NationStates Jolt Archive

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.

To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.



To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

Shrub never really respected anyone who bought into his bullshit and voted him into power. Not Hispanics, not veterans, not the Fundamentalist Right. He'll chant whatever word gives them a hardon until they vote for him on something, then just leave them to rot.

Wow...he's dumber than I thought. Good thing Karl Rove has unlimited use of AirForce One just to go to that event.

This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

As a veteran myself, I don't see it that way.

Wow, that's unbelievably tacky.

Worst I did was sleep through the Remembrance Day ceremonies. That's just... incredibly tasteless, rude and self-serving, though.

As a veteran myself, I don't see it that way.

So talking hardon for the vets while trying to slash their health and pension benefits at the same time is praise? Wow.

As a veteran myself, I don't see it that way.

Same here.

Not a vet, but I've spoken to a Vietnam vet, and a Iraqi Freedom vet,(called to wish them a happy day) and they both loved the speech. So how about speaking for yourselves, and quit pretending you speak for the vets.

BTW Do you know what the Iraqi Freedom vet said she liked the best? The fact that he said we aren't going to cut and run. You know how Cindy Sheeham says it's disrespectful to say that staying will honor the memories of the fallen? NOT ONE VET that I've spoken to has agreed.

As a veteran myself, I don't see it that way.

As a son of veterans I don't see it that way either.

Not a vet, but I've spoken to a Vietnam vet, and a Iraqi Freedom vet,(called to wish them a happy day) and they both loved the speech. So how about speaking for yourselves, and quit pretending you speak for the vets.
The vets are two people?

So talking hardon for the vets while trying to slash their health and pension benefits at the same time is praise? Wow.

And since it was not stated that we support Bush for that but are replying to the "slap in the face" speech, you just move the goalposts to make your arguement.

This is a repost from another thred, but it's oh so applicable...

From the Tacoma News Tribune, 6/29/05

"Republicans Voted Against Veterans' Health Care FIVE TIMES This Year, Despite Warnings of Budget Shortfall. Before the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a $1 billion budget shortfall earlier this year, Senate Republicans voted twice against $1.98 billion for veterans' health care, while also opposing a proposal to increase veterans' health care funding by $2.8 billion. And last month, Republicans said "no" to keeping veterans' health care funding in line with inflation and population growth. These votes all came despite at least five warnings from Sen. Patty Murray that the proposed federal funding for veterans' programs would not be enough to cover costs."

Happy Veteran's Day!


EDIT: And, as the son, grandson, great-grandson, and nephew of combat veterans, I agree with the 'slap in the face' comment.

Silliopolious, as I have had it explained to me, Veteran's Day and Rememberance Day are not the same, although they fall upon the same day.

To Canadians, it is inappropriate for politics to mix with honouring our veterans and what they died for. We do not air foreign policy speeches on Rememberance Day. (Although some veterans did make a statement of their own by turning their backs on the Governor-General when she laid a wreath at the Cenotaph in Ottawa and when she brought out the 7th 'book of the fallen', because of her alleged former separatist attachments.)

However, in the US, politics and patriotism is an expected and accepted part of Veteran's Day. And they don't wear poppies either - even though it was an American woman who started that tradition. Canadians typically start wearing their poppies right after Hallowe'en - some before.

There's nothing wrong with the Canadian way or the American way; we just each have different traditions, that's all.

And since it was not stated that we support Bush for that but are replying to the "slap in the face" speech, you just move the goalposts to make your arguement.

Oh please, this isn't the first time Bush has taken a solemn, practically sacrosanct moment in history and tried to mine political brownie points for himself *coughcough9-11coughcough*

:rolleyes:

So talking hardon for the vets while trying to slash their health and pension benefits at the same time is praise? Wow.

I don't recall that you had anything nice to say about the job that our soldiers are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, so you're not in a position to criticize someone else about whether or not what they said was nice or not.

Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the job we've been doing.

Seems to me that the democrats (Kerry, Edwards, so cited) are the ones who need slapping. They were in support of the war... they saw the intelligence... they voted in support (at least Kerry, dunno a/b Edwards, but he's nuts anyway), so why don't they blame themselves for sending the troops over there? And since it's not a declared war, the Congress has the authority to, in effect, call back the troops. If that's their goal, why don't they do it instead of grandstanding against Bush about how the war got started? It's no longer relevant, and they were on the ship then too. It's all political jostling, if they were serious about actually doing something, they could do so without any input or mention of the president.

Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the job we've been doing.
Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the people you've been fighting to keep free.

I don't recall that you had anything nice to say about the job that our soldiers are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, so you're not in a position to criticize someone else about whether or not what they said was nice or not.

Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the job we've been doing.

Umm...I just spent a week with guys that got back from Iraq after a year long tour. They hated, they are seeing no benefit and they say the Iraqis do not want us there. Who the hell needs to apprecitate a job that the "workers" don't want to do?

Who wants these wars? Bush...not vets, not soldiers.

Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the people you've been fighting to keep free.

Actually, I did, Dobbs. Made quite a few friends there.

Seems to me that the democrats (Kerry, Edwards, so cited) are the ones who need slapping. They were in support of the war... they saw the intelligence... they voted in support (at least Kerry, dunno a/b Edwards, but he's nuts anyway), so why don't they blame themselves for sending the troops over there? And since it's not a declared war, the Congress has the authority to, in effect, call back the troops. If that's their goal, why don't they do it instead of grandstanding against Bush about how the war got started? It's no longer relevant, and they were on the ship then too. It's all political jostling, if they were serious about actually doing something, they could do so without any input or mention of the president.

Actually, you have a slight problem here Fjordburg. Congress authorized the use of force on Iraq which is technically a Declaration of War.

Actually, I did, Dobbs. Made quite a few friends there.
Heh. I was speaking of the American people, not the Iraqi people.

Umm...I just spent a week with guys that got back from Iraq after a year long tour. They hated, they are seeing no benefit and they say the Iraqis do not want us there. Who the hell needs to apprecitate a job that the "workers" don't want to do?

Who wants these wars? Bush...not vets, not soldiers.

And several guys in my unit have gone back to active duty just to back to Iraq and re-enlisments are up.

Those "workers" are wanting to do the job.

Heh. I was speaking of the American people, not the Iraqi people.
I appreciate those, too Dobbs. Even the illegal immigrants in my town. I appreciate them the most, even if our government does not recognize them. I see in them the true spirit of America.

And several guys in my unit have gone back to active duty just to back to Iraq and re-enlisments are up.

Those "workers" are wanting to do the job.

Actually, re-enlistment rates are 6 to 8 percent higher than normal. Especially for combat units.

Oh please, this isn't the first time Bush has taken a solemn, practically sacrosanct moment in history and tried to mine political brownie points for himself *coughcough9-11coughcough*




A politician playing politics!? Say it ain't so.

Congress authorized the use of force on Iraq which is technically a Declaration of War.


Maybe in your mind... but not in reality. A "conflict" has FAR different governing rules than an actual war. This is not a declared war. Legally speaking, the powers of the president and those of congress are very, very different in those situations.

My point is, this being a conflict, all congress has to do is vote to stop the funding, and that's how "in effect" they call the troops home. It's been done before, they could do it again. The president is irrelevant in the whole matter. If they want to stop it, they should be rallying Congress, not grandstanding against the president for how the war began.

Silliopolious, as I have had it explained to me, Veteran's Day and Rememberance Day are not the same, although they fall upon the same day.

To Canadians, it is inappropriate for politics to mix with honouring our veterans and what they died for. We do not air foreign policy speeches on Rememberance Day. (Although some veterans did make a statement of their own by turning their backs on the Governor-General when she laid a wreath at the Cenotaph in Ottawa and when she brought out the 7th 'book of the fallen', because of her alleged former separatist attachments.)

However, in the US, politics and patriotism is an expected and accepted part of Veteran's Day. And they don't wear poppies either - even though it was an American woman who started that tradition. Canadians typically start wearing their poppies right after Hallowe'en - some before.

There's nothing wrong with the Canadian way or the American way; we just each have different traditions, that's all.


Oh.

Silly me for assuming that Veterans Day was actually about... the Veterans down there!

Oh well, sounds like somebody doesn't like it when the President fights back against baseless charges. It seems some would rather let the lies stand.

If you ask me, Bush showed too much restraint in the first place. I would have marched into the Senate and bitchslapped Fatass Kennedy right in his lying mouth.

Oh.

Silly me for assuming that Veterans Day was actually about... the Veterans down there!
Did you watch the speech?

I don't recall that you had anything nice to say about the job that our soldiers are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, so you're not in a position to criticize someone else about whether or not what they said was nice or not.

Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the job we've been doing.
Support for troops has nothing to do with politics. I can hate the reason for going to war, hate Bush, hate that our soldiers are getting killed over there and still say that I support the troops. In fact, I think that the troops over there are making the world less safe but don't think for a moment that I blame the troops for poor decision making or for sacrificing their lives for their country. I hate this simplistic bullshit that if you're supporting the country one hundred percent then you're not supporting portions of it. I question our leaders about the mess we're in, not the soldiers.

Support for troops has nothing to do with politics. I can hate the reason for going to war, hate Bush, hate that our soldiers are getting killed over there and still say that I support the troops. In fact, I think that the troops over there are making the world less safe but don't think for a moment that I blame the troops for poor decision making or for sacrificing their lives for their country. I hate this simplistic bullshit that if you're supporting the country one hundred percent then you're not supporting portions of it. I question our leaders about the mess we're in, not the soldiers.

I've heard some on this forum decry US soldiers as completely undisciplined cowboys who shoot women and children indiscriminately and without a care.

I'm not saying you have to support the war. But if you're one of those people on this forum who constantly has something bad to say about the soldiers themselves, you can't turn around today and say you support them.

I'm not talking about 100 percent - I'm talking about Gauthier.

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.

To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.


Pardon me for actually quoting the speech
"I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it."....

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

You may apologize now.

Maybe in your mind... but not in reality. A "conflict" has FAR different governing rules than an actual war. This is not a declared war. Legally speaking, the powers of the president and those of congress are very, very different in those situations.

Why do you think I said technically it is a declared war. I didn't say legally it was a declared war. However, once engaged, the rules are most definitely different. Now that we are engaged, we stay till it is over.

My point is, this being a conflict, all congress has to do is vote to stop the funding, and that's how "in effect" they call the troops home.

And end over a couple hundred political careers.

It's been done before, they could do it again. The president is irrelevant in the whole matter.

Actually, he is very relevent. Congress may revoke it but it still has to be signed by the President of the United States. Then Congress has to try and override that veto and that requires 2/3rds vote in BOTH houses.

If they want to stop it, they should be rallying Congress, not grandstanding against the president for how the war began.

It won't work and I can tell you that it won't work. Why do you think it hasn't been tried?

Not a vet, but I've spoken to a Vietnam vet, and a Iraqi Freedom vet,(called to wish them a happy day) and they both loved the speech. So how about speaking for yourselves, and quit pretending you speak for the vets.

BTW Do you know what the Iraqi Freedom vet said she liked the best? The fact that he said we aren't going to cut and run. You know how Cindy Sheeham says it's disrespectful to say that staying will honor the memories of the fallen? NOT ONE VET that I've spoken to has agreed.
My dad is a vietnam vet and he agrees with the OP

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.

To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

two things he said:

a)those now attacking him in Congress saw the same bad intelligence he saw and were with him to oust Saddam.

b)Urged people to support the war and, in so doing, the troops fighting it... for the good of their morale.

He defended himself from petty attacks and urged war/troop support. How horrible.

I don't recall that you had anything nice to say about the job that our soldiers are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, so you're not in a position to criticize someone else about whether or not what they said was nice or not.

Don't pretend for a moment that you appreciate the job we've been doing.

That's because I never said anything about period, Sierra. Afghanistan was a sensible move, given that the man directly responsible for 9-11 had been hiding there and the Taliban's spiritual leader Mullah Omar was sheltering him against the advice of others in his council. Getting rid of the Taliban was icing on the cake.

And it was damn well justified.

But Bush dropped the ball like the Buffalo Bills at every Super Bowl appearance when for some reason he decided that staying in Afghanistan and seeing to it becoming a solid democracy was no longer necessary and instead invading Iraq for three successively flimsy reasons was a great idea. And don't try to feed me that Iraqi people needed liberation from tyranny bullshit. If that was the case the "liberation" could have come Desert Storm. And if America ignored the UN with this invasion, pleading that it was listening to the UN back then is a disingenuous copout.

The troops are doing all their best. Problem is, that like business, the groundpounders in the military are being put to waste by incompetent or apathetic management.

Seems to me that the democrats (Kerry, Edwards, so cited) are the ones who need slapping. They were in support of the war... they saw the intelligence... they voted in support (at least Kerry, dunno a/b Edwards, but he's nuts anyway), so why don't they blame themselves for sending the troops over there?


Sorry. But that old mantra still doesn't fly.

Tell me, if the Senate REALLY got to see everything the White Houses did, then why was there such a battle over access to Bush's briefing notes? Why did only a few members of the Senate committee get to see them at the whitehouse during phase one of the investigation two years ago?

If you honestly think that Joe Schmo Junior Congressman from shitsville Indiana got to see everything that the White House did before the vote, then you have no concept of how your government works.

Actually, you have a slight problem here Fjordburg. Congress authorized the use of force on Iraq which is technically a Declaration of War.
Ah yes, but "Declaration of War" is not PC anymore....:headbang:

If you want to get technical, Saddam broke the ceasefire from 1991. We have technically been at war since then, but Clinton was a douchebag. So Saddam was the one who declared war.

I've heard some on this forum decry US soldiers as completely undisciplined cowboys who shoot women and children indiscriminately and without a care.

I'm not saying you have to support the war. But if you're one of those people on this forum who constantly has something bad to say about the soldiers themselves, you can't turn around today and say you support them.

I'm not talking about 100 percent - I'm talking about Gauthier.
Sadly, that happens in every war. There always abuses going on especially when soldiers are highly stressed. We have the technology now to be more aware of all the details of the horror of war and our reactions are sometimes amplified by all the coverage.
When something like that does happen, I look at it as a negative symptom of war affecting some but not the majority. These soldiers who commit atrocities should get the help that they deserve. I don't look at them as being representative of our troops as a whole.

Pardon me for actually quoting the speech
"I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it."....

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

You may apologize now.


Apologize for objecting to the President using Veterans day for personal gain?

And for his calling "irresponsible" those who want the very investigation they were promised over two years ago to finally be undertaken?

No.


I think not.

And don't try to feed me that Iraqi people needed liberation from tyranny bullshit.
I haven't yet. So why do you think I would start now?
And if America ignored the UN with this invasion, pleading that it was listening to the UN back then is a disingenuous copout.
Non sequitur. Two different Presidents, two different policies. Or you don't understand American government.

The troops are doing all their best. Problem is, that like business, the groundpounders in the military are being put to waste by incompetent or apathetic management.
I, and my friends currently serving there, disagree.

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.

Um. "Attacking" his critics? He's scolding critics of the war, the critics who attack our soldiers and the excellent job they're doing to restore the peace in Iraq. He's not "attacking" HIS CRITICS. He's scolding those who feel the need to completely REWRITE the reasons for why we entered Iraq in the first place!

You're being pretty selective in your reading skills, aren't you? Perhaps it's best to read more than the headline.

"Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics"

Um, yeah. I don't need to say any more. I'm sure if I didn't read the article, and was as bias-blind as you appear to be, I would have assumed that Bush went at them with a baseball bat.

That's pretty nice of Yahoo! News to make such political bias widely-available.

I have one word for you, my friend.

GOOGLE.

EDIT: Got the tags, thanks. :) Been a looooooooooooong time.

Um. "Attacking" <i>his</i> critics? He's scolding critics of the <i>war</i>, the critics who attack our <i>soldiers</i> and the excellent job <i>they're</i> doing to restore the peace in Iraq. He's not "attacking" HIS CRITICS. He's scolding those who feel the need to completely REWRITE the reasons for why we entered Iraq in the first place!

You're being pretty selective in your reading skills, aren't you?

He's scolding those who are following the instructions in the Rockefeller Memo. That is all.

Hey, if they don't want to be scolded for it, they should not have followed it.

Why do you think I said technically it is a declared war. I didn't say legally it was a declared war. However, once engaged, the rules are most definitely different. Now that we are engaged, we stay till it is over.

So you used the wrong word then. You should have said "generally," since "technically" the real, actual definitions apply, rather than those which you perceive.


And end over a couple hundred political careers.

Actually, he is very relevent. Congress may revoke it but it still has to be signed by the President of the United States. Then Congress has to try and override that veto and that requires 2/3rds vote in BOTH houses.

It won't work and I can tell you that it won't work. Why do you think it hasn't been tried?


Exactly my point, thankyou. If they ACTUALLY meant to do something about it, they'd be working to that end. They are not, and the support is obviously not there for such action. Therefore, they are grandstanding against the president, which is nothing more than political blabber that is absolutely useless towards an end of any sort. They should either shut up or do something about it.

I liken it to a bunch of firemen, hose in hand, yelling at the guy who started the fire instead of accomplishing their supposed goal of putting out the fire and saving the people in the building.

