to send troops, which would have been a coalition of different nations.

Specific quotes about each point I made:

Going to the UN for a second vote/build a large coalition:

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
"

It doesn't specifically say "go for a second vote", but there had already been one vote, and the only way to actually get the Security Council to take action was by going for a second vote.

Exhaust all possible diplomatic means of solving the problem/give a report why war was necessary to speaker of house and president pro tempore:

Partially shown above, where he was required to get action from the UN Security Council, also shown in the following quote:

"(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001
"

However, right now, I can't find something proving the President didn't do it, perhaps you could find something showing he did? That report would have probabally been big news and the text of it would be easy to find online.
 
  • #43
wasteofo2 said:
However, right now, I can't find something proving the President didn't do it, perhaps you could find something showing he did? That report would have probabally been big news and the text of it would be easy to find online.
Well, I don't know - he made a speech. Is that a report? That's the beauty of such resolutions. They are weak by design. That way if the President ignores them (which he can do according to the Constitution), they don't have to challenge him (because they know they would lose - and for a politician, losing is worse than being a hypocrite). That's also the reason why people like Kerry speak against such acts and then vote for them. Yes, Kerry is two-faced, but there is more to it than that: by just asking for a resolution supporting a war, a President has Congress backed into a corner.

Regarding Bush's justifications, I'm not sure of the veracity of his belief about WMD. I'm not sure they even mattered to him. What I am sure of is that legally, they are utterly irrelevant and morally, a lie (if there was one) is wrong, but the war was still right.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
russ_watters said:
Well, I don't know - he made a speech. Is that a report? That's the beauty of such resolutions. They are weak by design. That way if the President ignores them (which he can do according to the Constitution), they don't have to challenge him (because they know they would lose - and for a politician, losing is worse than being a hypocrite). That's also the reason why people like Kerry speak against such acts and then vote for them. Yes, Kerry is two-faced, but there is more to it than that: by just asking for a resolution supporting a war, a President has Congress backed into a corner.

Regarding Bush's justifications, I'm not sure of the veracity of his belief about WMD. I'm not sure they even mattered to him. What I am sure of is that legally, they are utterly irrelevant and morally, a lie (if there was one) is wrong, but the war was still right.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if the President gets congressional approval to take action against another nation so long as he does certain things that he can just ignore the things he's required to do?

This war, as I implied in my first post, is being carried out so poorly that we're creating more and more terrorists and pissing off people who already hate us. This could easily turn into WWIII, how could you say that it was alright that he lied and gave reasons for war that were totally false and he may not have even believed?
 
  • #45
Greg Bernhardt said:
I'm sure any president in the seat would have gone to war with what he saw in his hands.
Why are you so sure about this? Are you sure that any president would have been so driven to move into Iraq, and to move in at this point in time and not perhaps later, even though so many of our allies were unconvinced and against it?

I am not as sure as you are.
 
  • #46
I'm reminded of the Britney Speares interview in Fahrenheit 9/11.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
Yes, Kerry is two-faced, but there is more to it than that

Since were into this kind of thing...

Yes, Bush is a moron, but there's more to it than that.
 
  • #48
Gokul43201 said:
Bush is a moron, but there's more to it than that.
I don't know. That just about says it all.
 
  • #49
Prometheus said:
Why are you so sure about this? Are you sure that any president would have been so driven to move into Iraq, and to move in at this point in time and not perhaps later, even though so many of our allies were unconvinced and against it?

I am not as sure as you are.
Apparently, according to the Bush people at least, the intelligence GWB saw, and the conclusion that Saddam had WMD was all the fault of the Clinton administration, and good ol' Bill never went to war with Iraq...

Bombed 'em to show who was boss, but never lost almost 1,000 US lives in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
wasteofo2 said:
... was all the fault of the Clinton administration,
Thank goodness. I was worried for a moment that Bush did not know who was "really" at fault.

That old "the buck stops here" foolishness would never bother Bush, since he can't read and has no knowledge of history. The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions. The blame lies with all of us. Bush is the last person that should ever be considered at fault for anything that goes wrong.
 
  • #51
Prometheus said:
The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions. The blame lies with all of us.
Hey man, speak for yourself, I was 12 when GW was (s)elected.
 
  • #52
I'm reminded of Pa Kettle: "I will never apologise for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are." ~ George W Bush.
 
  • #53
wasteofo2 said:
Hey man, speak for yourself, I was 12 when GW was (s)elected.
I am sorry, but the rules are that we cannot blame Bush for being an idiot. We must all share in his blame. This includes you. You seem to be attempting to shirk your responsibility. I think that you might have a good future in politicas ahead of you.
 
  • #54
Prometheus said:
The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions.

No they didn't. Gore won the popular vote, narrowly but definitely. It was the electoral college, plus skulduggery, that put Bush in the White House.

