Osama and Saddam?? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-23-2006, 04:51 PM   #16
The Fly
 
Rini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: a little farm in the mountains
Posts: 258
Local Time: 06:57 PM
"I find it odd that Rini knows about it but somehow the Bush administration isn't doing anything about it."

Ha! You can say that again! He never returns my calls... LOL
__________________

__________________
Rini is offline  
Old 03-23-2006, 05:00 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rini
[B You mean like Ted Kennedy and Clinton? They both saw the same intelligence the president saw, and came to the same conclusion (and said so - it's on record)...for a while. [/B]


yes, many people saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was likely that Saddam had WMDs.

but only one man thought this was worth going to war over.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-23-2006, 05:06 PM   #18
The Fly
 
Rini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: a little farm in the mountains
Posts: 258
Local Time: 06:57 PM
The idea of freedom and democracy came from Athens way before the Christian-Judeo mindset. B.C., when they were worshiping Zeus and the Mighty Aphrodite....

Democracy, yes; but freedom for who? Who got to vote? And the Jewish nation long predated the Greeks, with a set of laws that are the original basis of American law and thus freedom.

And I said freedom, not democracy. Not the same thing. A free country is the result of a republic; democracy eventually ends in tyranny. It was the idea that all men (mankind) are created equally by and in the image of a benign Creator that was behind all mankind get a vote. Take out the Creator and you're just something to be manipulated by a bigger force, with no rights but a tyrant's whim.
When Ben Franklin was asked what kind of a government the Founding Fathers had given the new U. S., he said, "A republic - if you can keep it." The U. S. called itself a "republic" in a pamphlet it published on our government until 1928, when it changed the word to "democracy." God help us.
__________________
Rini is offline  
Old 03-23-2006, 05:15 PM   #19
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, many people saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was likely that Saddam had WMDs.

but only one man thought this was worth going to war over.

Uhh....

The vote to go to war was 296-133 in the House of Representatives.

The vote to go to war was 77-23 in the Senate.


The buck stops with the President, but the responsibility also lies in the Congress. Obviously more than one man thought "this was worth going to war over." If they didn't think it was worth it, they would not have voted to use military action.
__________________
ImOuttaControl is online now  
Old 03-23-2006, 05:39 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl



Uhh....

The vote to go to war was 296-133 in the House of Representatives.

The vote to go to war was 77-23 in the Senate.


The buck stops with the President, but the responsibility also lies in the Congress. Obviously more than one man thought "this was worth going to war over." If they didn't think it was worth it, they would not have voted to use military action.


eh ... we're getting into shady territory here. firstly, the idea of going to war does lie with the president, that others might have agreed with him doesn't disprove my statement, especially when Bush himself was contrasted with Clinton and Sen. Kennedy in the previous post -- and note that many other countries thought that he had WMDs, but didn't think that war was the best course of action. i would count myself as someone who thought that he had WMDs, but that war was a bad idea because i felt as if (and have been 100% vindicated) that the Bush administration, and especially Jr. himself, were uniquely unqualified and incompetent to wage a war in such a volatile region without wide global support and especially the presence of other Muslim troops on the ground (Egyptian, Pakistani, and Turkish troops would have been nice).

however, to get at the resolution passed in Congress itself, it's important to note that the vote took place in 2002, that it took place 3 weeks before midterm elections, and that Bush was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions.

we can make the argument that Bush did not live up to his end of the resolution, particularly in light of Hans Blix's presentations to the UN that showed no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-23-2006, 07:28 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, many people saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was likely that Saddam had WMDs.

but only one man thought this was worth going to war over.
That's why the vote to authorize force was passed by one man.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-23-2006, 08:29 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Thanks for the post, Dread. I'm re-thinking my position on the invasion. I'm less critical of the invasion than I am of the post-war planning. It's the post-war planning, or lack thereof, that really has had me pissed off the whole time.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-23-2006, 11:54 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Ah, perpetual war on a preemptive basis. That so called info is bull, dread's full article post shows the truth behind it.

So Rini, do you agree with Richard Clarke and Paul O' Neill assertions that Bush wanted to attack Iraq since the first day of his presidency? Just wondering since you are so quick to believe this Sada fellow.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 03-24-2006, 11:49 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


That's why the vote to authorize force was passed by one man.

Apparently that can effectively happen when a deliberative body abdicates their independent evaluation of a situation.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2006, 12:51 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



Apparently that can effectively happen when a deliberative body abdicates their independent evaluation of a situation.
I agree with this, Congress basically rubber-stamped the Bushies. To hell with partisanship. Partisanship can be very bad at times. Since the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, maybe this was one of those times. I *still* have some problems with the basic idea of a pre-emptive strike, however. That bothered me. Color me confused.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-24-2006, 01:02 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


That's why the vote to authorize force was passed by one man.


see the above post. ultimately, Congress authorized what one man said he needed to do to "defend" the US. Congress didn't come up with the idea of going to war, that credit lies with the Bush administration, and ultimately with President Man-Child himself.

what we CANNOT say is that "all nations saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion." that is not true. everyone saw the same evidence, and came to the same conjecture, but the conclusion to go to war -- particularly on a timetable most favorable to the American election cycle -- rests on the shoulders of Bush.

and if we're talking about the UN, see the 1441 explanation.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-24-2006, 01:12 PM   #27
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


I agree with this, Congress basically rubber-stamped the Bushies. To hell with partisanship. Partisanship can be very bad at times. Since the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, maybe this was one of those times. I *still* have some problems with the basic idea of a pre-emptive strike, however. That bothered me. Color me confused.
That was also taking place during a time when any dissenters were labelled "unpatriotic."
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 03-24-2006, 03:31 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk


That was also taking place during a time when any dissenters were labelled "unpatriotic."
Tell me about it. I heard that when I went to a protest demonstration here in Birmingham. I mean, hell, with that logic, some nuns were unpatriotic because Benedictines For Peace were participating in the demonstration.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-24-2006, 03:39 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk


That was also taking place during a time when any dissenters were labelled "unpatriotic."
I guess they were just victims of the times.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2006, 03:53 PM   #30
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I guess they were just victims of the times.
I wasn't trying to say that, exactly. Post 9/11, and in the days leading up to the war, there was an undeniable "rah-rah, let's get the bad guys, and support our government" mentality going on down there, whereby both private citizens and public service members of society who were critical of this were dismissed at best, and scorned at worst.

Drat my poor memory, but wasn't there a document pertaining to the existance (or lack thereof) of WMD at the time in which several pieces of crucial information were left out, where, if the opposition had had that information, the vote to go to war either would have been much closer, or not passed at all?
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com