IE, they sould either shut up and let it burn, or talk to the people who can actually solve the problem (other firemen) and put out the fire. Who and how it started is totally irrelevant.

Um. "Attacking" <i>his</i> critics? He's scolding critics of the <i>war</i>, the critics who attack our <i>soldiers</i> and the excellent job <i>they're</i> doing to restore the peace in Iraq. He's not "attacking" HIS CRITICS. He's scolding those who feel the need to completely REWRITE the reasons for why we entered Iraq in the first place!

You're being pretty selective in your reading skills, aren't you?
HTML tags don't work partner. Use these----> [] instead of these---> <>

So who, exactly, is asking for a rewrite?

Can someone please point me to where ANYONE has asked for such a thing?

I hear calls for a bipartisan investigation into possible manipulation of intelligence in order to determine if the administration deliberately oversold it's case for calling Iraq a "grave and gathering threat".

Indeed, Even Chuch Hagel says that the investigation needs to be done (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=54&u_sid=2063712&u_rnd=654166)


Now, answer this: How is trying to determine the truth of the chain of events prior to the war "a rewrite"?

So who, exactly, is asking for a rewrite?

Can someone please point me to where ANYONE has asked for such a thing?

I hear calls for a bipartisan investigation into possible manipulation of intelligence in order to determine if the administration deliberately oversold it's case for calling Iraq a "grave and gathering threat".

Indeed, Even Chuch Hagel says that the investigation needs to be done (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=54&u_sid=2063712&u_rnd=654166)


Now, answer this: How is trying to determine the truth of the chain of events prior to the war "a rewrite"?


Since there have already been two bipartisan investigations into this, and both came up with nothing, the Rockefeller Memo plan says that they have to repeat the accusation and ask for another investigation, because in its words, the Republicans will be seen as stonewalling if they oppose yet another investigation.

Sorry. But that old mantra still doesn't fly.

Tell me, if the Senate REALLY got to see everything the White Houses did, then why was there such a battle over access to Bush's briefing notes? Why did only a few members of the Senate committee get to see them at the whitehouse during phase one of the investigation two years ago?

If you honestly think that Joe Schmo Junior Congressman from shitsville Indiana got to see everything that the White House did before the vote, then you have no concept of how your government works.


Having a BA in Political Science, I think I have a couple ideas of how the government works.


Nonetheless, your points aren't really relevant to this thread. None of us know how much or how little they saw. What we can say is that whatever they did see, they thought it was compelling enough to vote to allow action. If the evidence wasn't sufficient at the time, then Joe Schmo Junior Congressman should have either asked for more evidence from the appropriate sources or conversed with his senior members.

I thought the reasons we went to war were obvious from the very begining, Saddam tried to assassinate W's father, George Bush the Elder. The reason was pure and simple: REVENGE!

Now that his excuses for going to war are falling apart, he is getting desperate. He should count himself lucky that he is not in the same boat as some other formerly imporant Republicans.

Wars are fought by brave men for brave causes. Wars are started, often for the most moronic and lame reasons, and their start does in no way shape or form diminish the valliant efforts of valliant men and women on either side.

Having a BA in Political Science, I think I have a couple ideas of how the government works.

Nonetheless, your points aren't really relevant to this thread. None of us know how much or how little they saw. What we can say is that whatever they did see, they thought it was compelling enough to vote to allow action. If the evidence wasn't sufficient at the time, then Joe Schmo Junior Congressman should have either asked for more evidence from the appropriate sources or conversed with his senior members.

It might also be said that the Senate and House Intelligence Committee members saw ALL of the same information that was seen by the White House. And that this was verified in two separate bipartisan committees - including Silverman-Robb.

Um. "Attacking" his critics? He's scolding critics of the war, the critics who attack our soldiers and the excellent job they're doing to restore the peace in Iraq. He's not "attacking" HIS CRITICS. He's scolding those who feel the need to completely REWRITE the reasons for why we entered Iraq in the first place!

You're being pretty selective in your reading skills, aren't you? Perhaps it's best to read more than the headline.

"Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics"

Um, yeah. I don't need to say any more. I'm sure if I didn't read the article, and was as bias-blind as you appear to be, I would have assumed that Bush went at them with a baseball bat.

That's pretty nice of Yahoo! News to make such political bias widely-available.

I have one word for you, my friend.

GOOGLE.

You mean like how Bush rewrote the reasons why we entered Iraq in the first place two times?

Reason 1: Saddam has WMDs and if we don't go invade Iraq in 48 hours he'll nuke/gas/germ America!!

(Even though Iraq's delivery capabilities limited it to its immediate neighbors in the region.)

Reason 2: Saddam has WMDs out there and he's violating UN resolutions!!

(Where's the WMDs Shrub? Hell, Bush gave up looking for them long after Saddam was overthrown.)

Reason 3: Saddam was an evil, horrible man and the Iraq people needed liberation.

(Nevermind that he was America's pet dictator until that little oopsie called Kuwait and he could have been easily overthrown during Desert Storm.)

Apologize for objecting to the President using Veterans day for personal gain?

And for his calling "irresponsible" those who want the very investigation they were promised over two years ago to finally be undertaken?

No.


I think not.
agreed

Since there have already been two bipartisan investigations into this, and both came up with nothing, the Rockefeller Memo plan says that they have to repeat the accusation and ask for another investigation, because in its words, the Republicans will be seen as stonewalling if they oppose yet another investigation.


I'm sorry, but there has been no investigation that I am aware of yet as to the political use of the intelligence as it related to how it was disseminated to the Congress and public. Indeed, the first Senate Commission was explicitely prohibited from looking into that aspect. It focused on the intelligence gathering only.

I'm sorry, but there has been no investigation that I am aware of yet as to the political use of the intelligence as it related to how it was disseminated to the Congress and public. Indeed, the first Senate Commission was explicitely prohibited from looking into that aspect. It focused on the intelligence gathering only.
Silverman-Robb already concluded that Bush did not lie or manipulate the intelligence.

This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

I am a veteran. I didn't take it that way, either. I do remember when President Bubba used to publicly praise the military with luke-warm adulation and privately dispise us. I remember when presidential wannabe Johnny F. was throwing his medals over the White House fence and told lies about what atrocities had been performed in his presence. THOSE, sir, were slaps in the face.

If you haven't gone out and dodged bullets for kith and kin, then don't tell me what is a slap in the face to a veteran and what isn't.

Been there, done that, got the medals.

Wish I was informed enough to form an opinion, but I know most of you have more info that I do and already have formed your opinions.

I just want to thank the veterans on this thread, and the relatives of people of this thread who are vets. Thanks for sacrificing to keep the US safe and free. I'm sort of struck by how this thread was begun by someone saying (from what I understand) that the president should have honored vets more and been less political, yet no one has really thanked the vets, and the convo has beome very political.

You mean like how Bush rewrote the reasons why we entered Iraq in the first place two times?

Reason 1: Saddam has WMDs and if we don't go invade Iraq in 48 hours he'll nuke/gas/germ America!!

(Even though Iraq's delivery capabilities limited it to its immediate neighbors in the region.)

Reason 2: Saddam has WMDs out there and he's violating UN resolutions!!

(Where's the WMDs Shrub? Hell, Bush gave up looking for them long after Saddam was overthrown.)

Reason 3: Saddam was an evil, horrible man and the Iraq people needed liberation.

(Nevermind that he was America's pet dictator until that little oopsie called Kuwait and he could have been easily overthrown during Desert Storm.)

Excuse me, but where are you getting those assumptions from? The only thing I ever heard from Bush regarding 48 hours and Hussein was Bush's warning to Hussein to leave Iraq/remove himself from power within 48 hours, or the United States will engage in military action against his dictatorship.

Saddam DID have weapons of Mass Destruction. The term "WMD" is NOT limited to radiological and nuclear weapons. WMDs are broken down into four general categories (Radiological, Biological, Chemical and Nuclear). Hussein has used gas weaponry in wars prior, like the Iran-Iraq war, in which he ordered the release of nerve agents and various poisonous gasses in Halabjah.

Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the torture and murder of Iraqis who opposed his rule, and the torture and slaughter of failed Iraqi olympic athletes. I'm sure this would classify Saddam as an evil, horrible man. Wouldn't you think? I don't think he's the type of guy you would invite over for dinner.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to hand you your ass on a platter.

I am a veteran. I didn't take it that way, either. I do remember when President Bubba used to publicly praise the military with luke-warm adulation and privately dispise us. I remember when presidential wannabe Johnny F. was throwing his medals over the White House fence and told lies about what atrocities had been performed in his presence. THOSE, sir, were slaps in the face.

If you haven't gone out and dodged bullets for kith and kin, then don't tell me what is a slap in the face to a veteran and what isn't.

Been there, done that, got the medals.
And yet the vetrans I know do find it as such .... so now that we are done comparing anecdotal evidence how do we quantify what is or is not in fact a slap in the face?

Reason 3: Saddam was an evil, horrible man and the Iraq people needed liberation.

(Nevermind that he was America's pet dictator until that little oopsie called Kuwait and he could have been easily overthrown during Desert Storm.)

The interesting thing is, though, that the same people currently saying "Saddam could have been overthrown in Desert Storm" would have been the first to complain that America wasn't playing by the rules. Desert Storm's goal was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The objective was reached, and we left.

It would have been extremely easy to have ousted Saddam in 1991, the desert was empty between our armored columns and Baghdad.

But it's so easy to play Armchair Quarterback with 20/20 hindsight, eh?

Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the torture and murder of Iraqis who opposed his rule, and the torture and slaughter of failed Iraqi olympic athletes. I'm sure this would classify Saddam as an evil, horrible man. Wouldn't you think? I don't think he's the type of guy you would invite over for dinner.


There are guys that are equally unpleasant around. It would be nice if you could take out them as well.

The interesting thing is, though, that the same people currently saying "Saddam could have been overthrown in Desert Storm" would have been the first to complain that America wasn't playing by the rules. Desert Storm's goal was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The objective was reached, and we left.

It would have been extremely easy to have ousted Saddam in 1991, the desert was empty between our armored columns and Baghdad.

But it's so easy to play Armchair Quarterback with 20/20 hindsight, eh?

That's Ad Hominem pile of crap there.

Norman Schwartzkopf himself recounted telling Daddy Bush that Saddam's military capabilities were severely crippled in Desert Storm and that as the Coalition forces were approaching Bagdad that Hussein was in a position to be finished off politically as well as militarily. But Bush flaked at the chance to take down the regime, which not only kept Hussein in power but also screwed the Kurds in a Bay of Pigs style empty promise.

Excuse me, but where are you getting those assumptions from? The only thing I ever heard from Bush regarding 48 hours and Hussein was Bush's warning to Hussein to leave Iraq/remove himself from power within 48 hours, or the United States will engage in military action against his dictatorship.

Saddam DID have weapons of Mass Destruction. The term "WMD" is NOT limited to radiological and nuclear weapons. WMDs are broken down into four general categories (Radiological, Biological, Chemical and Nuclear). Hussein has used gas weaponry in wars prior, like the Iran-Iraq war, in which he ordered the release of nerve agents and various poisonous gasses in Halabjah.

Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the torture and murder of Iraqis who opposed his rule, and the torture and slaughter of failed Iraqi olympic athletes. I'm sure this would classify Saddam as an evil, horrible man. Wouldn't you think? I don't think he's the type of guy you would invite over for dinner.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to hand you your ass on a platter.


WOW! Arrogant much?

I'm sorry, but there has been no investigation that I am aware of yet as to the political use of the intelligence as it related to how it was disseminated to the Congress and public. Indeed, the first Senate Commission was explicitely prohibited from looking into that aspect. It focused on the intelligence gathering only.

You would be entirely incorrect. There have been investigations into this and they came up with NOTHING!

You really have to keep up with the news dude because apparently, you are out of touch.

I am a veteran. I didn't take it that way, either. I do remember when President Bubba used to publicly praise the military with luke-warm adulation and privately dispise us. I remember when presidential wannabe Johnny F. was throwing his medals over the White House fence and told lies about what atrocities had been performed in his presence. THOSE, sir, were slaps in the face.

If you haven't gone out and dodged bullets for kith and kin, then don't tell me what is a slap in the face to a veteran and what isn't.

Been there, done that, got the medals.

Thank you sir and Happy Veterans day :)

A real damn shame. Though, I don't really pay attention to the holiday to honor. I mean I remember war all the time, I don't need a day to remember the fallen, imo.

But still, it's wrong for the leader of our country to use this day as an attack on war that is becoming increasing unpopular with his "subjects".

Though, Massachusetts (my home state) is kicking fucking ass and flippin the bird

Kerry and Kennedy are both going "Why ruining this day for your gain"

I'm glad they are my senators.

A real damn shame. Though, I don't really pay attention to the holiday to honor. I mean I remember war all the time, I don't need a day to remember the fallen, imo.

But still, it's wrong for the leader of our country to use this day as an attack on war that is becoming increasing unpopular with his "subjects".

Though, Massachusetts (my home state) is kicking fucking ass and flippin the bird

Kerry and Kennedy are both going "Why ruining this day for your gain"

I'm glad they are my senators.

Apparently, someone needs to read the speech and stop listening to political commentary.

A real damn shame. Though, I don't really pay attention to the holiday to honor. I mean I remember war all the time, I don't need a day to remember the fallen, imo.

But still, it's wrong for the leader of our country to use this day as an attack on war that is becoming increasing unpopular with his "subjects".

Though, Massachusetts (my home state) is kicking fucking ass and flippin the bird

Kerry and Kennedy are both going "Why ruining this day for your gain"

I'm glad they are my senators.
I suppose one question to ask Kerry is, "Why betray your fellow soldiers, lie about the stories behind your bogus medals and shit on everything that the TRUE heroes have done to attempt to gain a position of power? Why ruin reputations for your gain?"

You see, I can take things completely off-topic, too! (Note: Not directed at Freedomstaki.)

I mean I remember war all the time, I don't need a day to remember the fallen, imo.

THAT, people, is a slap in the face.

THAT, people, is a slap in the face.

I second.

Silverman-Robb already concluded that Bush did not lie or manipulate the intelligence.

The mandate of Silverman-Robb reads as follows: (http://www.wmd.gov/about.html)


Established by Executive Order 13328 and signed by President George W. Bush on February 6, 2004, the Commission was charged with assessing whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks). T he Commission examined the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century.



Nothing about Presidential use of intel prior to Iraq in THAT synopsis. further to that, this was staffed by Presidential Appointment. It was not a bipartisan effort.

And the mandate of the First Senate Commission did not touch this area either which is why they need the second part.


Now, could either you or Corneliu please specify the bipartisan report which exonerates the President in this regard since you are stating that this document exists.

Excuse me, but where are you getting those assumptions from? The only thing I ever heard from Bush regarding 48 hours and Hussein was Bush's warning to Hussein to leave Iraq/remove himself from power within 48 hours, or the United States will engage in military action against his dictatorship.

You mean like the blatantly false statement that he pushed Colin Powell into reciting at the UN? Or the State of the Union address?

Saddam DID have weapons of Mass Destruction. The term "WMD" is NOT limited to radiological and nuclear weapons. WMDs are broken down into four general categories (Radiological, Biological, Chemical and Nuclear). Hussein has used gas weaponry in wars prior, like the Iran-Iraq war, in which he ordered the release of nerve agents and various poisonous gasses in Halabjah.

None of which have been found in substantial quantities like Bush was wailing about when pushing for war. Bush even gave up looking for WMDs well after Hussein had been deposed and captured.

Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the torture and murder of Iraqis who opposed his rule, and the torture and slaughter of failed Iraqi olympic athletes. I'm sure this would classify Saddam as an evil, horrible man. Wouldn't you think? I don't think he's the type of guy you would invite over for dinner.

And he'd been doing it well since he came into power back in the 70s. America didn't really bitch about that and try to overthrow him until that little whoopsie called Kuwait either. In fact the Reagan administration gave Iraq proper accomodations (ie removing Iraq from the terrorism watchlist) to get the chemical weapons by which Hussein could gas the Iranians and Kurds.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to hand you your ass on a platter.

The only ham on the platter is your own, Junior. Thanks for being a Bushevik.

Now, could either you or Corneliu please specify the bipartisan report which exonerates the President in this regard since you are stating that this document exists.

Silverman-Robb IS bipartisan.

THAT, people, is a slap in the face.
I can see how you could take it that way, but I get the feeling that he remembers veterans and thinks about them all the time, without being taken into doing it on one day.

Like...he doesn't need a national day to do it, he can do it privately, himself, and still mean just as much, if not more.

So far, of the US veterans on NS, there seem to be most who aren't as upset as the OP - it's mostly non-veterans who are upset.

I wonder what we might conclude from that. Do the non-veterans want the veterans (and indeed our current soldiers) to get upset?

So far, of the US veterans on NS, there seem to be most who aren't as upset as the OP - it's mostly non-veterans who are upset.

I wonder what we might conclude from that. Do the non-veterans want the veterans (and indeed our current soldiers) to get upset?

