Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wingnuts Praying for Obama's Death
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 124 (549538)
03-08-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Soapbox
You are explicitly claiming that "the truth lies somewhere in between," but you are not at all providing any reason why this is so.
Because it's so broad of a topic! We'd first have to analyze every reason why he is bad and then come to a consensus on what was good.
I never expected it to become this involved and this detailed. I just said that usually there is a little bit of truth and embellishment in everything. The topic of George Bush is no exception, as I will now detail.
Dronester is content on saying things like he's a war criminal who targets civilians. Bush is a lot of things -- inept, agenda-driven, panders to the Left and Right, fucking retarded, yada, yada, yada. I am NOT here to defend Bush. There is no middle ground there. What I took exception to is half of the exaggerated claims about Bush made by Dronester.
Take for instance the claim that Iraq is all about oil. According to the Department of Energy, Canada and Mexico is the largest supplier of US oil. Iraqi oil is barely even perceptible in relation.
Attached to the oft-repeated misnomer is 9/11 being the pretext for war with Iraq. While there is little doubt that the US capitalized on the timing of 9/11 with millions of Americans swept up in a patriotic fervor, there is no reason to assume that the weapons of mass destruction debacle was a fabrication on the part of the Bush Admin.
Even anecdote alone makes it an absurd claim for the sole fact that what were they going to do when everyone asked about the WMD's??? What, they didn't anticipate that? Yeah right. And if the administration was so fond of lying and manipulating truth, why couldn't have they simply planted WMD's and saved face? If they are as evil as Dronester makes them out, the Middle East would have been reduced to fields of glass (sand + heat in the form of indiscriminate carpet bombing as opposed to precision air strikes) and they would have simply planted WMD's and said, "Aha! See? We told you so."
But that didn't happen because that's not the way it really was. The reality is that a combination of effects were at work here.
1. Bad intelligence on the part of the US and UK intelligence agencies.
2. Saddam intentionally feigned having WMD's to keep his image of power.
3. Saddam intentionally feigned having WMD's to keep the US, Israel, and Iran in check.
Watch the entirety of the 2 pieces, if for no other reason, they're very interesting.
The 2nd clip goes in to Saddam's confession on his strategy for WMD's. BUT, as the 2nd tape goes on, Saddam himself and his interrogator's dispelled the false notion that Al Qaeda and Iraq were ever in cahoots with one another, something I never believed either for the sole fact that Saddam was never really a Muslim. He put on shows for the camera, but a man like that is too much of a megalomaniac to give away power to anyone other than himself. He and bin Laden were at odds.
This is the kind of mixture of truth and falsehoods that I'm referring to, which you insist is mindless middle. Like I said, there is usually truth and falsehood mixed in with any claims of that magnitude.
You're simply making a completely unsupported judgment that the most accurate position is a compromise of the two perceived sides.
Well, now they're supported, and I still don't have choose allegiences other than whatever the truth is.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Fixed bad link

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by dronestar, posted 03-08-2010 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 108 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 107 of 124 (549542)
03-08-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
03-08-2010 4:00 PM


Re: Soapbox
We'd first have to analyze every reason why he/Bush Jr. is bad
Well, duh, this IS a debate forum. Please proceed with the analyzing.
What I took exception to is half of the exaggerated claims about Bush made by Dronester.
Assertion from your arse #1?
Which half did you take exception? My original message in this thread had 35 claims (see below), plus additional facts about the man. Half? Where are your 17.5+ counterclaims?
Take for instance the claim that Iraq is all about oil.
Assertion from your arse #2?
The invasion of Iraq WAS/IS about oil. True, but that wasn't one of my claims (see below). Why are you making things up when I already gave you 35 items to choose from?
Really Hyro, I can't go on "debating" with you. I feel guilty, like I am beating up some small child who is mentally handicapped:
Well, now they're supported, and I still don't have choose allegiences other than whatever the truth is.
Is this some kind of English?
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2010 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2010 8:28 PM dronestar has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 108 of 124 (549545)
03-08-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
03-08-2010 4:00 PM


Re: Soapbox
quote:
You are explicitly claiming that "the truth lies somewhere in between," but you are not at all providing any reason why this is so.
