In fact, in the case of Iraq, he [Obama] voted against the AUMF.
Errr, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but Obama wasn't in office yet to vote on the AUMF. There are some thoughts from Obama that he MIGHT have voted for the AUMF:
quote:In July of `04, Barack Obama, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of `04. And this: "I think" there's "some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war."
and:
quote:SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made... when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.
My "badgering" of Jar is because he writes ridiculous things like the following (Yeah, yeah, I should just ignore him):
Jar writes:
The German invasion of Poland may not have been legal and whether or not it was moral depended on your point of view.
Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
CS writes:
I don't think I've ever "supported" Obama...
Yes, I am aware you vote republican. Since you have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about the Bush Jr. Administration, I guess you have a clear conscience.
CS writes:
Your extremely hyperbolic spin-conspiracies are so far off that I just have to go with reality being the opposite by default.
I remain morally outraged at the use of drone attacks as counter-terrorism tools, though no longer because of arguments of sovereignty (as the Afghani and Pakistani governments have apparently authorized their use
Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
quote:March 12, 2012 Pakistan Ends Drone Strikes in Blow to U.S. War on Terror Pakistan’s sovereignty over its airspace and the civilian casualties that have resulted from drone strikes are emotional issues in Pakistan, where public opinion heavily favors terminating drone missions, Pakistani officials say
The [Obama] administration authorized 53 drone attacks in 2009 and 117 in 2010, compared with 35 in 2008 under former President George W. Bush
Because terrorists live where it's not illegal to be terrorists!
This is just a dumb statement. Maybe the following two examples will highlight his hypocrisy and small-mindedness.
quote:The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[3]
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."
The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]
quote:On the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis, Cuba protested a machine-gun attack against a Spanish-Cuban tourist hotel; responsibility was claimed by a group in Miami. Bombings in Cuba in 1997, which killed an Italian tourist, were traced back to Miami. The perpetrators were Salvadoran criminals operating under the direction of Luis Posada Carriles and financed in Miami. One of the most notorious international terrorists, Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison, where he had been held for the Cubana airliner bombing, with the aid of Jorge Mas Canosa, a Miami businessman who was the head of the tax-exempt Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). Posada went from Venezuela to El Salvador, where he was put to work at the Ilopango military air base to help organize US terrorist attacks against Nicaragua under Oliver North's direction. Posada has described in detail his terrorist activities and the funding for them from exiles and CANF in Miami, but felt secure that he would not be investigated by the FBI. He was a Bay of Pigs veteran, and his subsequent operations in the 1960s were directed by the CIA. When he later joined Venezuelan intelligence with CIA help, he was able to arrange for Orlando Bosch, an associate from his CIA days who had been convicted in the US for a bomb attack on a Cuba-bound freighter, to join him in Venezuela to organize further attacks against Cuba. An ex-CIA official familiar with the Cubana bombing identifies Posada and Bosch as the only suspects in the bombing, which Bosch defended as "a legitimate act of war." Generally considered the "mastermind" of the airline bombing, Bosch was responsible for thirty other acts of terrorism, according to the FBI. He was granted a presidential pardon in 1989 by the incoming Bush I administration after intense lobbying by Jeb Bush and South Florida Cuban-American leaders, overruling the Justice Department, which had found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch [because] the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists."
(Also, you didn't come out looking very well, or very honest, after I demonstrated the five different instances where you said something you later claimed not to have ever said.)
Wow, talk about song of the desperate! Because you don't have any adequate reply, you reach back into ancient history about your willfull misinterpretation about my Iraqi "embassy" item? (I recall, ALL others refuted your fanciful interpretation, and not ONE person sided with you) Just wow.
Song. Of. The. Desperate!
Rahvin writes:
Do you have the right to just keep going [raping] because you want to, and her rights to her own body don't matter?
Crash writes:
I find these rape analogies stupid and insensitive, frankly. I'm not going to respond further to them.
Yes, because you, Crashfrog, finds something STUPID and INSENSITVE, are not going to respond further.
Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:
I'm struggling to see the relevance of what you posted to the discussion.
Yes, I already noted you struggle with a great many of things.
Crash writes:
Yes, that's exactly right, since it's only my own responses which I am in control of, and only my own feelings which I can feel. Who else has to find it stupid and insensitive before I'm allowed to ignore it? Whose permission do I need, Dronester?
Crash writes:
Again, the reason that I'm convincing and you are not is that the things you say are so goddamned stupid, and the things I say are informed by reason and fact.
Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Perd writes:
You are very vocal in hating what the Obama administration is doing and has done in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please re-read this thread and the original Obama thread for details.
I hate that SENATOR Obama and president Obama (who swore an oath to protect the constitution and its laws) protects Bush Jr from criminal investigation (I have repeatedly wrote about how PRESIDENT Obama intervened in Spain on Bush's account. It doesn't seem to bother any one else).
Perd writes:
I also wonder what you would have done differently had you been elected at the time Obama was, inheriting the two wars.
No, Obama did not inherit the wars. SENATOR Obama helped create the wars by funding EVERY war vote (the Vietnam war ended simply because congress stopped funding it). And, as a SENATOR, not supporting the articles of impeachment against Bush Jr.
Perd writes:
And I wonder what you would do now, that would protect America,
In effect, you are offering me the steering wheel AFTER the car has left the cliff. (I suppose I can now at least take my foot off the gas pedal.) Outside of america, the US has no credibility and are seen as immoral and illegal invaders. The UN is not perfect, but it is a better choice. The quicker the changeover the better.
Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:
Well, not everybody can have Dennis Kucinich's distinguished record of... hrm, what, exactly? Belief in UFO's, opposition to reproductive freedom, and a cowardly withdrawal from the Senate?
Don't forget the hot wife. (Meooow!)
Your other piffle (apparently embraced by others on this forum) has been addressED repeatedly.
Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Omni writes:
But to respond to armed aggression with anything other than our full, effective might is foolishly counterproductive, and, ultimately, does not serve peace.
Iraq didn't attack the US. Terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia and based in Saudi Arabia attacked the US. And the country of Afghanistan did not attack us. Now, I understand you didn't say Iraq DID attack the US, but you could be explicit and indicate that is WAS immoral and illegal for america to attack Iraq.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