The "conclusion" is a Hasty Generalization. You assume because the veterans on NS don't think that Bush is tainting Veterans' Day with his politicizing that all veterans believe the same as you and your friends.

A provocative question:

Does it matter whether someone is a veteran or not?

Are their views not equal before the law? Should they not be equal before us as well?

A provocative question:

Does it matter whether someone is a veteran or not?

Are their views not equal before the law? Should they not be equal before us as well?

Hasty Generalization and Appeal to Authority. Sierra's really spreading the fallacies thick isn't he?

Hasty Generalization and Appeal to Authority. Sierra's really spreading the fallacies thick isn't he?

That was directed at everyone Gauthier, including you.

That was directed at everyone Gauthier, including you.

Oh, and let's not forget you, the Master of the Burden of Proof fallacies.

A provocative question:

Does it matter whether someone is a veteran or not?

Are their views not equal before the law? Should they not be equal before us as well?
I say, we should be like God and not be respectors of persons in am Ideal world.

After saying that think you any Vets who fought for security for America. Whether Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. Kerry or Bush, either way you tried to fight if you were Bush (not his fault he never left the America lol) or had to endure the horror of Vietnam and possibly Agent Orange (we sprayed our own troops).

My Step-dad is a vet from Vietnam. He was sprayed. PTSD from that war expereince.

Back to Politics: Or our regularly sheduled programming :D

Oh, and let's not forget you, the Master of the Burden of Proof fallacies.

Gauthier, stop flaming.

Gauthier, stop flaming.

It's not flaming when the posts on this forum make it fact :D

Silverman-Robb IS bipartisan.


No. A committee completely made up entirely of appointees by the President, given a mandate by the President, and reporting directly to the President is NOT bi-partisan - even if he does elect to nominate a former Democrat to it.

try reading the Executive Order that founded it (http://www.wmd.gov/exec_order.html)


Section 1. Establishment. There is established, within the Executive Office of the President for administrative purposes, a Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (Commission).

Sec. 2. Mission. (a) The Commission is established for the purpose of advising the President in the discharge of his constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, protect national security, and command the Armed Forces of the United States, in order to ensure the most effective counter-proliferation capabilities of the United States and response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activity. The Commission shall assess whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks, or other entities or individuals). In doing so, the Commission shall examine the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century.

(b) With respect to that portion of its examination under paragraph 2(a) of this order that relates to Iraq, the Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery.

(c) With respect to its examination under paragraph 2(a) of this order, the Commission shall:

(i) specifically evaluate the challenges of obtaining information regarding the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century in closed societies; and

(ii) compare the Intelligence Community's intelligence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction programs and other related threats of the 21st Century in Libya prior to Libya's recent decision to open its programs to inter-national scrutiny and in Afghanistan prior to removal of the Taliban government with the current assessments of organizations examining those programs.

(d) The Commission shall submit to the President by March 31, 2005, a report of the findings of the Commission resulting from its examination and its specific recommendations for ensuring that the Intelligence Community of the United States is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks, or other entities or individuals). The Central Intelligence Agency and other components of the Intelligence Community shall utilize the Commission and its resulting report. Within 90 days of receiving the Commission's report, the President will consult with the Congress concerning the Commission's report and recommendations, and will propose any appropriate legislative recommendations arising out of the findings of the Commission.

Sec. 3. Membership. The Commission shall consist of up to nine members appointed by the President, two of whom the President shall designate as Co-Chairs. Members shall be citizens of the United States. It shall take two-thirds of the members of the Commission to constitute a quorum.

Sec. 4. Meetings of the Commission and Direction of Its Work. The Co-Chairs of the Commission shall convene and preside at the meetings of the Commission, determine after consultation with other members of the Commission its agenda, direct its work, and assign responsibilities within the Commission.

Sec. 5. Access to Information. (a) To carry out this order, the Commission shall have full and complete access to information relevant to its mission as described in section 2 of this order and in the possession, custody, or control of any executive department or agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended. Heads of departments and agencies shall promptly furnish such information to the Commission upon request. The Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence shall ensure the expeditious processing of all appropriate security clearances necessary for the members of the Commission to fulfill their functions.

(b) Promptly upon commencing its work, the Commission shall adopt, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence, rules and procedures of the Commission for physical, communica-tions, computer, document, personnel, and other security in relation to the work of the Commission. The Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence shall promptly and jointly report to the President their judgment whether the security rules and procedures adopted by the Commission are clearly consistent with the national security and protect against unauthorized disclosure of information required by law or executive order to be protected against such disclosure. The President may at any time modify the security rules or procedures of the Commission to provide the necessary protection.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) In implementing this order, the Commission shall solely advise and assist the President.

(b) In performing its functions under this order, the Commission shall, subject to the authority of the President, be independent from any executive department or agency, or of any officer, employee, or agent thereof.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authorities of any department, agency, entity, officer, or employee of the United States under applicable law.

(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(e) The Director of the Office of Administration shall provide or arrange for the provision of administrative support and, with the assistance of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, ensure funding for the Commission consistent with applicable law. The Director of the Office of Administration shall ensure that such support and funding meets the Commission's reasonable needs and that the manner of provision of support and funding is consistent with the authority of the Commission within the executive branch in the performance of its functions.

(f) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation for their work on the Commission. Members who are not officers or employees in the executive branch, while engaged in the work of the Commission, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701 through 5707), consistent with the availability of funds.

(g) The Commission shall have a staff headed by an Executive Director. The Co-Chairs shall hire and employ, or obtain by assignment or detail from departments and agencies, the staff of the Commission, including the Executive Director.

(h) The term "Intelligence Community" is given the same meaning as contained in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

(i) The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is given the same meaning as contained in section 1403(1) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1)).

Sec. 7. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch, and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

Sec. 8. Termination. The Commission shall terminate within 60 days after submitting its report.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 6, 2004.


Oh look! And nothing in the Executive Order asking it to investigate the President's handling of the Intelligence either!

Big suprise!

You would be entirely incorrect. There have been investigations into this and they came up with NOTHING!

You really have to keep up with the news dude because apparently, you are out of touch.


Now then, I have pointed out the fact that the first Senate Intelligence Committee Report had nothing to do with the President's handling of the intelligence. That is why the Second round of hearings is finally to begin.

I have demonstrated that Robb-Silverman did no such thing either, nor can be construed as a bi-partisan effort.


Now then Corneliu, since you are so "UP" with the news, why don't you answer the damn question and point me to the bipartisan report that exonerates the White House on it's handling of the intelligence pre-war.

In other words: Put up or shut up.

Now then, I have pointed out the fact that the first Senate Intelligence Committee Report had nothing to do with the President's handling of the intelligence. That is why the Second round of hearings is finally to begin.

I have demonstrated that Robb-Silverman did no such thing either, nor can be construed as a bi-partisan effort.


Now then Corneliu, since you are so "UP" with the news, why don't you answer the damn question and point me to the bipartisan report that exonerates the White House on it's handling of the intelligence pre-war.

In other words: Put up or shut up.

I don't have to. It has already been proven. Phase 1 said they didn't lie about it. We're waiting for the results of phase II.

I don't have to. It has already been proven. Phase 1 said they didn't lie about it. We're waiting for the results of phase II.


Phase I said no such thing. It was not within it's mandate.

If you can prove otherise, point me to the page number. I have a copy of the PDF on my hard drive.

Phase I said no such thing. It was not within it's mandate.

If you can prove otherise, point me to the page number. I have a copy of the PDF on my hard drive.

Well guess what? Phase I has shown that Bush didn't lie about it. If you don't want to believe that, then it isn't my problem. That is yours.

I don't have to. It has already been proven. Phase 1 said they didn't lie about it. We're waiting for the results of phase II.

Like I said before Junior, you're the master of the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Damn that Bush, I'm not saying we should leave Iraq, we're stuck there now, but he still should get Impeched for the WMD bullshit.

A provocative question:

Does it matter whether someone is a veteran or not?

Are their views not equal before the law? Should they not be equal before us as well?

The implication of "Bush soils Veterans Day" makes it matter. Sure, a non-veteran can have an opinion. But the day honors veterans.

So what the veterans think of it is of primary importance, because it's their day that the OP is claiming is ruined.

Damn that Bush, I'm not saying we should leave Iraq, we're stuck there now, but he still should get Impeched for the WMD bullshit.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Go back and read the statements by Democrats then come back and say that.

BTW: There's nothing to Impeach Bush on so.....

The implication of "Bush soils Veterans Day" makes it matter. Sure, a non-veteran can have an opinion. But the day honors veterans.

So what the veterans think of it is of primary importance, because it's their day that the OP is claiming is ruined.

I'm a combat veteran so I guess I get a say in this. I thought this was one of Bush's better speeches. I do not mind one bit that he chose to speak on Veterans day.

I'm a combat veteran so I guess I get a say in this. I thought this was one of Bush's better speechs. I do not mind one bit that he chose to speek on Veterans day.

Affirmative from one who also served in combat with the US Army.

Well guess what? Phase I has shown that Bush didn't lie about it. If you don't want to believe that, then it isn't my problem. That is yours.


Really? You should tell that to PAt Roberts, because HE doesn't say that and he chaired the damn thing! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050310-060505-9514r.htm)

But on the issue of whether the Bush White House skewed the intelligence by repeated public statements -- "very aggressive, very declarative," Roberts called them -- of certainty about the existence of such weapons, the senator said last summer, there had not been time to complete an investigation.

"We simply couldn't get that done with the work product we have put out," he told reporters on July 9, adding, "We will proceed with (that work in) phase two. It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."




You were saying?


Burden of proof met on all counts for the two reports mentioned thus far.

So, once again: Put up or shut up Corneliu.

You were saying?

If he's already working on Phase II, why did the Democrats act like no one was investigating - the agreement at the end of the secret closed door session was to basically agree to the investigation that's already underway.

Really? You should tell that to PAt Roberts, because HE doesn't say that and he chaired the damn thing! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050310-060505-9514r.htm)




You were saying?


Burden of proof met on all counts for the two reports mentioned thus far.

So, once again: Put up or shut up Corneliu.

You actually proved nothing with this quote. Nothing whatsoever.

You actually proved nothing with this quote. Nothing whatsoever.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggghhhhtttttttt...


Well, at least ONE of us believe you Corneliu.


I think I'm going to have to agree with some comments made about you in another thread.

Intellectually Dishonest in Debate.


I have sourced more than enough. You have made assertions you refuse to back up.

You aren't a debater. You're a troll.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggghhhhtttttttt...


Well, at least ONE of us believe you Corneliu.


I think I'm going to have to agree with some comments made about you in another thread.

Intellectually Dishonest in Debate.


I have sourced more than enough. You have made assertions you refuse to back up.

You aren't a debater. You're a troll.

I am not a troll. I'm just independent minded who doesn't believe what either side puts out. Unlike some people, I actually do research to get to the truth. That is how I become a more informed voter.

In fact, I do believe that this post can be considered flamebaiting.

I'm just independent minded who doesn't believe what either side puts out. Unlike some people, I actually do research to get to the truth. That is how I become a more informed voter.
Just for fun...tell me one issue where you actually disagree with the Bush Administration. :D

Just for fun...tell me one issue where you actually disagree with the Bush Administration. :D

Immigration!

Immigration!
....
Bush: We don't want illegal immigrants, when they come they get kicked out.
You: Shoot all them immigants!!! And the people who employ them!

That's not a disagreement though, that's just a tiny variation in right-wing nutcasing. :p

Immigration!

Thats my biggest problem with the Bush administration too.

....
Bush: We don't want illegal immigrants, when they come they get kicked out.
You: Shoot all them immigants!!! And the people who employ them!

That's not a disagreement though, that's just a tiny variation in right-wing nutcasing. :p

I suggest you go back and look into his immigration policy.

....
Bush: We don't want illegal immigrants, when they come they get kicked out.
You: Shoot all them immigants!!! And the people who employ them!

That's not a disagreement though, that's just a tiny variation in right-wing nutcasing. :p

Actually it's more like

Bush: We don't want illegal immigrants... we want "special guest workers" with permits.

Thats my biggest problem with the Bush administration too.

Hopefully, the next president will be better at it or that Bush actually does something constructive like say... build that wall on the border that is going through congress.

....
Bush: We don't want illegal immigrants, when they come they get kicked out.
You: Shoot all them immigants!!! And the people who employ them!

That's not a disagreement though, that's just a tiny variation in right-wing nutcasing. :p

Nah dont think its that extreme. For me I would like to see tight borders. Still allow legal immigration. Try and either send back or give some type of status to the ones that are here. The illegal population burdens that state and local governments to much to ignore.

Nah dont think its that extreme. For me I would like to see tight borders. Still allow legal immigration. Try and either send back or give some type of status to the ones that are here. The illegal population burdens that state and local governments to much to ignore.

And why Arizona and New Mexico have state of emergencies along the border.

I am not a troll. I'm just independent minded who doesn't believe what either side puts out. Unlike some people, I actually do research to get to the truth. That is how I become a more informed voter.

In fact, I do believe that this post can be considered flamebaiting.



Then report me.

Given that you accuse people of "not keeping up" who clearly are, make wild assertions that you both refuse to back up and also refuse to acknowledge are completely wrong when full evidence to the contrary is given, then I think the statement: Intellectually Dishonest in debate is MORE than fair.


In fact, I would call it a charitable description of your behaviour.

Lighten up, Francis...

The illegal population burdens that state and local governments to much to ignore.
Unlikely...the local economy depends to a significant extent on the cheap labour.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html
Here's Bush's policy...a split between the xenophobia on one hand, and the realities on the ground on the other.

Disageement to the right can really only come when you disregard the realities and let the xenophobia take over.

But that's hardly the topic of the thread, so I suggest we get back on topic...

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.

To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

Speaking as a veteran and as a fellow aviator, I consider George Bush to be one of us. He served his country and faced more danger on each peacetime mission in that F-100 than most of you can imagine. There are a lot of things that he does politically that I can't agree with, but he is a friend of the armed forces.

In the linked article, the only besmirching of any veteran was done by that coward and liar, John Kerry.

Lighten up, Francis...

Why?

He started making it personal with his "try to keep up dude" crack.

He deserves what he gets.

Why?

He started making it personal with his "try to keep up dude" crack.

He deserves what he gets.

I'm talking to both of you.

Why?

He started making it personal with his "try to keep up dude" crack.

He deserves what he gets.

Well the news already reported (quite sullenly) that Bush didn't lie regarding WMDs in Iraq. The blame was placed squarely where the blame is due. That being the C.I.A.

If you want to get technical, Saddam broke the ceasefire from 1991. We have technically been at war since then, but Clinton was a douchebag. So Saddam was the one who declared war.
Simply NOT true:

Ummm I understand that you are totally wrong on this issue (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html).

But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation.

Speaking as a veteran and as a fellow aviator, I consider George Bush to be one of us. He served his country and faced more danger on each peacetime mission in that F-100 than most of you can imagine. There are a lot of things that he does politically that I can't agree with, but he is a friend of the armed forces.

In the linked article, the only besmirching of any veteran was done by that coward and liar, John Kerry.


Well, I guess we know how YOU voted. Which is fair.

Although the prevailing notion of calling the person who served at home a hero when the guy who volunteered for active duty TWICE gets labelled a coward really strikes me as low, petty, mean, and completely bogus.

And I don't even LIKE JK!

Anything he did afterwards that you want to pillory him for is fair game.


But shit, he still served country in a time of war.


More so than GW did.

Simply NOT true:

Ummm I understand that you are totally wrong on this issue (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html).

But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation.

Simply IS correct.

He never fully complied with the Cease-Fire order that gave him a certain number of days to hand things over to the UN. He didn't do that. Therefor, we have a violation of the cease-fire.

Thanks for playing though. Please try again.

In fact, I would call it a charitable description of your behaviour.
I'm suspicious why are you being so charitable? ;)

Well, I guess we know how YOU voted. Which is fair.

Although the prevailing notion of calling the person who served at home a hero when the guy who volunteered for active duty TWICE gets labelled a coward really strikes me as low, petty, mean, and completely bogus.

He was in the Naval Reserves and his unit got called up :rolleyes: Not what I call volunteering for active duty. On top of that, he spent 4 months of a full tour in Vietnam.

And I don't even LIKE JK!

If ya did, I'd be concerned. :D

Anything he did afterwards that you want to pillory him for is fair game.

Just like us disproving what your saying is fair game.

But shit, he still served country in a time of war.

So did GWB

More so than GW did.

GWB's unit was never called up to serve in Vietnam.

Well the news already reported (quite sullenly) that Bush didn't lie regarding WMDs in Iraq. The blame was placed squarely where the blame is due. That being the C.I.A.


I call BULLSHIT!!!!!!

The two investigative reports contained no such statements. I have cleary demonstrated why that is the case


The news did NOT report something that was not contained in the Reports, or if it did then you best consider a new source for your information as they were making it up that day.


Now, for the final fucking time: PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!

And I mean put up something with DIRECT substantiation.

For once!!!!

I call BULLSHIT!!!!!!