Because it's so broad of a topic! We'd first have to analyze every reason why he is bad and then come to a consensus on what was good.
Indeed. On many topics we can establish very clearly which "side" is more accurate than others. On other subjects, we cannot make a simplstic assessment of "good" or "bad" or the degrees of such simply because life is often too complex for soundbyte-sized statements.
But in any case, that analysis is necessary, regardles sof complexity, or else any statement is vacuous, with no support.
I never expected it to become this involved and this detailed. I just said that usually there is a little bit of truth and embellishment in everything.
Not always so. This is the thought process that leads to the Mindless Middle. "Moderation in everything" is not always the best advice. Again, sometimes one side is simply wrong.
The topic of George Bush is no exception, as I will now detail.
Dronester is content on saying things like he's a war criminal who targets civilians. Bush is a lot of things -- inept, agenda-driven, panders to the Left and Right, fucking retarded, yada, yada, yada. I am NOT here to defend Bush. There is no middle ground there. What I took exception to is half of the exaggerated claims about Bush made by Dronester.
Take for instance the claim that Iraq is all about oil. According to the Department of Energy, Canada and Mexico is the largest supplier of US oil. Iraqi oil is barely even perceptible in relation.
More to the point, if Bush had invaded for oil, one would expect that US contractors or at least their international subsidiaries would have received the Iraqi contracts for repairing, mainaining and operating their oil fields,a nd that oil proceeds would be used to pay for the war effort.
In reality, the opposite happened. While energy concerns do contribute in large part to the US interest in teh Middle East, there is as ever more to it than that.
Attached to the oft-repeated misnomer is 9/11 being the pretext for war with Iraq. While there is little doubt that the US capitalized on the timing of 9/11 with millions of Americans swept up in a patriotic fervor, there is no reason to assume that the weapons of mass destruction debacle was a fabrication on the part of the Bush Admin.
It's not an assumption, but neither is it entirely true:
quote:
By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take but months to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.
From Wiki.
The fact that the UN-appointed weapons inspections team had found no evidence of WMDs coupled with the fact that US "intelligence" regarding the actual presence of WMDs turned out to be bunk of the worst sort suggests two conclusions: either the Bush administration was grossly incompetent and shouldn;t be allowed to collectively decide what to have for lunch let alone guide national policy, or they specifically and purposefully overlooked any evidence contrary to their pre-established opinions of Iraq, and in effect lied to the American public.
The fact that multiple employees of the Bush administration have come forward and criticized Bush, Ceney, and their appointees for their refusal to listen to anything outside of their own doctrine and policy suggests the truth is, ironically for our discussion, a bit of both.
Even anecdote alone makes it an absurd claim for the sole fact that what were they going to do when everyone asked about the WMD's??? What, they didn't anticipate that? Yeah right. And if the administration was so fond of lying and manipulating truth, why couldn't have they simply planted WMD's and saved face? If they are as evil as Dronester makes them out, the Middle East would have been reduced to fields of glass (sand + heat in the form of indiscriminate carpet bombing as opposed to precision air strikes) and they would have simply planted WMD's and said, "Aha! See? We told you so."
But that didn't happen because that's not the way it really was. The reality is that a combination of effects were at work here.
1. Bad intelligence on the part of the US and UK intelligence agencies.
2. Saddam intentionally feigned having WMD's to keep his image of power.
3. Saddam intentionally feigned having WMD's to keep the US, Israel, and Iran in check.
Particularly Iran, in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war. Israel likes to rattle sabers, but they usually restrict strikes to individual airstrikes as opposed to outright invasion, and Israeli nuclear capabilities are the giant "secret" elephant in teh room - they would lose their plausable deniability and eliminate even US support with a nuclear strike. Iran had at least actually been at war with Iraq. As ever, hindsight is 20-20.
Watch the entirety of the 2 pieces, if for no other reason, they're very interesting.
I'll do that.