I personally voted for Gore, and I then lived in a state that was screwed by the Electoral College setup - Illiinois. Notice that the E.C. unfairness is not just due to the constitution, but to the refusal to enlarge the House of Representatives to allow for population increases. This means that Wyoming can never lose its one congressman, but Illinois can lose one of its, if another state increases its population faster.

Bottom line, I refuse to accept any responsibility for Idiot Child and his gang of incompetent clowns.
 
  • #55
selfAdjoint said:
No they didn't.
I quite agree with you. I was being facetious.
 
  • #56
selfAdjoint said:
Bottom line, I refuse to accept any responsibility for Idiot Child and his gang of incompetent clowns.

The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do. They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better. This is why I hate politics. I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes. I'm definitely not voting for John, 'Kill Small Buisness' Kerry.
 
  • #57
Greg Bernhardt said:
The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do.
Perhaps. If so, perhaps with good reason.

They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better.
I believe Bush screwed up more than any president in the last 50 years.

I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes.
You have the right to your opinion.

I think Bush is an evil person and an idiot. When you say "a good person", do you mean good as in "not an idiot" or as in "not incredibly evil"?
 
  • #58
Greg Bernhardt said:
The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do. They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better. This is why I hate politics. I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes. I'm definitely not voting for John, 'Kill Small Buisness' Kerry.
I believe that Kerry can do a much better job than Bush, and that doesn't just mean not fuking up as bad as him, but actually improving things alot. For instance, I believe he'll make medicare etc. more affordable, raise the minimum wage, lower the defecit, restore alliances, actually create jobs, protect the environment better than Bush, and fight a smarter war on terror.

Even if Bush is a good person, he'll be the only president since hoover to have lost jobs, he's quite possibly the only person ever in the history of the world to think that cutting taxes twice while at war is a good idea, most of the world hates him and because of that 90% of the troops dying in Iraq are ours and more people are likely to want to harm us than hurt us.

How do you figure John Kerry will kill small buisness?
 
  • #59
selfAdjoint said:
No they didn't. Gore won the popular vote, narrowly but definitely.
That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:
 
  • #60
wasteofo2 said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that if the President gets congressional approval to take action against another nation so long as he does certain things that he can just ignore the things he's required to do?
The Constitution says two things: that the President is commander in chief of the miliary and that Congress has the power to declare war. It goes no further than that to define the powers of the President and Congress. After Vietnam, the War Powers Act was passed to better define and delineate the powers: it has never been invoked because it is likely an unconstitutional limit on the President's authority.

Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power.

...how could you say that it was alright that he lied and gave reasons for war that were totally false and he may not have even believed?
I do think he honestly believed, even with thin evidence he had, that we'd find some WMD in Iraq. Whether that was his primary reason for the war, I don't know, but I suspect not.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
russ_watters said:
That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:
Excellent interpretation. You only had to put a couple of words into his mouth and change his meaning just a little bit to obtain such an interpreation. Nice work.
 
  • #62
Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power.
There's no need for an amendment to clarify the war powers of the President. Congress approves a war when it grants the money to pay for it. That is it's quite but powerful manner of enacting its' congressional right to commit to war...without taking the flack for declaring war. Once congress decided it no longer wanted to commit to the Vietnam war, it cut funding..the war ended. It was really just as simple as that.
 
  • #63
Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.
 
  • #64
selfAdjoint said:
Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.
This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.
 
  • #65
USA Constitution:
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

USA War Powers Act:
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

United Nations Charter:
United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "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."

Wouldn't it be nice if they followed the law?
 
  • #66
Artman said:
This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.
Actually, I've posted the case in one of these threads so a search would find it for you..I'm not going to dig it up and I can't remember it off the top of my head (we'll blame it on being pre-menopausal :surprise: ) BUT..according to caselaw...when congress votes to pay for a war it has in effect approved that conflict...which allows it to be a legal conflict. If congress did not approve that conflict by paying for it..or by any other means..then it would in all probability be an illegal conflict (in regards to presidential powers) after the initial time limit had lapsed.
 
  • #67
As far as I know USA and UK (and whoever else) have been bombing Iraq cities for about 10 year's now, maybe this has has relevnce on the current situation over htere I am not sure what though.
 
  • #68
Username – Don’t be apologetic. Take a position. If your politics lean to the right you'll have a few supporters. If you lean to the left, you'll have hundreds.
 
  • #69
username said:
As far as I know USA and UK (and whoever else) have been bombing Iraq cities for about 10 year's now, maybe this has has relevnce on the current situation over htere I am not sure what though.
Quite correct. http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
 
  • #70
As usual, the site that Adam posted has some rather curious logic. For example, here is a news article posted in the page titled "501 days (as of 7/31/04) of US Invasion/Occupation of Iraq":

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/072904_buried_mines_and_ordnance_contin.htm

The mines mentioned in the story were almost certainly buried during the Iran-Iraq War. The mine in the picture was made in Italy. But we'll blame the US anyway.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top