The two investigative reports contained no such statements. I have cleary demonstrated why that is the case


The news did NOT report something that was not contained in the Reports, or if it did then you best consider a new source for your information as they were making it up that day.


Now, for the final fucking time: PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!

And I mean put up something with DIRECT substantiation.

For once!!!!

Then why was it that after the Phase I report came out that a bill was introduced to bring all of the Intelligence Communitee under one roof?

He was in the Naval Reserves and his unit got called up :rolleyes: Not what I call volunteering for active duty. On top of that, he spent 4 months of a full tour in Vietnam.


Except that he VOLUNTEERED to an active duty posting, and REQUESTED duty in Vietnam. GW indicated on his application that he did not want to serve overseas.


Just like us disproving what your saying is fair game.

Absolutely. So, when are you going to start doing that?

Then why was it that after the Phase I report came out that a bill was introduced to bring all of the Intelligence Communitee under one roof?


Because, as has been repeated ad-fucking-nauseum, Phase one related the the handling of intelligence BY THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!!!!

NOT the WHITE HOUSE.


Here. Let me make it simple for you. I'll put the two terms one right under the other so you can see the difference.

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
WHITE HOUSE

see! Not the same words at all!

:rolleyes::headbang: :rolleyes:

Except that he VOLUNTEERED to an active duty posting, and REQUESTED duty in Vietnam. GW indicated on his application that he did not want to serve overseas.

Which wouldn't matter anyway if his unit got called up. You do understand that right?

It was only after he got called up did he go to active duty. However, once the reserves are called up, those called up are automatically on active duty.

Also, he transfered to those little thing called swift boats because they weren't doing much. Once they started getting involved in most of the fighting did he pull out. And that was 4 months AFTER he started his only Vietnam tour.

Absolutely. So, when are you going to start doing that?

Already has happened. Your just to blind to see it.

Speaking as a veteran and as a fellow aviator, I consider George Bush to be one of us. He served his country and faced more danger on each peacetime mission in that F-100 than most of you can imagine. There are a lot of things that he does politically that I can't agree with, but he is a friend of the armed forces.


So all I have to do to get respoext from you is fly a plane in relative safety?

George Bush never went on a mission (unless all moments before war are peacetime).

I mean, according to this my brother Eric who got a pilot's license and flew planes as a hobby when he was younger faced more danger than George Bush.

Pray tell what danger George Bush faced? Bugs? Bad piloting?

I don't care who you are: how can flying a plane in peace no less be more brave than those people who served in war?

Already has happened. Your just to blind to see it.

Really? In which of your unfounded, unsupported assertions have you directly disproven:

a) the actual full mandate of the Robb-Silverman report
or
b) the actual words of the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee


Troll

Because, as has been repeated ad-fucking-nauseum, Phase one related the the handling of intelligence BY THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!!!!

NOT the WHITE HOUSE.


Here. Let me make it simple for you. I'll put the two terms one right under the other so you can see the difference.

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
WHITE HOUSE

see! Not the same words at all!

:rolleyes:

Don't bother debating with Corneliu. He's consistently proven himself to be the master of Burden of Proof Fallacy as well as a Bushevik. We're talking about someone who called Proposition 2 a victory for States' Rights and didn't even realize it also banned civil unions... then called it a victory for States' Rights anyways.

Simply IS correct.

He never fully complied with the Cease-Fire order that gave him a certain number of days to hand things over to the UN.
Source? Proof? Verification?


He didn't do that. Therefor, we have a violation of the cease-fire.
Source? Proof? Verification?

UNTIL you can provide those, your argument is baseless and your rhetoric is hollow as per normal.

Thanks for playing though. Please try again.
YOU are the one that is playing here. There are many posters here who will not except your word as Gospel and for good reason. The reason being that you cannot or refuse to back up your rebuttal with any known FACTS!!

ya know, I was gona read through this whole post, but I just got sick, so if this has already been said, TOUGH, READ IT AGAIN.

The president attacked people who he says are trying to rewrite history.

Now, lets travel back in time to the begening of this whole mess-o'potamia. If my memory serves me correctly, bush said we were going in because sadam had wmds, all this talk about wmds, creating panic and peronoia, why not? Its the americian way. But then-Oh no! there were no wmds! so what does he do?

"We're spreading freedom"

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is rewriting history. Making our president not just notoriously incompitnet, but also a hypocrate. congradulations americian people, youve showed your level of intelect by electing a monkey.

Source? Proof? Verification?

The fact that UN constently stated that they weren't complying with the Cease-Agreement (and we all know what THAT resolution is)! Since they did that, that says that they have violated the cease-fire agreement and under Intl Law, war resumes where it left off.

Source? Proof? Verification?

UNTIL you can provide those, your argument is baseless and your rhetoric is hollow as per normal.

See previous statement.

YOU are the one that is playing here. There are many posters here who will not except your word as Gospel and for good reason. The reason being that you cannot or refuse to back up your rebuttal with any known FACTS!!

My back up here is the fact that the Resolutions on Saddam kept stating the same number over and over again.

ya know, I was gona read through this whole post, but I just got sick, so if this has already been said, TOUGH, READ IT AGAIN.

The president attacked people who he says are trying to rewrite history.

Now, lets travel back in time to the begening of this whole mess-o'potamia. If my memory serves me correctly, bush said we were going in because sadam had wmds, all this talk about wmds, creating panic and peronoia, why not? Its the americian way. But then-Oh no! there were no wmds! so what does he do?

"We're spreading freedom"

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is rewriting history. Making our president not just notoriously incompitnet, but also a hypocrate. congradulations americian people, youve showed your level of intelect by electing a monkey.

Then you go and read the Congressional Resolution on Iraq and you wake up. Also if you bother to read up on Bush's 2002 in September, you will see that WMD was along side humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Go back and read the statements by Democrats then come back and say that.

BTW: There's nothing to Impeach Bush on so.....
Many would disagree with that statement (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/):

AfterDowningStreet.org is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

There are many pieces of the puzzle and they are slowly falling into place.

....quit pretending you speak for the vets.this is the Internet....Anyone can pretend to be a Vet...or pretend to have Family/friends on the Military...

But do not expect us all to take your word for it.

Your opinions do not carry more weight just because you say you are a Vet...
You do not speak for all the other Vets...

Many would disagree with that statement (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/):

AfterDowningStreet.org is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

There are many pieces of the puzzle and they are slowly falling into place.

Since Bush didn't committ a high crime or a misdemeaner, there is nothing to impeach him on.

Since Bush didn't committ a high crime or a misdemeaner, there is nothing to impeach him on.


Let me guess. You've read a mythical report that reflects a full investigation that states THAT too!




Just curious, but do they still courier these reports to you via pink winged unicorns? Or do you just suck them directly out of Limbaugh's hindquarters personally?

If the latter, please remember to floss. Because you shouldn't neglet your gums...


Truth is, I doubt ANY President makes it through a term without committing at least ONE crime.

Well, besides maybe Carter. And he sucked!

Since Bush didn't committ a high crime or a misdemeaner, there is nothing to impeach him on.

so as a member of the government, lying to the american public to justify a war for selfserving purposes isnt a high crime? or even a misdemenor? comeon!!! how can indecent exposure POSSIBLY be ANY worse than falsifing inteligence? Dam... were even more screwed than I thought.

Let me guess. You've read a mythical report that reflects a full investigation that states THAT too!

Read the Constitution sometime. In order for the President or Vice President to be impeached, he had to have committed a high crime or a misdemeanor. Don't tell me you didn't know this.

Just curious, but do they still courier these reports to you via pink winged unicorns? Or do you just suck them directly out of Limbaugh's hindquarters personally?

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

so as a member of the government, lying to the american public to justify a war for selfserving purposes isnt a high crime? or even a misdemenor? comeon!!! how can indecent exposure POSSIBLY be ANY worse than falsifing inteligence? Dam... were even more screwed than I thought.


just a nother thought... so we can impeach a president for sleeping with a white house intern, but not for starting a war? wonderfull, if only lies left semen stains.

so as a member of the government, lying to the american public to justify a war for selfserving purposes isnt a high crime? or even a misdemenor? comeon!!!

Was it under oath? No it wasn't. He didn't commit Perjury. So what High Crime are we talking about here? Oh wait, no crime was committed. Nevermind.

how can indecent exposure POSSIBLY be ANY worse than falsifing inteligence? Dam... were even more screwed than I thought.

Since the intelligence wasn't falsified...

just a nother thought... so we can impeach a president for sleeping with a white house intern, but not for starting a war? wonderfull, if only lies left semen stains.

Since Clinton did lie about that and he did it under oath while he was at it, he deserved impeachment under the Constitution of the United States.

so as a member of the government, lying to the american public to justify a war for selfserving purposes isnt a high crime? or even a misdemenor? comeon!!! how can indecent exposure POSSIBLY be ANY worse than falsifing inteligence? Dam... were even more screwed than I thought.

Remember, the country is currently driven by a cultist mindset that believes lying about a blowjob is a bigger crime than lying about a country's offensive capabilities, and that a penis in the rectum is more dangerous to national security than Osama Bin Ladin running about free to plot more attacks.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.


Let me guess, you're a Michael Wiener man?

Let me guess, you're a Michael Wiener man?

And who is Michael Wiener?

Since Clinton did lie about that and he did it under oath while he was at it, he deserved impeachment under the Constitution of the United States.

ah! so you can only ever blame the president for anything he says if he's personaly under oath!!!! if members of his staff are giving out falsified evidence, under the presidents direction, while under oath, the president is just peachy. Personaly I think this is one of those times where its ok to envoke the elastic clause.

The fact that UN constently stated that they weren't complying with the Cease-Agreement (and we all know what THAT resolution is)! Since they did that, that says that they have violated the cease-fire agreement and under Intl Law, war resumes where it left off.
Reference the statement that you claim has been stated.

See previous statement.
More gamemanship....no proof.

My back up here is the fact that the Resolutions on Saddam kept stating the same number over and over again.
Point me to ONE Resolution whereby the UN Security Council "approved" a "no fly" zone.

Point me to ONE Resolution whereby the UN Security Council states that Iraq violated the "ceasefire".

The only thing that is getting repeated "over and over again" is your hollow rhetoric.

Remember, the country is currently driven by a cultist mindset that believes lying about a blowjob is a bigger crime than lying about a country's offensive capabilities, and that a penis in the rectum is more dangerous to national security than Osama Bin Ladin running about free to plot more attacks.

yes, we all know about the cosmic-family-destroying rays of anal sex *sigh* As I said, were screwed.

This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.
Are you a veteran?

*snip*

We're talking about the UN CH! They wouldn't say that Hussein violated a cease-fire. However, it is well documented by UN Resolutions (all the ones after the cease-fire) that he was not complying.

By not complying, he was violating the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement.

I have said NOTHING about no fly zones.

We're talking about the UN CH! They wouldn't say that Hussein violated a cease-fire. However, it is well documented by UN Resolutions (all the ones after the cease-fire) that he was not complying.
What was he NOT complying with in 2003, just before the US invasion?

By not complying, he was violating the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement.
How so. Please post a reference that states this.

I have said NOTHING about no fly zones.
You may have forgotten but you have done so in the past.

Was it legal for the US to bomb Iraq after the "ceasefire" in 1991 and if so why?

Was it legal for Iraq to defend her skies after the "ceasefire" in 1991, and if not, why not?

BTW, please feel free to post any proof to go with any rebuttal on this matter.

And who is Michael Wiener?


You might know him by his stage-name "Michael Savage."

Hard to think much of a man who is ashamed of his family name.

This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.
Second time: Are you a veteran?

Second time: Are you a veteran?

Drop the Appeal to Authority and Hasty Conclusion Forrest. Just because you and a couple of NS veterans approve of Bush's incompetence doesn't mean every other single American veteran in the world does.

*Snip*

CH, I already know that no matter what I post your not going to believe it even if I do offer proof.

So why play the shell game? You and I both know that Saddam didnt' comply with 17 UN Resolutions. We both know he didn't turn over ALL documents regarding his WMD programs after the 1st gulf war as perscribed by the Cease-Fire Agreement.

He didn't even turn in all documents in regards to it in 2003 either. Even Hans Blix said he wasnt fully complying.

As for the Resolutions, I have them all printed out and in file folders. I'll post the resolution numbers later because I have to go and dig them out.

You might know him by his stage-name "Michael Savage."

Hard to think much of a man who is ashamed of his family name.

I don't listen to him either. And no. I don't listen to Hannity either.

Drop the Appeal to Authority and Hasty Conclusion Forrest. Just because you and a couple of NS veterans approve of Bush's incompetence doesn't mean every other single American veteran in the world does.

I'm sure if a poll was done, it'll show that the majority of the American Vets don't consider it a slap to their face.

I'm sure if a poll was done, it'll show that the majority of the American Vets don't consider it a slap to their face.

You mean in the same way a majority of Texans don't consider dehumanizing and disenfranchising homosexuals a slap to their face?

You mean in the same way a majority of Texans don't consider dehumanizing and disenfranchising homosexuals a slap to their face?

Last time I checked, no one is dehumanizing them nor is their right to vote been enfringed upon.

Last time I checked, no one is dehumanizing them nor is their right to vote been enfringed upon.

And how is denying them even civil unions not considered dehumanizing them or infringing on their rights? Oh wait, I forgot I'm addressing you. :rolleyes:

And how is denying them even civil unions not considered dehumanizing them or infringing on their rights? Oh wait, I forgot I'm addressing you. :rolleyes:

I don't like the fact that it outlawed Civil Unions. I"m a supporter of Civil Unions. I probably would've voted against the bill because of that but I don't live in Texas.

CH, I already know that no matter what I post your not going to believe it even if I do offer proof.
You won't post proof, because you don't have ANY!!

So why play the shell game? You and I both know that Saddam didnt' comply with 17 UN Resolutions. We both know he didn't turn over ALL documents regarding his WMD programs after the 1st gulf war as perscribed by the Cease-Fire Agreement.
You are the one playing the shell game. Saddam stated that he didn't have any WMD. The UN inspectors were not finding any and they asked for more time and more inspectors to continue the job to completion.

He didn't even turn in all documents in regards to it in 2003 either. Even Hans Blix said he wasnt fully complying.
Yeah, lets see what Blix has to say about all of this (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-02.htm):

Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Thursday attacked the "spin and hype" behind U.S. and British allegations of banned Iraqi weapons used to justify war against Saddam Hussein.

Blix, who said this week he believed Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, told BBC radio that the United States and Britain "over-interpreted" intelligence about Baghdad's weapons programs.

In response, the British government said it stood by the case it had made to the public for going to war.

Blix compared London and Washington to medieval witch-hunters, saying they convinced themselves on the basis of evidence which was later discredited, including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

"In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," said Blix, whose inspectors left Iraq on the eve of war in March after just a few months of inspections.

As for the Resolutions, I have them all printed out and in file folders. I'll post the resolution numbers later because I have to go and dig them out.
Please post the ones relevant to your claim that Iraq violated a "ceasefire".

Drop the Appeal to Authority and Hasty Conclusion Forrest. Just because you and a couple of NS veterans approve of Bush's incompetence doesn't mean every other single American veteran in the world does.

It just means most do. Sorry.

Blix, who said this week he believed Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, told BBC radio that the United States and Britain "over-interpreted" intelligence about Baghdad's weapons programs.

Ok now let us take a look here. Was that Under UN Guidance or did they do it themselves. If they did it themselves, that is a violation of the UN Resolutions. Under the UN Resolutions, it said that they are to hand them over to the UN for them to destroy. By failing to do that (if this is even true, we just don't know) they have violated the terms of the UN Resolutions regarding this fact.

In response, the British government said it stood by the case it had made to the public for going to war.

Just like they stand by their yellow cake story.

Please post the ones relevant to your claim that Iraq violated a "ceasefire".

As stated before, it wouldn't do me any good to post it because you are already of the mind that Hussein didn't violate the terms of the Cease-Fire Agreement. Why should I fight a battle that I know:

1) wouldn't do me any good

2) the other person has already made up their minds

It just means most do. Sorry.

Do you even know what a Hasty Conclusion Fallacy is Junior?

"A couple of veterans on NationStates approves of Bush's incompetence. Therefore most or all other veterans approve of Bush's incompetence."

As far as I am concerned, I would say that anyone who uses veterans to further their political goals is an asshole - period. Political party doesn't matter. The political goal doesn't matter.

If you are going to give a speech for veteran's day, make it a speech about and for veterans. Don't use it to take a swing at your political opponents. Don't use it to try and make yourself look better. The politician is not the point of this day - the veterans are.

Ok now let us take a look here. Was that Under UN Guidance or did they do it themselves. If they did it themselves, that is a violation of the UN Resolutions. Under the UN Resolutions, it said that they are to hand them over to the UN for them to destroy. By failing to do that (if this is even true, we just don't know) they have violated the terms of the UN Resolutions regarding this fact.
How would you ever know if they did it themselves? Bush wouldn't let the inspectors finish their inspections, so your issue is a non starter.

Remember now, you were looking for the proof I asked for that backs up your claim that Iraq violated the "ceasefire".

Quit dodging the issue.

