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

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
  • #26
467
1
Question for you: Is the Middle East more stable today than it was prior to the USA's invasion of Iraq?
We are discussing TOMORROW, not today.

Who can we expect to be safer with nukes; Iraq, which you seem to consider is living in a Dark Age, or the USA, which has nuked civilian cities?
The USA.
 
  • #27
22
0
JohnDubYa said:
We are discussing TOMORROW, not today.
Tomorrow is built on today.

The USA.
Why?
 
  • #28
467
1
Tomorrow is built on today.
EXACTLY!!!!
 
  • #29
22
0
Exactly. War, profit, more than 10,000 innocent civilians dead. Should be a nifty red sunrise.
 
  • #30
467
1
Whatever, Adam. Whatever.
 
  • #31
22
0
There are more than 10,000 innocent civilians who can no longer afford the luxury of being so non-chalant about their deaths and the state of things in the Middle East. Enjoy it.
 
  • #32
5
0
Many hundreds of thousands have given their lifes to get rid of Saddam. It is sickening to see you pretend to voice the opinion of the dead iraqis and raping their cause.
 
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
Adam said:
There are more than 10,000 innocent civilians who can no longer afford the luxury of being so non-chalant about their deaths and the state of things in the Middle East. Enjoy it.
And there are half a million who can thanks to us. Are you saying you'd have preferred it if we had let Saddam kill half a million?

Ya know, we killed a lot of civilians stopping Hitler too...
 
  • #34
22
0
russ_watters said:
And there are half a million who can thanks to us.
Well, that makes it ok then... :uhh:

Are you saying you'd have preferred it if we had let Saddam kill half a million?
Did I?

Ya know, we killed a lot of civilians stopping Hitler too...
And those responsible should have been before the courts for war crimes.
 
  • #35
1,490
22
russ_watters said:
Ya know, we killed a lot of civilians stopping Hitler too...
Adam said:
And those responsible should have been before the courts for war crimes.
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.
 
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
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.
 
  • #37
18,198
7,800
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
466
2
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 preferrably 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
kat
26
0
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 preferrably 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
22
0
Even Powell knew it was rubbish, and was reluctant to give that speech at the UN.
 
  • #42
466
2
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
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 dunno - 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
466
2
russ_watters said:
Well, I dunno - 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
343
0
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
22
0
I'm reminded of the Britney Speares interview in Farenheit 9/11.
 
  • #47
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
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
343
0
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
466
2
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
343
0
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.
 

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

Replies
7
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
150
Views
13K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
128
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
56
Views
4K
Top