As stated before, it wouldn't do me any good to post it because you are already of the mind that Hussein didn't violate the terms of the Cease-Fire Agreement.
Wellllll, unless you can prove otherwise, then I am indeed correct. Do you concede that you cannot prove that Iraq violated the "ceasefire"?

Why should I fight a battle that I know:

1) wouldn't do me any good
This statement clearly demonstrates that you do not have any facts to back your claim, or else you would post it in the largest font available.

2) the other person has already made up their minds
Post convincing argument as in proof, and I will have no choice but to concede your point.

How would you ever know if they did it themselves? Bush wouldn't let the inspectors finish their inspections, so your issue is a non starter.

Think on this for a second. We have had weapons inspectors in and out like a revolving door for over 10 years. Over those 10 years, Saddam didn't fully cooperate with the inspections. If he destroyed them then why did he try to stonewall the inspections process? If he did destroy them then why didnt he turn over documents saying he destroyed them?

Of course, if he did destroy them without the UN either doing it or supervising it, then it is a violation of UN Resolutions.

Remember now, you were looking for the proof I asked for that backs up your claim that Iraq violated the "ceasefire".

Quit dodging the issue.

I haven't dodged anything. So far, your not even trying to prove your case that he destroyed them. If he did destroy them on his own AFTER the 1st Gulf War and without the UN knowing about it, then that in and of itself is a violation of UN resolutions.

Wellllll, unless you can prove otherwise, then I am indeed correct. Do you concede that you cannot prove that Iraq violated the "ceasefire"?

Nope. Why should I concede something when I know I am right?

This statement clearly demonstrates that you do not have any facts to back your claim, or else you would post it in the largest font available.

This statement is BS. I said it because I'm getting proved right that it won't do me much good.

Post convincing argument as in proof, and I will have no choice but to concede your point.

Why? Your set in your ways. I have posted proof that he violated the cease-fire in the past that you have completely ignored. I'm not about to do it a second time.

Think on this for a second. We have had weapons inspectors in and out like a revolving door for over 10 years. Over those 10 years, Saddam didn't fully cooperate with the inspections. If he destroyed them then why did he try to stonewall the inspections process? If he did destroy them then why didnt he turn over documents saying he destroyed them?
I refer you to Resolution 1441. Read it again and understand that it was intended to give Iraq one final chance to rid itself of WMD. The inspectors were not finding any. The US did not follow the rest of the Resolution to the letter by invading Iraq.

Of course, if he did destroy them without the UN either doing it or supervising it, then it is a violation of UN Resolutions.
The US invasion kinda destroys your conspiracy theory here.

I haven't dodged anything. So far, your not even trying to prove your case that he destroyed them. If he did destroy them on his own AFTER the 1st Gulf War and without the UN knowing about it, then that in and of itself is a violation of UN resolutions.
I wasn't challenging you on whether Iraq destroyed their WMD or not. I was challenging you on your claim that Iraq violated the "ceasefire" and by that violation, that the US had the authority to invade Iraq.

YOU HAVE NO PROOF!! Quit dodging the issue. Quit claiming that the US was justified in invading Iraq because of a "ceasefire" violation. You have lost the argument and you are trying to gloss over it.

Nope. Why should I concede something when I know I am right?
IF you are right, then PROVE it!! You won't because you cannot do so.

This statement is BS. I said it because I'm getting proved right that it won't do me much good.
You are not proving anything other than you cannot debate honestly.

Why? Your set in your ways. I have posted proof that he violated the cease-fire in the past that you have completely ignored. I'm not about to do it a second time.
Prove to me and others that your claim that the US was justified in invading Iraq over a "ceasefire" violation. Provide proof that the UN sanctioned an invasion of Iraq based on a "ceasefire" violation.

Provide proof that Iraq was not justified in protecting herself from American and UK bombing missions.

Provide proof that US and UK planes flying over Iraq was not a violation of Iraqi sovereignity.

You can't. You lose. Quit playing the game.

Point me to ONE Resolution whereby the UN Security Council "approved" a "no fly" zone.

# 688

By its language it was urged for the US, UK and France to do something to protect the Kurds explicitly, as well as the Shi'ites and other groups. This was made in April 1991.

It led to Operation Restore Hope, and then in 1996, Operation Northern Watch / Operation Southern Watch.

Also, for those not up on their history, read about Operation Desert Fox.

Most people were more interested in the President's sex life at the time, but it was during this action -- in 1998 -- when the US Air Force and Navy destroyed targets of Saddam Hussein's WMD program, including the site that was working with equipping UAVs with nerve agent and anthrax spore dispensers.

If you wonder why in 1980-1991 we knew he had them because he was using them... and then in 2003-2005 when we go in we can't find them, look at the history of the effectiveness of the UNSCOM regime, the NFZs, and Operation Desert Fox.

What was the reaction? Russia, China and France exoriated UNSCOM and demanded that the program be gutted.

Domestically, the critics of the President made the entire thing sound self-serving and unnecessary. A grandstanding swan song during a presidential election year.

I remember thinking it was a smart move, and thought all the howling was sour grapes and patently idiotic whining.

If those reports were true -- UAVs with WMD dispensers -- and it should be noted the long-range missile programs were also hit during those attacks -- then there's a reason we found little other than rubble when we went in 2003, five years later.

I must admit I do not have access to anything more than publically-available BDA and press debriefings, as you all do. But I recall thinking at the time that I wished we were spending more time paying attention to that then to a presidential penchant for oral sex and a White House intern's lack of decorum and dry cleaning.

For those of you interested in national security, I suggest it's an unexplored chapter in the story.

Certainly one of the aftermath elements was that Iraq, angered by the attacks, began more aggressive targeting of Operation Northern Watch/Southern Watch aircraft. There were more exchanges beginning at that time.

One could look at the effects that might have had on national security mindsets -- wanting decisive action to end the low-intensity fighting.

I'd think that anyone wanting to dig real deep into the Iraqi WMD program, you'd have to start with UN Resolution #687, and then go forward through the whole UNSCOM regime, and look at what intelligence was given over by the arms inspectors that led to the targeting of strikes in Op Desert Fox.

So when, in the post-9/11 world, when the Iraqi's shrugged and said, "What WMD? We decommissioned some, you struck the others, we gave up on the rest." -- Was this credible and believable?

Was the information that was even under Op Desert Fox true? How far did the program for UAVs armed with CW get? How badly was it destroyed in the strikes?

On Veteran's Day, I just wanted to thank those who served in these oft-overlooked operations that lasted for over a decade. Between GWI and GWII, there were tens of thousands of people who helped fly tens of thousands of sortees to protect millions of Kurds, Shi'ites, and other minorities.

While they were not authorized to stop Saddam Hussein directly, they did all they could to limit his atrocities.

As far as I am concerned, I would say that anyone who uses veterans to further their political goals is an asshole - period. Political party doesn't matter. The political goal doesn't matter.

If you are going to give a speech for veteran's day, make it a speech about and for veterans. Don't use it to take a swing at your political opponents. Don't use it to try and make yourself look better. The politician is not the point of this day - the veterans are.

Veterans, and what they were fighting for -- to restore peace and civil freedoms. It was originally Armistice Day -- a day for veterans and civil populations alike to celebrate peace in our time. To thank those who had stood not just for fighting -- it's not "Armed Forces Day" -- but veteran's day. Poetically, it looks to see the men and women alive once the fighting is done. And to recall those who did not survive, both the military and civilian casualties.

It should be done solemnly and respectfully.

Agreed. It's not a day to simply celebrate or advertize war. It was certainly far removed from President Bush's other Veteran's Day speeches and went on far longer than ever he had gone before.

The President said some decent things today, if you read his speech all the way through, and he said some inflammatory things that he probably did not need to say at all.

He used it as a stump. He was campaigning for his war. I didn't like how he turned it into a situation to argue that we're all equally to blame for the flawed intelligence. Nor do I care to hear how he and others might brand every armed independence movement whose adherents might happen to be Muslim immediately as "terrorist."

We have to be very careful about keeping the temperature cool. We need to take the fight out of the enemy by simply being respectful, dedicated and professional now. We can't just get out of Iraq, but we need to start talking about a disengagement strategy at some point.

That's what I was listening for, and I didn't hear it.

That's what an Armistice Day could have been.

"You'll be coming home."

I look forward to the day when we can announce that.

Do you even know what a Hasty Conclusion Fallacy is Junior?

"A couple of veterans on NationStates approves of Bush's incompetence. Therefore most or all other veterans approve of Bush's incompetence."

You think I just pulled that out of my ass? Look at the polls, and who the military voted for. Idiot.

From the article:
"As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them," the president said.Reminds me of Blackadder: "40 to 50 miles behind you." :D

Please you are trying to find something to criticise him for.

Now that Louis Scooter Libby has been indicted for lying about a leak that effected a WMD critic makes you wonder all the more about the intelegence they actually had as apossed to the intelegence they claimed to have had.

From the article:
Reminds me of Blackadder: "40 to 50 miles behind you." :D
Thanks for the reminder. :D That was a funny line.

Thanks for the reminder. :D That was a funny line.
Are you Mrs Dobbs?

You think I just pulled that out of my ass? Look at the polls, and who the military voted for. Idiot.

I'm up for that challenge!

And the winner is... Bush!

Not surprising. But not by as big a margin as you might think.

2004 poll showing Bush 59% vs. 42% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36807-2004Aug26.html)

Other polls in late August had them running Bush 48%, Kerry 47% (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408100005).

This varied widely from the Army Times (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm) poll of September, which showed a 4-to-1 support for Mr. Bush. They had to caution that their responses were not scientific, as they simply sent out an email and tallied replies. Their email lists they admitted were from more career-minded military.

Later, in October, the poll slipped a bit from Kerry, but were about the same as the earlier polls cited by the Washington Post:

Rassmussen Reports: Among Veterans: Bush 58%, Kerry 35% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm)

So, yes, while Bush has a significant support base in the military, it's not universal. It is also subject to fluctuation based on the events of the times.

In any community there is often a self-reinforcing mindset. There are 25,000,000 persons who served in the military, but they do not all act with one voice and swing one way politically.

The same can be said of the soldiers. There are many who are voluntarily re-enlisting, but there are many who are not. The Stop Loss (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html) order of 2003-2004 wasn't popular with troops or their families. In late 2004 they filed a suit against the practice (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/06/soldiers_challenging_stop_loss_policy/). It was a policy put in place by George Bush in 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-5.html) by executive order. He has the right as Commander-in-Chief, to a limited degree. (I believe technically he still might need Congress' approval; ask a true Constitutional lawyer, or look up the progress of the class-action suit if you're interested.)

_____________

Meanwhile, a Success Story in Mosul

Strykers make a difference in Mosul (http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3126434,00.html) - Fairbanks, AL News-Miner

I dont think he disgraced VD.....

I dont think he disgraced VD.....

Well that's because your a NeoCon Zionist warmongering hillbilly redneck wingnut fascist repukelican Jew. Obviously. :rolleyes: (sarcasm)

If a British politician had used Armisice Day in the same way, they would make themselves very unpopular.

But if the veterans themselves, and Americans as a whole, don't take offence, then what's the big deal?

Well that's because your a NeoCon Zionist warmongering hillbilly redneck wingnut fascist repukelican Jew. Obviously. :rolleyes: (sarcasm)
OMG it isnt true.

I am a Tree hugging Purple Veined leftwing Commie Liberal Agnostic.
Obviously:rolleyes: (lies)

If a British politician had used Armisice Day in the same way, they would make themselves very unpopular.

But if the veterans themselves, and Americans as a whole, don't take offence, then what's the big deal?

It would not be much of a surprise if the people who don't take offense at Bush using Veterans' Day for a "The liberals hates us the freedom" stump speech call Cindy Sheehan a traitor undermining the war effort by protesting what she believes is a war waged on lies.

# 688
UN Resolution 688 did not establish a "no fly" zone.

Nothing in 688 gave the US and the UK permission to bomb Iraq, and nothing in that Resolution removed Iraq's right to sovereignity in regards to her air space.

Message to Corneliu.....still waiting for your proof.

Simply IS correct.

He never fully complied with the Cease-Fire order that gave him a certain number of days to hand things over to the UN. He didn't do that. Therefor, we have a violation of the cease-fire.

Thanks for playing though. Please try again.
BTW, I have found an interesting article that updates this thread and kinda shreds your argument.

German court declares Iraq war violated international law (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050928&articleId=1012)

Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision was handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court but barely mentioned in the German media. With careful reasoning, the judges ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated international law.

BTW, I have noticed that you have gone completely quiet on this topic, which tends to happen frequently when you are unable to provide proof to back up your claims.

BTW, I have found an interesting article that updates this thread and kinda shreds your argument.

German court declares Iraq war violated international law (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050928&articleId=1012)

Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision was handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court but barely mentioned in the German media. With careful reasoning, the judges ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated international law.

BTW, I have noticed that you have gone completely quiet on this topic, which tends to happen frequently when you are unable to provide proof to back up your claims.

1) The German Court doesn't run the United States, the Supreme Court does.

2) Under International Law, the war was 100% legal. Everyone knows he violated a cease-fire. Even the UN knows this but refuses to acknowledges it.

Again, under International Law and the Rules of War, once a cease-fire is violated war picks up where it left off.

3) As stated previously: no matter what proof I show you, your not going to believe it.

1) The German Court doesn't run the United States, the Supreme Court does.
However, the German court applying the rules of International law to the Iraq war, have declared that the US invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal.

2) Under International Law, the war was 100% legal. Everyone knows he violated a cease-fire. Even the UN knows this but refuses to acknowledges it.
Prove that Iraq violated the "ceasefire", and then prove that such violation would be sufficient to allow the US to invade Iraq.

Again, under International Law and the Rules of War, once a cease-fire is violated war picks up where it left off.
Source the "ceasefire" violation and then source where it states in International law that the US is authorised to uphold said "International Laws".

3) As stated previously: no matter what proof I show you, your not going to believe it.
YOU have ZERO proof and continue to dodge it by suggesting that I won't believe said proof. Your claim is totally disingenuous.

You have trotted out this "ceasefire" violation excuse hundreds of times and yet you have no concrete proof that such actions by Iraq would allow the US to invade Iraq.

Concede and move on. Accept the truth for what it is and quit trying to make YOUR truth THE truth.

However, the German court applying the rules of International law to the Iraq war, have declared that the US invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal.

I. Don't. Care. The fact remains that it is in complete compliance WITH international law.

Prove that Iraq violated the "ceasefire", and then prove that such violation would be sufficient to allow the US to invade Iraq.

Resolution 686 Paragraph 3 subsection A. "Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft.

Paragraph 4: Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 remain valid

Source the "ceasefire" violation and then source where it states in International law that the US is authorised to uphold said "International Laws".

Provocative measures taken by Saddam against US forces as well as moving troops down towards Kuwait in violation of resolution 686. This would mean a re-instatement of Resolution 678 paragraph 2 in regards to using force against Iraq.

YOU have ZERO proof and continue to dodge it by suggesting that I won't believe said proof. Your claim is totally disingenuous.

I have stated this numerous times but so far, it hasn't sunk in yet.

You have trotted out this "ceasefire" violation excuse hundreds of times and yet you have no concrete proof that such actions by Iraq would allow the US to invade Iraq.

1)Iraq didn't fully comply with resolution 687 by handing over the locations of their weapons and they had 15 days to do it.

2)They tried to threaten Kuwait and got caught. A violation of 686 and thus Paragraph 2 of 678 should've gone into effect immediately.

Concede and move on. Accept the truth for what it is and quit trying to make YOUR truth THE truth.

Nope won't concede.

You can argue that #688 did not give the US, UK and France the right to institute the "No Fly Zones," but I'll tell you this... I am glad they took that action, because it helped curb the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites.

You can argue that #688 did not specifically mention "No Fly Zones," but that was how those nations decided to respond to the resolution's call for member states to intervene for humanitarian purposes for the relief of the Kurdish and other minorities, and to demand Saddam Hussein curb human rights abuses.

The No Fly Zone was decided upon as a resulting regime to be imposed because of his continuing non-compliance.

You'll lose a lot of my respect by standing on tenuous ethical and logical ground if you maintain the actions were unwarranted and unjustified given the savagery of what Saddam Hussein was doing, regardless of whether the literal words "No Fly Zone" was mentioned in the resolution.

You can argue that #688 did not give the US, UK and France the right to institute the "No Fly Zones," but I'll tell you this... I am glad they took that action, because it helped curb the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites.

You can argue that #688 did not specifically mention "No Fly Zones," but that was how those nations decided to respond to the resolution's call for member states to intervene for humanitarian purposes for the relief of the Kurdish and other minorities, and to demand Saddam Hussein curb human rights abuses.

The No Fly Zone was decided upon as a resulting regime to be imposed because of his continuing non-compliance.

You'll lose a lot of my respect by standing on tenuous ethical and logical ground if you maintain the actions were unwarranted and unjustified given the savagery of what Saddam Hussein was doing, regardless of whether the literal words "No Fly Zone" was mentioned in the resolution.

Your are telling me respect is more important than the rules of law?
No wonder Bush can do whatever he wants usually, if no Senators wants to lose "respect".

I wishall senators would care more about the laws than "respect".

You can argue that #688 did not give the US, UK and France the right to institute the "No Fly Zones," but I'll tell you this... I am glad they took that action, because it helped curb the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites.

You can argue that #688 did not specifically mention "No Fly Zones," but that was how those nations decided to respond to the resolution's call for member states to intervene for humanitarian purposes for the relief of the Kurdish and other minorities, and to demand Saddam Hussein curb human rights abuses.

The No Fly Zone was decided upon as a resulting regime to be imposed because of his continuing non-compliance.

You'll lose a lot of my respect by standing on tenuous ethical and logical ground if you maintain the actions were unwarranted and unjustified given the savagery of what Saddam Hussein was doing, regardless of whether the literal words "No Fly Zone" was mentioned in the resolution.

List, in my time debating CH here, he has never listened to facts or logic in regards to UN Resolutions.

You are indeed correct in what you say. Thank you. You stated it much better than I ever could.

Your are telling me respect is more important than the rules of law?

Apparently, someone else here needs to know that we were enforcing the rule of law when we went into Iraq in regards to resolution 686.

No wonder Bush can do whatever he wants usually, if no Senators wants to lose "respect".

Senators at least know a thing or 2 about the law. Unlike some people on these forums.

I wishall senators would care more about the laws than "respect".

Why do you think they voted for the Iraq War! It was to enforce the laws.

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.

To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.

I know! He pooed all over it, like he poos over everything. That stupid sot.

Drop the Appeal to Authority and Hasty Conclusion Forrest. Just because you and a couple of NS veterans approve of Bush's incompetence doesn't mean every other single American veteran in the world does.
In the absence of either his affirmation or denial, I can draw my own conclusions, thank you. I choose to believe he is not a veteran and therefore cannot presume to speak for veterans. He's just another far-left ranter who has nothing better to do than puff himself up into something he's obviously not and then claim to speak on behalf of others he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and couldn't care less about.

I am a veteran and, in the absence of other veterans saying they feel differently, I can speak for them: it bothered us not one whit that GWB gave the speech he did on Veteran's Day.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

In the absence of either his affirmation or denial, I can draw my own conclusions, thank you. I choose to believe he is not a veteran and therefore cannot presume to speak for veterans. He's just another far-left ranter who has nothing better to do than puff himself up into something he's obviously not and then claim to speak on behalf of others he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and couldn't care less about.

I am a veteran and, in the absence of other veterans saying they feel differently, I can speak for them: it bothered us not one whit that GWB gave the speech he did on Veteran's Day.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I have two uncles and a father-in-law who served in Vietnam, and they both say Bush is full of shit.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, or are you just another far-right ranter who has nothing better to do than puff himself up into something he's obviously not and then claim to speak on behalf of others he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and couldn't care less about.

I have two uncles and a father-in-law who served in Vietnam, and they both say Bush is full of shit.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, or are you just another far-right ranter who has nothing better to do than puff himself up into something he's obviously not and then claim to speak on behalf of others he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and couldn't care less about.
Oooooooooo! How frakkin', like ... original! Argh! I am cut to the quick. Verily my allegorical body doth bleed from a thousand metaphorical wounds. No more! No more! Oh, the pain. The PAIN! :D

Oooooooooo! How frakkin', like ... original! Argh! I am cut to the quick. Verily my allegorical body doth bleed from a thousand metaphorical wounds. No more! No more! Oh, the pain. The PAIN! :D
This is one of the sorriest attempts at sarcasm I've seen in a while. You lay it on way too thick - more like a pubescent boy than a grown man.

You also manage to completely evade the point, which is that there are plenty of veterans (and indeed I thought of several other friends of mine who've served who think the same as my relatives) out there who aren't right-wing echo-chamber dittoheads, and who might disapprove of Bush domestically politicizing the conflict.

You yourself are revoltingly hypocritical, calling those, like Sheehan, who oppose the war to account for "politicizing" it, while excusing worse behavior in those who agree with you.

America is about dissent. If you don't like, you should've stayed in Vietnam.

What is it with the whole obession on here with asserting you are a veteran? Is it just an American thing, an internet thing or just something that's become popular recently? Most of the European population over a certain age were veterans after WW2, and fought a far greater and important war yet no one bothered to make a big fuss over it - people just got on with life.

What is it with the whole obession on here with asserting you are a veteran? Is it just an American thing, an internet thing or just something that's become popular recently? Most of the European population over a certain age were veterans after WW2, and fought a far greater and important war yet no one bothered to make a big fuss over it - people just got on with life.
Sad to ay, American Veteran thing.

See the Concervative Right after losing a few argunments/votes decided that to win back votes they would wrap themselves in american flag. This gave them back votes and shielded them from any non-veteran's criticisms.


The phrase goes: you can't talk about the war unless you served in one!
Thus was born: Vets only thing.

Only Vets can speak for vets they say.

Your are telling me respect is more important than the rules of law?

No wonder Bush can do whatever he wants usually, if no Senators wants to lose "respect".

I wishall senators would care more about the laws than "respect".
Eh, no.

Because without respect, there can be no law, since respect of the law is a requisite for it being upheld.

What I said was clear: that the actions taken to establish the "No Fly Zones" were as a result of UNSC Resolution #688, and that to argue with the historical basis of their being imposed because the literal words "No Fly Zone" were not mentioned would lose my respect.

By analogy, many laws do not specifically mention police patrols on foot or handcuffs, but those are used to watch for violations or at time of arrest when people violate said laws.

The "No Fly Zones" were a regime to police #688, since Saddam Hussein proved by horrendous action he was not voluntarily curtailing his atrocities.

To argue otherwise seems patently obtuse.

Sad to ay, American Veteran thing.

See the Concervative Right after losing a few argunments/votes decided that to win back votes they would wrap themselves in american flag. This gave them back votes and shielded them from any non-veteran's criticisms.


The phrase goes: you can't talk about the war unless you served in one!
Thus was born: Vets only thing.

Only Vets can speak for vets they say.
It's more nuanced than that. Chickenhawks who never served, like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, can talk themselves blue in the face about the war. Real veterans who speak out against this war (or Vietnam), like Kerry or Kerrey or Cleland, are accused of "dishonoring their service."

The real rule is: If you can't say anything nice about the war - shut the hell up!

Apparently, even with the best equipment and training in the world, our soldiers are incapable of winning a war if someone at home is hurting their feelings by not being "supportive."

It's more nuanced than that. Chickenhawks who never served, like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, can talk themselves blue in the face about the war. Real veterans who speak out against this war (or Vietnam), like Kerry or Kerrey or Cleland, are accused of "dishonoring their service."

Excuse me but I'll correct an inaccuracy. Bush did serve his country in the Texas National Guard. He did serve in the US military so.....

Shrub never really respected anyone who bought into his bullshit and voted him into power. Not Hispanics, not veterans, not the Fundamentalist Right. He'll chant whatever word gives them a hardon until they vote for him on something, then just leave them to rot.
As a two time Bush supporter--I give that statement a big "Yup".

I just love this. This is comical. I've taken my side in this, but both sides are really out there. There was a point where it was actually insulting to my entire bloodline, most of us having served in any given division of the Armed Forces... but now it's just funny.

OP: rawr gorge boosh r inzulting teh vetz. im not a vet but rawr all teh vetz r insulted.

VETERAN: I'm a combat veteran. I'm not insulted. I'm proud of Bush.

OP: RAWR NO UR NOT, UR VERY INSULTED, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Random Lib: OMG BUSH LEID IMPEEEEECH IMPEEEEEECH IMPEEEEECH!

Random Conservative: No, he didn't. He was given faulty information. Don't shoot the messenger.

Random Lib: WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?

Conservative: Right here, right on this page. See? Right there...

Lib: I DONT SEE ANYTHING U R LYING 2 ME.

Prejudiced Asshole: RAWR ALL TEXANS R HOMOPHOBES TEXANS HATE GAYS OMG RAWR!!!!!!!!

Conservative: I don't need to show any proof, even though there's plenty that I could easily find... (Sorry, just had to take a swing at you. There's plenty of proof out there, and it's very easy to find.) :P

Liberal: RAWR READ THIS CLEARLY BIASED NEWS ARTICLE POSTED BY A LEFT-WING NEWSPAPER RAWR IT MUZT BE TRU BCUZ ITS IN TEH NOOOSPAPAR!

Conservative: Read this clearly biased news article posted by a right-wing TV station. It must be true because they talked about it on TV.

____________________________

See what I mean? Starts to get silly after a while.
Whatever side you're on, just realize that everything's biased. Well, not everything. But the point is, if something's not biased, then you either didn't read/watch it, or it doesn't even say anything.

Basic Story: President Bush gave a speech today, covering the war effort and honoring veterans.

Conservative: President Bush honored veterans in a speech today, defending both soldiers and the war effort from unending criticism of their peace operations in the middle east.

Liberal: Fuhrer Bush forcefully attacked his critics today in a speech meant to honor war veterans. Soon after, Fuhrer Bush punted an infant over a goalpost and shot fourteen kittens at a local animal shelter. Being the kind-hearted, caring citizens that we are, we attempted to subdue him. He then morphed into the Hulk and began to vandalize various cars parked on the street. Soon after, John Kerry('s aide) fired a tranquilizer dart and brought President Bush's terrible, terrible reign of destruction to a peaceful end.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rawr, I say anyone who responds to this with any negativity whatsoever is FLAMING ME FOR MY BELIEFS OMG FLAEM!!!!1!11 (See, Conservatives can do it, too.)

It's more nuanced than that. Chickenhawks who never served, like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, can talk themselves blue in the face about the war. Real veterans who speak out against this war (or Vietnam), like Kerry or Kerrey or Cleland, are accused of "dishonoring their service."

Yes, REAL veterans, like Kerry. Veterans who serve four months of their "full" term, and then get the hell out of Dodge by lying about three purple hearts, and getting a medical discharge.
Let's count off Kerry's "achievements" during 'Nam.

1) He fired a rocket-propelled explosive device at the shoreline during a patrol mission. No enemy forces in the vacinity at all. What did he get? A tiny metal sliver. After a quick sprinkling of bullshit, he got his damn purple heart. Here is a quote from the medic who treated him - "What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle. I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound. Kerry's own Division Commander DENIED Kerry his first purple heart. He had to go to an officer with NO CONNECTION to his division to fraudulently obtain his purple heart.

2) He threw a grenade into a rice boat that posed absolutely no threat. It was a friendly vessel. There was no one in the damn boat. What did he get? An ass-sprinkling of rice and a bruise on his arm. What was he "awarded"? A purple heart for taking some rice to the bum. As opposed to a purple heart for, oh, maybe LOSING YOUR DAMN ARM.

3) Apparently, a grenade flew into his boat and shrapnel penetrated his right leg. Some crewmates said there was no grenade. Haven't heard enough about this to go into detail.

Three bullshit purple hearts = The easy way out for Kerry.

I just love this. This is comical. I've taken my side in this, but both sides are really out there. There was a point where it was actually insulting to my entire bloodline, most of us having served in any given division of the Armed Forces... but now it's just funny.

OP: rawr gorge boosh r inzulting teh vetz. im not a vet but rawr all teh vetz r insulted.

VETERAN: I'm a combat veteran. I'm not insulted. I'm proud of Bush.

OP: RAWR NO UR NOT, UR VERY INSULTED, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Random Lib: OMG BUSH LEID IMPEEEEECH IMPEEEEEECH IMPEEEEECH!

Random Conservative: No, he didn't. He was given faulty information. Don't shoot the messenger.

Random Lib: WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?

Conservative: Right here, right on this page. See? Right there...

Lib: I DONT SEE ANYTHING U R LYING 2 ME.

Prejudiced Asshole: RAWR ALL TEXANS R HOMOPHOBES TEXANS HATE GAYS OMG RAWR!!!!!!!!

Conservative: I don't need to show any proof, even though there's plenty that I could easily find... (Sorry, just had to take a swing at you. There's plenty of proof out there, and it's very easy to find.) :P

Liberal: RAWR READ THIS CLEARLY BIASED NEWS ARTICLE POSTED BY A LEFT-WING NEWSPAPER RAWR IT MUZT BE TRU BCUZ ITS IN TEH NOOOSPAPAR!

Conservative: Read this clearly biased news article posted by a right-wing TV station. It must be true because they talked about it on TV.

There's more bullshit in this single part of your post than several large fertilizer storage facilities.

I hate partisanship. I'll admit that I often miss it when it's coming from my side, but when I catch it, I try to call people on it. However, I rarely miss it when it's coming from a Bush supporter and man, you're one partisan asshat.

Lets us do some correcting, shall we?

OP: Bush used a day generally reserved for thankings and respecting veterens of the military to push his own agenda, sprinkling his speech with occasional platitudes to make it look nice anyway.

GUY WHO CLAIMS TO BE A VET BUT MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE (this is a recurring theme): I'm a combat veteran. I'm not insulted. I'm proud of Bush.

MORE PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE VETS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF PROOF: What he said.

SOME GUYS CLAIMING TO KNOW SOME VETS: People I know disagree.

SOME OTHER DUDE: See? All vets support the war and Bush.

SOME SEMI-SENSIBLE DUDE: But according to these surveys, studies and reports, linked here, support, while in Bush's favor, was no where near one-sided.

SOME OTHER DUDE: See? All vets support the war and Bush.

SOME MORE PEOPLE CLAIMING TO KNOW VETS WITHOUT ANY PROOF: But my uncle/dad/brother/dog/cousin/landlord thinks Bush is STOOPID!

Random Lib: Think we could impeach Bush?

Random Conservative: No, he didn't. He was given faulty information. Don't shoot the messenger.

Random Lib: Where does it say that?

Conservative: No, he didn't. He was given faulty information. Don't shoot the messenger.

Lib: So, uh, where does it say that?

Conservative: I don't need to show any proof, he was given faulty information. Don't shoot the messenger.

Liberal: Read this snippet taken directly from the government document that you should be referencing but aren't because it runs contrary to the point you're trying to make

Conservative: I don't need to show any proof, he was given faulty information. Don't shoot the messenger.

Corneliu has and continues to fail to cite, well, anything to support his arguement, whereas I see link after citation coming from the likes of Canuck and his ilk.

While the Iraq War, from certain vantage points, is still an open issue, this topic was a very poor showing for the pro-war side.

Veterans Day, or Rememberance Day as we call it here, is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of others on our behalf. To look at the human costs of war, to honour the fallen along with those who came home. And to rededicate ourselves to the ideal that as few of our countrymen should have to be remembered on this day as possible.

So what does GW do?

Turn it into yet another day of petty politics. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13;_ylt=AnUE4_qPzIkNzA8kVTmoNLdqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) To whine about his critics.

To besmirch the memories of those who gave their all for freedom by bemoaning the fact that citizens use this freedom to question the government.




This is not respect for the Veterans GW. This, sir, is a slap in their face.


You are a slap in this countries face. All the verteran I know are proud of Bush's view on the military so don't tell me who is insulted you Pansy

Yes, REAL veterans, like Kerry. Veterans who serve four months of their "full" term, and then get the hell out of Dodge by lying about three purple hearts, and getting a medical discharge.
Let's count off Kerry's "achievements" during 'Nam.

1) He fired a rocket-propelled explosive device at the shoreline during a patrol mission. No enemy forces in the vacinity at all. What did he get? A tiny metal sliver. After a quick sprinkling of bullshit, he got his damn purple heart. Here is a quote from the medic who treated him - "What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle. I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound. Kerry's own Division Commander DENIED Kerry his first purple heart. He had to go to an officer with NO CONNECTION to his division to fraudulently obtain his purple heart.

2) He threw a grenade into a rice boat that posed absolutely no threat. It was a friendly vessel. There was no one in the damn boat. What did he get? An ass-sprinkling of rice and a bruise on his arm. What was he "awarded"? A purple heart for taking some rice to the bum. As opposed to a purple heart for, oh, maybe LOSING YOUR DAMN ARM.

3) Apparently, a grenade flew into his boat and shrapnel penetrated his right leg. Some crewmates said there was no grenade. Haven't heard enough about this to go into detail.

Three bullshit purple hearts = The easy way out for Kerry.

Were you there? No? Shut the Hell up.

I can play that game too, moron.

Your version of the events is false. But I don't even care to dispute it. Try pulling the same with Kerrey, or Cleland. Try the same logic with Bush's "service" in the Champagne Unit. He comes across BETTER, in your opinion? Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz? Their draft-dodging must be some sign of superior integrity, right? At least they didn't get any splinters in their asses from meeting up with Charlie.

You are just amazingly hypocritical and stupid. I salute you.

You are a slap in this countries face. All the verteran I know are proud of Bush's view on the military so don't tell me who is insulted you Pansy
All the veterans I know are ashamed of Bush. I've got about nine veteran friends, how about you?

Corneliu has and continues to fail to cite, well, anything to support his arguement, whereas I see link after citation coming from the likes of Canuck and his ilk.

Excuse me but I did post my proof in regards to Saddam violating the cease-fire in regards to resolution 686. Because of this, resolution 678 paragraph 2 comes into play.

While the Iraq War, from certain vantage points, is still an open issue, this topic was a very poor showing for the pro-war side.

Who said that this was supposed to be a pro-war side? We are refuting the fact that Bush soiled Veterans Day.

All the veterans I know are ashamed of Bush. I've got about nine veteran friends, how about you?

I have a hell of a lot more than that who aren't ashamed of Bush. Most of them work with my father who ALL were over there.

Were you there? No? Shut the Hell up.

I can play that game too, moron.

Your version of the events is false. But I don't even care to dispute it. Try pulling the same with Kerrey, or Cleland. Try the same logic with Bush's "service" in the Champagne Unit. He comes across BETTER, in your opinion? Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz? Their draft-dodging must be some sign of superior integrity, right? At least they didn't get any splinters in their asses from meeting up with Charlie.

You are just amazingly hypocritical and stupid. I salute you.
FALSE? My version of events is FALSE? Even the part where I quoted his own damn medic? I'm sure the medic was there. Were you there? Did you stand by his side during all of that to see what really went on? No. And what I stated above is OBVIOUSLY biased, because everything's biased. Point is, Kerry got a scratch and played the "oh, the pain, it hurts so much" until he got his damn purple hearts, and his easy way out of the war.

Bush did all he could. The unit to which he was assigned was never dispatched, not to say that they never considered it, but the EQUIPMENT that Bush was trained for was horribly unreliable and the DOD didn't want to risk their lives with such shitty equipment.

Hypocritical and stupid? Nice flame. Pretty blunt, as well. I'm posting what I think's going on. You're posting what YOU think is going on. You're calling me stupid for thinking that what you think is stupid. And I'm hypocritical. We're both hypocritical. In fact, the whole damn WORLD is hypocritical. Having an opinion and forcing it on others is hypocrisy. Calling someone a hypocrite is hypocrisy in itself. And it's a whole damn loop.

EDIT: Ah, I'm sorry, I guess I didn't understand the fact that your definition of "Charlie" is "a bunch of rocks on a shoreline, a sampan and an abandoned village".

Hehe... not to take sides (like I already have) but this "I know # veterans" is turning into a variation of the penis game.

"I HAVE MORE!"
"nuh-uh, I have more"
"NUH-UH I KNOW MORE"

Just a thought.

Hehe... not to take sides (like I already have) but this "I know # veterans" is turning into a variation of the penis game.

"I HAVE MORE!"
"nuh-uh, I have more"
"NUH-UH I KNOW MORE"

Just a thought.

Seriously though, mine is bigger :cool:

I. Don't. Care. The fact remains that it is in complete compliance WITH international law.
That is solely your opinion on this matter. I have cited many links which state that the US invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal, and if Iraq violated any ceasefire, Bush would have noted that in his address to the Nation when he declared war on Iraq. Bush couldn't do that because he knew that that excuse would never fly:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9034289&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9853402&postcount=129

And what do you offer as rebuttal? Hollow rhetoric.

Resolution 686 Paragraph 3 subsection A. "Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft.
State when Iraq used "hostile or provocative actions" using "missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft" after UN Resolution 686 was drafted and then point me to the direction wherein the UN gave the US blanket authority to invade Iraq as a result of any violation. Perhaps while you are at it, you can point out specific UN directives that allowed the US to bomb Iraq, and any UN directives that state that Iraq is not allowed to defend her airways and/or land.

Paragraph 4: Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 remain valid
All this part of the Resolution does is refer to the ceasation of hostilities against Iraq in reference to UN Resolution 660 and has nothing to do with any "ceasefire violation" as claimed by you.

You are grasping at straws and so far have come up empty handed. You have not posted anything that details an Iraqi "ceasefire violation" and have provided no supporting evidence that the US was authorized to invade Iraq or for that matter even bomb Iraq.

Provocative measures taken by Saddam against US forces as well as moving troops down towards Kuwait in violation of resolution 686. This would mean a re-instatement of Resolution 678 paragraph 2 in regards to using force against Iraq.
Detail the "provovative measures taken by Saddam". The only way that paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 would come into play? Only if Iraq indeed re-entered Kuwaiti territory, which did not happen.

BTW, perhaps you missed this in Resolution 686?

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and Kuwait, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating under paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of the resolution,

I have stated this numerous times but so far, it hasn't sunk in yet.
You have trotted out the "ceasefire violation" hundreds of times, and you cannot detail said violations and far more seriously, you cannot point to any document which gave the US authority to bomb Iraq or invade Iraq. You offer superficial nonsense and nothing conclusive to you argument.

1)Iraq didn't fully comply with resolution 687 by handing over the locations of their weapons and they had 15 days to do it.
Resolution 1441, while incorporating all the previous Resolutions, offered Iraq one "final opportunity" to comply. The US by invading removed that "final opportunity" from Iraq. Here is the relevant wording in case you have forgotten:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

This is all fairly straightforward and I cannot understand why you refuse to accept these conditions. In his address to the Nation, Bush did not quote chapter and verse of any UN Resoultions violations by Iraq. Why he did not do this is obvious. The US was not empowered by the UN to resolve any violations of UN Resolutions. Period. End of story.

2)They tried to threaten Kuwait and got caught. A violation of 686 and thus Paragraph 2 of 678 should've gone into effect immediately.
Iraq did not violate 686 and therin, your argument dies.

Nope won't concede.
You really should concede because your cause has no foundation whatsoever.:eek:

CH,

Thank you for proving that no matter what I evidence I show you, your not going to believe it. You cannot wrap your mind around the fact that Hussein did violate the cease-fire but not complying with anything.

In regards to provocative measures, they moved their forces southwards towards Kuwait. The UN Called them on this and passed another resolution telling them to withdraw. Not to mention they didn't turn over all Prisoners of war in regards to the Kuwaitis. That is also in violation of Resolution 686.

I also want you think on what you said for awhile. It was resolution 678 that authorized the use of force against Iraq. In Paragraph 4 of Resolution 686, if Saddam violated the terms of this, Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 goes back into effect.

Hussein violated the Cease-fire by making provacutive measures by redeploying their forces towards Kuwait. That was recognized by the UN as a provocutive measure. When this occured, they should've invoked 678 but didn't. It doesn't matter if they invoked it or not. The fact remains that this was a provocutive measure and Paragraph four of 686 should've been invoked and the war resumed. Iraq didn't have to invade Kuwait for 678 to be re-invoked. They made a provocutive move towards Kuwait and therefor, 678 should've been invoked.

In regards to the part that you quoted, your right it does say it. However, Saddam violated paragraph 2 sections b and c as well as Paragraph 3 sections a,c, and d. With this, Paragraph 4 should've been invoked years ago. Also, to the part you quoted, we did pull our forces that we had in Iraq out immediately. So we were in full compliance.

As to 1441, its a non-issue. The fact does remain that Hussein violate 686 and under paragraph 4, should've been taken out years ago.

As to me having no foundation, I have more foundation than you think. It is you that has zero foundation.

There's nothing wrong with the Canadian way or the American way; we just each have different traditions, that's all.

Stop your 'diplomacy' and pick a side, pussy. :p

This is one of the sorriest attempts at sarcasm I've seen in a while. You lay it on way too thick - more like a pubescent boy than a grown man.

You also manage to completely evade the point, which is that there are plenty of veterans (and indeed I thought of several other friends of mine who've served who think the same as my relatives) out there who aren't right-wing echo-chamber dittoheads, and who might disapprove of Bush domestically politicizing the conflict.

You yourself are revoltingly hypocritical, calling those, like Sheehan, who oppose the war to account for "politicizing" it, while excusing worse behavior in those who agree with you.

America is about dissent. If you don't like, you should've stayed in Vietnam.
Nice way with the insults you have. If you don't like my posts, may I suggest that in future you ignore them? :D

Only Vets can speak for vets they say.
Ahhh! You are on the path to wisdom, Grasshopper! :D

The real rule is: If you can't say anything nice about the war - shut the hell up!
Ah! Kindly point out where I have ever said "if you can't say anything nice about the war - shut the hell up?" I really would like to know where I said that, since it has apparently slipped my mind. URL? Quote? Whatever? :)

All the veterans I know are ashamed of Bush. I've got about nine veteran friends, how about you?
None of the veterans I know are "ashamed of Bush," and I'll wager that I know one HELL of a lot more than you do. :)

C(anuck)H(eaven),

*snips*

As to me having no foundation, I have more foundation than you think. It is you that has zero foundation.
Laaaaaaame.

CH,

Thank you for proving that no matter what I evidence I show you, your not going to believe it. You cannot wrap your mind around the fact that Hussein did violate the cease-fire but not complying with anything.

In regards to provocative measures, they moved their forces southwards towards Kuwait. The UN Called them on this and passed another resolution telling them to withdraw. Not to mention they didn't turn over all Prisoners of war in regards to the Kuwaitis. That is also in violation of Resolution 686.

I also want you think on what you said for awhile. It was resolution 678 that authorized the use of force against Iraq. In Paragraph 4 of Resolution 686, if Saddam violated the terms of this, Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 goes back into effect.

Hussein violated the Cease-fire by making provacutive measures by redeploying their forces towards Kuwait. That was recognized by the UN as a provocutive measure. When this occured, they should've invoked 678 but didn't. It doesn't matter if they invoked it or not. The fact remains that this was a provocutive measure and Paragraph four of 686 should've been invoked and the war resumed. Iraq didn't have to invade Kuwait for 678 to be re-invoked. They made a provocutive move towards Kuwait and therefor, 678 should've been invoked.

In regards to the part that you quoted, your right it does say it. However, Saddam violated paragraph 2 sections b and c as well as Paragraph 3 sections a,c, and d. With this, Paragraph 4 should've been invoked years ago. Also, to the part you quoted, we did pull our forces that we had in Iraq out immediately. So we were in full compliance.

As to 1441, its a non-issue. The fact does remain that Hussein violate 686 and under paragraph 4, should've been taken out years ago.

As to me having no foundation, I have more foundation than you think. It is you that has zero foundation.
So, let me see now. Your position is that the US has the unilateral right to invade Iraq based on an alledged violation of a UN Resolution over 14 years ago? Get serious.

And if Resolution 1441 is a "non-issue", than the US was bargaining in bad faith? The US, UK and Northern Ireland drafted UN Resolution 1441, whereby Iraq was given one "final opportunity" to comply. By invading Iraq, the US not only did not have the blessing of the UN Security Council, but also removed Iraq's "final opportunity" to comply. What you are suggesting is that the US failed at diplomacy, and I agree. The US failed in resolving outstanding issues through diplomatic process.

Thusly, the invasion of Iraq was a violation of UN Resolution 1441, UN Resolution 686, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution. I am certain that if we dig deep enough and long enough, we could find even more US violations, such as the bombing of Iraq between 1991 and 2005, and the torturing of prisoners at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay.

Your arguments are as porous as Swiss cheese. The justifications that you use to try and jusify US actions do not hold up under closer scrutiny.

And is the world any better off after the inappropriate actions of the Bush administration in regards to Iraq? The majority would say NO!!

Meanwhile, on the homefront, it appears that the majority of Americans would support the impeachment of Bush if he indeed did lie:

New Poll: Majority of Americans Support Impeachment (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421)

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Not to forget that Bush's approval rating is down to 37%.

Majority of Iraqis want US to leave immediately (57% to 36%). (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm)

Majority of Iraqis think that US forces have conducted themselves badly since the invasion (58% to 34%).

71% see the US troops as occupiers and only 19% see them as liberators.

In the absence of either his affirmation or denial, I can draw my own conclusions, thank you. I choose to believe he is not a veteran and therefore cannot presume to speak for veterans. He's just another far-left ranter who has nothing better to do than puff himself up into something he's obviously not and then claim to speak on behalf of others he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and couldn't care less about.

I am a veteran and, in the absence of other veterans saying they feel differently, I can speak for them: it bothered us not one whit that GWB gave the speech he did on Veteran's Day.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


With all of the due sarcasm that this response merits, let me abjectly apologize for having a life, a loving wife, and energetic children that precludes me from spending my weekends staring at a message board tapping my foot waiting for timely responses. Not that having that much free time wouldn't be nice once in a while...

However, let's be fair. This is the Internet. I could call myself whatever the hell I wanted and you'd never know.

I could say I was a veteran in which case you would temper your attitude and afford me the respect that this calls for and simply agree to disagree on the point.

I could say that while not a veteran, I lost a family member to the war and expected the day to be about him rather than about partisan bullshit.

Or, I could say that I am a citizen who still happenes to believe that anyone who takes a day dedicated to honouring others and tries to make it about themselves is missing the point of thde day, and so disrespects what the day is really supposed to be about.

In all cases my point would be the same. My feeling that Bush hijacked the moment for personal gain.

The only difference is that in one case you would respect my right to that opinion. And in the others you don't.

And frankly that says a hell of a lot more about YOU than about my position.

That notion especially goes for the people here who applaud Bush for his sentiment on the day while they shovel abuse on another veteran for his opinions in the same article.

It says one thing to me most clearly: You;re OK with it being about something other than the veterans.... if it happens to be about something YOU agree with. If it were a different veteran using it for partisan gain that you DIDN'T agree with, you'd be the ones screaming foul.

However, to put it the way I think that your bile deserves, simply rest assured that I be sure to let the four members of my family who have worn or are wearing their countries uniform (myself perhaps included in that group - that's my damn business after all and not germaine to how I feel about the point) that there is a bitter old man somewhere who presumes to speak for them all.

So, let me see now. Your position is that the US has the unilateral right to invade Iraq based on an alledged violation of a UN Resolution over 14 years ago? Get serious.

It wasn't unilateral. That's another falsehood that has been dispelled repeatedly.

And if Resolution 1441 is a "non-issue", than the US was bargaining in bad faith? The US, UK and Northern Ireland drafted UN Resolution 1441, whereby Iraq was given one "final opportunity" to comply.

You mean Spain right? Yea I hope you mean Spain. God, you can't even get the nations right. He had his last chance and didn't fully comply with 1441 either. Even Blix said that.

By invading Iraq, the US not only did not have the blessing of the UN Security Council, but also removed Iraq's "final opportunity" to comply. What you are suggesting is that the US failed at diplomacy, and I agree. The US failed in resolving outstanding issues through diplomatic process.

We already had the backing of the UN in regards to resolution 678. As I said, you haven't been paying attention. He had his last chance and even then he didn't fully comply with 1441. I never said that the US failed at diplomacy. I suggest you stop putting words into my posts that aren't there. I will say your right about one thing, Diplomacy did fail but it wasn't because of the US. It was because Saddam wasn't being faithful to the promises he made when he lost the Persian Gulf War.

Thusly, the invasion of Iraq was a violation of UN Resolution 1441, UN Resolution 686, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution.

You are wrong on all 4 counts.

1) It isn't a violation of 1441. He wasn't fully complying. Something that Blix even stated himself.

2) It isn't a violation of 686. In fact, we are enforcing 686 so how is it in violation for enforcing it?

3) It isn't a violation of the UN Charter because we are enforcing resolution 686. If anyone violated the UN Charter, it would be Iraq.

4) It isn't a violation of the US Constitution since Congress AUTHORIZED it.

I am certain that if we dig deep enough and long enough, we could find even more US violations, such as the bombing of Iraq between 1991 and 2005, and the torturing of prisoners at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay.

I suggest you go back and read up on 687 and 688. As for Abu Gharib, the people responsible are getting punished. As for Guantanamo Bay, there is no evidence of Torture.

Your arguments are as porous as Swiss cheese. The justifications that you use to try and jusify US actions do not hold up under closer scrutiny.

Actually, they do hold up. You just don't want to let the facts get in the way of your preconceived notions that it was wrong. However, letting Saddam stay in power for 12 additional years was a mistake. He should've been taken out in 1991.

And is the world any better off after the inappropriate actions of the Bush administration in regards to Iraq? The majority would say NO!!

You speak for the majority now? Wow, I didn't know you commanded such power :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, on the homefront, it appears that the majority of Americans would support the impeachment of Bush if he indeed did lie:

New Poll: Majority of Americans Support Impeachment (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421)

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Since Bush has done nothing impeachable, he can't be impeached. No high crime or misdemeanor was committed. No treason was committed and the website is as biased as moveon.org.

Not to forget that Bush's approval rating is down to 37%.

Majority of Iraqis want US to leave immediately (57% to 36%). (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm)

So? So was Truman's.

Majority of Iraqis think that US forces have conducted themselves badly since the invasion (58% to 34%).

71% see the US troops as occupiers and only 19% see them as liberators.

Even I want the US troops to leave but not until the job is done. Most Iraqis don't want us to leave till the job is done.

I would also love to see who they polled. I bet ya most of the ones they polled are sunni.

Not to be racist, or speak for the American people OR the Iraqi people, as most of you love to do (BOTH sides), but that Iraqi poll makes just as much sense as a poll of children being grounded. Of course they're going to say "NO!" because children have no idea what's best for them and how it's helping them. Not that it's a DIRECT relation to the Iraqi people, but there are still Iraqis who are affected by Saddam's brainwashing, and who are to unaffected to care about Al Queda and terrorism. They (SOME of them) don't understand how we're trying to help them.

That does as much good as a poll of death row inmates asking whether capital punishment should be legal. What do you expect them to say? "Nah, just kill me now, get it over with! I couldn't be happier that I'm essentially damning myself."

Note: This post may seem racist, prejudiced and slightly right, but I'm doing my best to keep it as practical and neutral as I can.

Not to be racist, or speak for the American people OR the Iraqi people, as most of you love to do (BOTH sides), but that Iraqi poll makes just as much sense as a poll of children being grounded. Of course they're going to say "NO!" because children have no idea what's best for them and how it's helping them. Not that it's a DIRECT relation to the Iraqi people, but there are still Iraqis who are affected by Saddam's brainwashing, and who are to unaffected to care about Al Queda and terrorism. They (SOME of them) don't understand how we're trying to help them.

That does as much good as a poll of death row inmates asking whether capital punishment should be legal. What do you expect them to say? "Nah, just kill me now, get it over with! I couldn't be happier that I'm essentially damning myself."

Note: This post may seem racist, prejudiced and slightly right, but I'm doing my best to keep it as practical and neutral as I can.
Are you saying that we should not listen to their opinion just because the have a direct vested intrest in the outcome?

For some reason in my opinion that makes it even more important that we find out their opinions on the matter

Not to be racist, or speak for the American people OR the Iraqi people, as most of you love to do (BOTH sides), but that Iraqi poll makes just as much sense as a poll of children being grounded. Of course they're going to say "NO!" because children have no idea what's best for them and how it's helping them. Not that it's a DIRECT relation to the Iraqi people, but there are still Iraqis who are affected by Saddam's brainwashing, and who are to unaffected to care about Al Queda and terrorism. They (SOME of them) don't understand how we're trying to help them.
So you arn't going to speak for them but you are go to be condescending towards them and assert you know better than they do?

So you arn't going to speak for them but you are go to be condescending towards them and assert you know better than they do?
Never did I say that we know better. Don't put words in my mouth. What I DID say is that there are still those who have been brainwashed with terrorist propaganda, and who believe that Saddam will come back to punish them. I NEVER said that we should not listen. I just said that it is impractical to pull out and take that poll seriously, because it is scarily easy to fake a poll, or taint the results in some way.

What Bush did is... unacceptable. But two wrongs don't make a right.

This (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html), however, is far worse a crime.

Never did I say that we know better. Don't put words in my mouth. What I DID say is that there are still those who have been brainwashed with terrorist propaganda, and who believe that Saddam will come back to punish them. I NEVER said that we should not listen. I just said that it is impractical to pull out and take that poll seriously, because it is scarily easy to fake a poll, or taint the results in some way.
And that would be figured into the alpha of the poll

Never did I say that we know better. Don't put words in my mouth. What I DID say is that there are still those who have been brainwashed with terrorist propaganda, and who believe that Saddam will come back to punish them. I NEVER said that we should not listen. I just said that it is impractical to pull out and take that poll seriously, because it is scarily easy to fake a poll, or taint the results in some way.
What you did say is this: "Of course they're going to say "NO!" because children have no idea what's best for them and how it's helping them ... They (SOME of them) don't understand how we're trying to help them."

You are asserting you know better than they (anyone who disagrees with your opinion) do, stop being an egomaniac.

It wasn't unilateral. That's another falsehood that has been dispelled repeatedly.
Your gray matter is not firing on all cylinders?

According to a mid-January 2003 telephone poll, approximately one-third of the U.S. population supported a unilateral invasion by the US and its allies, while two-thirds supported war if directly authorized by the U.N.

You mean Spain right? Yea I hope you mean Spain. God, you can't even get the nations right.
Why invoke the name of God, especially when you are wrong?

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

He had his last chance and didn't fully comply with 1441 either. Even Blix said that.
Blix didn't say that at all. I have pointed out numerous times what Blix has stated and none of them are complimentary to the US position.

Stop playing the game!!

We already had the backing of the UN in regards to resolution 678.
Where does it say in 678 that the US has the right to invade Iraq? It doesn't.

As I said, you haven't been paying attention. He had his last chance and even then he didn't fully comply with 1441.
IF Iraq didn't comply fully with 1441, the matter was to be referred to the Security Council for further resolve. If anyone is not paying attention, it is you. You obviously do not know or understand the full text of 1441.

Give it up!!

I never said that the US failed at diplomacy. I suggest you stop putting words into my posts that aren't there. I will say your right about one thing, Diplomacy did fail but it wasn't because of the US. It was because Saddam wasn't being faithful to the promises he made when he lost the Persian Gulf War.
You mean like destroying WMD that the US claimed Iraq had but on further investigation realized that Iraq had indeed been in compliance. You conveniently forget that the UN inspectors were not finding any of the WMD that the US claimed were in existence.

The US definately failed at diplomacy and by invading Iraq reneged on the committment to Congress that the US would exhaust all diplomatic means before invading Iraq. A little reading would do you wonders.

You are wrong on all 4 counts.

1) It isn't a violation of 1441. He wasn't fully complying. Something that Blix even stated himself.
Wrong again, see above.

2) It isn't a violation of 686. In fact, we are enforcing 686 so how is it in violation for enforcing it?
WHO authorized an invasion of Iraq in 2003 to uphold 686? Certainly not the UN.

3) It isn't a violation of the UN Charter because we are enforcing resolution 686. If anyone violated the UN Charter, it would be Iraq.
See above.

4) It isn't a violation of the US Constitution since Congress AUTHORIZED it.
ONLY after exhausting ALL diplomatic avenues, which did NOT happen.

I suggest you go back and read up on 687 and 688.
I fully understand 687 and 688, and realize that those Resolutions did not authorize a US invasion of Iraq in 2003. PERIOD!! You can twist it anyway you like but you cannot show words that would support your beliefs in this matter.

As for Abu Gharib, the people responsible are getting punished. As for Guantanamo Bay, there is no evidence of Torture.
The violators are being punished according to US laws and not International laws. As for Guantanamo, you are in denial, which is no surprise.

Actually, they do hold up. You just don't want to let the facts get in the way of your preconceived notions that it was wrong. However, letting Saddam stay in power for 12 additional years was a mistake. He should've been taken out in 1991.
Whether Saddam should have been taken out in 1991 is a moot point. I am basing my arguments on facts and documentation, whereas you are offering conjecture and opinion.

You have lost this argument many times over. Quit playing the game.

You speak for the majority now? Wow, I didn't know you commanded such power :rolleyes:
Who says I am speaking for the majority? I am once again basing my argument on facts, of which you have none.

U.S. Image Abroad Still Sinking (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0624-05.htm)

Since Bush has done nothing impeachable, he can't be impeached. No high crime or misdemeanor was committed. No treason was committed and the website is as biased as moveon.org.
Time will tell. I think that there is mounting pressure within the US to get to the bottom of all of this. should be interesting because I think your boy and his/your party are in trouble.

Even I want the US troops to leave but not until the job is done. Most Iraqis don't want us to leave till the job is done.
According to the poll, the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave IMMEDIATELY.

I would also love to see who they polled. I bet ya most of the ones they polled are sunni.
Your assumption is wrong again. The poll was conducted amongst Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Obviously you didn't use the link provided, or else you would have known that.

Your arguments remind me of a leaky rowboat, where the water is coming faster than you can bail.

When Bush declared war on Iraq, he carefully avoided referencing any specific UN Resolutions. Why? The fact that he would not have been able to get away with it. What makes you think that you can get away with it now?

You can't and as usual, you are stuck trying to defend Bush on evidence that is totally erroneous.

When you can provide evidence that the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003, then I will concede. However, I do know that your mission is indeed impossible, and that your argument is lost.

What you did say is this: "Of course they're going to say "NO!" because children have no idea what's best for them and how it's helping them ... They (SOME of them) don't understand how we're trying to help them."

You are asserting you know better than they (anyone who disagrees with your opinion) do, stop being an egomaniac.
Where did I ever say that anyone who disagrees knows less than I do? Where did I ever say that I know better than they do? I merely stated that children do not understand how our discipline is supposed to work, and some Iraqis don't understand that we are there to help them, and help set up a government that can defend them against suicide bombers, terrorists, and even other countries.

Again... putting words in my mouth. Not gonna work on me, junior.

Where did I ever say that anyone who disagrees knows less than I do? Where did I ever say that I know better than they do? I merely stated that children do not understand how our discipline is supposed to work, and some Iraqis don't understand that we are there to help them, and help set up a government that can defend them against suicide bombers, terrorists, and even other countries.

Again... putting words in my mouth. Not gonna work on me, junior.
I could make plenty of statements here, but it would be a waste of words and perfectly good insults.

Oil for Food (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-10-27T204530Z_01_FOR761418_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-PROBE-COMPANIES.xml)

A little excerpt

Russia and France were the countries with the most companies involved in the oil-for-food program

When you can provide evidence that the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003, then I will concede. However, I do know that your mission is indeed impossible, and that your argument is lost.
Hiya, CH - long time no see.

I could make plenty of statements here, but it would be a waste of words and perfectly good insults.
Yes, I can imagine how petty insults play a large part in your (everyone's) arguments. Best save those for your next life, when you're (everyone's) a child and you (everyone) can use them without looking like a fool.

Yes, I can imagine how petty insults play a large part in your (everyone's) arguments. Best save those for your next life, when you're (everyone's) a child and you (everyone) can use them without looking like a fool.
Highlighted for great sadness.

Person A: Oh yeah! Well you're stupid!

Person B: No you are!

Person A: You eat your own boogars!

Person B: Farteater!

Seriously, that is what this sounds like.

I don't know if it's too late to ask this, but shouldn't the title of this thread be "Bush spoils Veterans Day"? Every time I've seen this floating up and down the first page of General I try very hard to not see Dubya there in my mind's eye, with his pants off and his ass hanging off the podium, soiling the stands as the octogenarian WWII vets parade past...

I don't know if it's too late to ask this, but shouldn't the title of this thread be "Bush spoils Veterans Day"? Every time I've seen this floating up and down the first page of General I try very hard to not see Dubya there in my mind's eye, with his pants off and his ass hanging off the podium, soiling the stands as the octogenarian WWII vets parade past...
Sadly, knowing the left, that's really what I was expecting to hear. ;)

Just kidding. It's all in good fun. Let's lighten this thread up a bit. :)

I still take more offensive to anti-war protests than what Bush said, but as was explained to me from an unlikely source when I enlisted (my mom) "He is your Commander-in-Chief, whether you like it or not when he speaks you listen."

So, in summary.

What Bush said was bad, but those who pushed him into making such a statement are worse, IMO of course.

"pushed"?

Hiya, CH - long time no see.
Hey Dobbs!! I have been here but posting only sporadically. When I saw Corny posting his ceasefire BS, I felt compelled to set the record straight.:)

Anyways, great to see ya!!

Your gray matter is not firing on all cylinders?

According to a mid-January 2003 telephone poll, approximately one-third of the U.S. population supported a unilateral invasion by the US and its allies, while two-thirds supported war if directly authorized by the U.N.

They said they would support A unilateral action. Our action wasn't unilateral.

Blix didn't say that at all. I have pointed out numerous times what Blix has stated and none of them are complimentary to the US position.

Stop playing the game!!

Then why did Blix give ammunition to both sides of the debate when he was at the United Nations Security council?

Where does it say in 678 that the US has the right to invade Iraq? It doesn't.

No it just authorized the use of force in Iraq and then if 686 was violated, then all bets are off and 678 goes back into effect as stated in 686. The UN didn't have to re-authorize it.

IF Iraq didn't comply fully with 1441, the matter was to be referred to the Security Council for further resolve. If anyone is not paying attention, it is you. You obviously do not know or understand the full text of 1441.

Give it up!!

In case you didn't know, we did go back to the UN with the 2nd resolution. However, because of deals made by the French and Russians, the Security Council did nothing. Oil for Food Scandle anyone?

You mean like destroying WMD that the US claimed Iraq had but on further investigation realized that Iraq had indeed been in compliance. You conveniently forget that the UN inspectors were not finding any of the WMD that the US claimed were in existence.

He didn't comply with anything. He didn't let us have access to his scientists. He stonewalled the inspection process. He led everyone on that he still had WMD. It only took an invasion to get answers to key questions. He didn't hand over the info in regards to the Antrax that we know he did have. It took an invasion for that female scientist to finally come clean and said she destroyed them and told Saddam something different because she feared for her life. That is on public record. However, there are still missing papers that saddam never did hand over to the United Nations.

The US definately failed at diplomacy and by invading Iraq reneged on the committment to Congress that the US would exhaust all diplomatic means before invading Iraq. A little reading would do you wonders.

Believe what you will. We have already debunked your arguements already so it makes little difference in what you say.

Wrong again, see above.

The only person here who is wrong is you.

WHO authorized an invasion of Iraq in 2003 to uphold 686? Certainly not the UN.

Didn't have to be authorized by anyone. Paragraph 4 of 686 is did that already. Haven't you been paying any attention? Paragraph 4 stated that if Saddam didn't follow through, 678 paragraph 2 would stay in effect. Guess what? Saddam didn't comply so therefor Paragraph 2 of 678 is in effect.

See above.

Stop repeating your mantra. It is so wrong it isn't even funny.

ONLY after exhausting ALL diplomatic avenues, which did NOT happen.

I say 12 years of non compliance by Saddam signifies a failure in diplomacy.

I fully understand 687 and 688, and realize that those Resolutions did not authorize a US invasion of Iraq in 2003. PERIOD!! You can twist it anyway you like but you cannot show words that would support your beliefs in this matter.

The only one doing the twisting is you CH. I haven't twisted anything. Just stating the facts that you are blantly ignoring and confirming what I said previously about you.

The violators are being punished according to US laws and not International laws. As for Guantanamo, you are in denial, which is no surprise.

That's because the people involved are Americans and we'll deal with them. We are. As for Gitmo, sorry but I'm not in denial.

Whether Saddam should have been taken out in 1991 is a moot point. I am basing my arguments on facts and documentation, whereas you are offering conjecture and opinion.

Actually, it is the other way around. I'm basing mine based on UN Resolutions. Your the one that is basing your decisions on opinions and conjecture.

You have lost this argument many times over. Quit playing the game.

I haven't lost anything. Your the one that has lost and your to brainwashed to see it.

Who says I am speaking for the majority? I am once again basing my argument on facts, of which you have none.

U.S. Image Abroad Still Sinking (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0624-05.htm)

You think I care about world opinion?

[quote]Time will tell. I think that there is mounting pressure within the US to get to the bottom of all of this. should be interesting because I think your boy and his/your party are in trouble.

It already is getting to the bottom of it. In case you failed to notice that we are still investigating the intelligence. The first part already came out and said that no one was pressured in regards to the intel.

According to the poll, the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave IMMEDIATELY.

Again, I want to see who they polled. However, I want us to leave but most people, including Iraqis know that if we leave now, Civil war will ensue.

Your assumption is wrong again. The poll was conducted amongst Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Obviously you didn't use the link provided, or else you would have known that.

So lets break that down then. What faction of the Shi'ites did they poll?

Your arguments remind me of a leaky rowboat, where the water is coming faster than you can bail.

Sounds like your boat more.

When Bush declared war on Iraq, he carefully avoided referencing any specific UN Resolutions. Why? The fact that he would not have been able to get away with it. What makes you think that you can get away with it now?

I suggest you go back and rethink that.

You can't and as usual, you are stuck trying to defend Bush on evidence that is totally erroneous.

*he plays the violin, he tucks it right under his chin*

When you can provide evidence that the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003, then I will concede. However, I do know that your mission is indeed impossible, and that your argument is lost.

We didn't need an authorization to go into Iraq since we already HAD a resolution to go into Iraq. However, you just proved to me that you do not care about facts and only your own opinions so I'll leave it at that.

Hey Dobbs!! I have been here but posting only sporadically. When I saw Corny posting his ceasefire BS, I felt compelled to set the record straight.:)

Anyways, great to see ya!!

Which you failed utterly because the only one setting the record straight is me. YOu have constently lied and it has been proven.

Where did I ever say that anyone who disagrees knows less than I do? Where did I ever say that I know better than they do? I merely stated that children do not understand how our discipline is supposed to work, and some Iraqis don't understand that we are there to help them, and help set up a government that can defend them against suicide bombers, terrorists, and even other countries.

Again... putting words in my mouth. Not gonna work on me, junior.
Drawing the analogy between Iraqies being children and you being the parent implies that you know are in a position of knoledge over the children

Maybe it is just your bad analogy

"pushed"?

Yes, pushed. The ones that want America to run from Iraq with our tails between our legs, they were the same ones who started calling Iraq a new Vietnam in September '03 because they believe in a "weaker America for our future."

"My disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra-pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Yes, pushed. The ones that want America to run from Iraq with our tails between our legs, they were the same ones who started calling Iraq a new Vietnam in September '03 because they believe in a "weaker America for our future."
And this pushed him into making this speech on vetrans day how?