The 2nd clip goes in to Saddam's confession on his strategy for WMD's. BUT, as the 2nd tape goes on, Saddam himself and his interrogator's dispelled the false notion that Al Qaeda and Iraq were ever in cahoots with one another, something I never believed either for the sole fact that Saddam was never really a Muslim. He put on shows for the camera, but a man like that is too much of a megalomaniac to give away power to anyone other than himself. He and bin Laden were at odds.
Quite aside from that, Saddam's Baath party was very secular. Even on ideological grounds, he and al Qaeda wouldn't have gotten along beyond the "America is a bunch of dicks" part. I'm sure Saddam smiled on 9/11, but I seriously doubt he would have given any form of aid to bin Laden even if it was impossible to trace. The enemy of my enemy...might be my enemy tomorrow.
This is the kind of mixture of truth and falsehoods that I'm referring to, which you insist is mindless middle. Like I said, there is usually truth and falsehood mixed in with any claims of that magnitude.
Not at all, Hyro. You misunderstand.
An assertion that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" without any analysis of fact to support such an assertion is the Mindless Middle.
Sometimes, reality really is somewhere between two extremes. But it's not the Mindless Middle if that conclusion is supported by an analysis of fact. I got on your case only because you made unsupported assertions. Now that you've made an attempt to support them, in this case we agree.
quote:
You're simply making a completely unsupported judgment that the most accurate position is a compromise of the two perceived sides.
Well, now they're supported, and I still don't have choose allegiences other than whatever the truth is
Ah, but you have: you've taken the side of objectivity, which tells dronester and Bush supporters alike that their assertions are not based on objective fact, but are rather colored by their own personal bias.
It's a rather good side to be on. You'll note that I haven't accused you of the Mindless Middle at all in this post - because rather than just saying "you're just as wrong as they are" or "the truth is somewhere in the middle," you've now supported your statements.
Personally, I wouldn't say that the truth lies "in the middle" of Bush being a good vs. bad President. I'd say "it's difficult to really make a simplistic statement on such a compelx issue. But on Bush's major policy decisions, particularly with regard to the Iraq war, I can say that regardless of anything else, America is in a weaker position today (diplomatically, economically, militarily, and morally) than it would have been had we left Saddam alone, and the entire region is now significantly less stable. In effect hundreds of thousands are dead and billions of dollars were spent for little or no gain. On that issue, I'd say the most significant highlight of the Bush presidency was resoundingly negative, and certainly inthe realm of public opinion has overshadowed any positive decisions his administration may have made (such as the invasion of Afghanistan)."
At the risk of Godwin's law, this is like asking whether Hitler was "good" or "bad." I don't think anyone would ever really argue that Hitler was "good," but he did do some good things - like the construction of the Autobahn. The German Blitzkrieg and use of air power also revolutionized modern warfare. But while there were "good" things, I still wouldn't say that the "truth" lies anywhere in the middle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2010 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by dronestar, posted 03-09-2010 10:45 AM Rahvin has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 124 (549571)
03-08-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by dronestar
03-08-2010 4:47 PM


Re: Soapbox
This is way off topic. Expect it to get shut down.
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Substantiate your assertion. I can't give positive evidence of something that didn't happen. I can only agree with your information or refute it.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Agreed.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
No, as I pointed out Saddam did everything he could to feign as if he had such weapons. A combination of bad intelligence, a disinformation campaign on the part of the Iraqi Defense Forces, and Saddam's inability for 10 years to cooperate with weapons investigator's.
Even before George Bush was ever the president, bi-partisan efforts were long on the table about Iraq were discussed. This is not a concoction of GWB's Administration. So as you can see from the video, this couldn't possibly have been George Bush's doing.
The very people who voted to go to war with Iraq then lied about their own involvement and turned it all around on Bush because it was such a selling point in the 2004 and 2008 elections.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
I already debunked that myth.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
I don't even know what that means. You're going to have to explain and substantiate this claim.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
You're going to have to be specific on what provision(s) was/were violated.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
George Bush went on international television and publicly declared it. I remember watching it.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
In its existence numerous resolutions had passed against Iraq, of which they repeatedly failed to comply with.
The UN cannot endorse war as they only exist to mediate between nations under international law. The UN did not protest but rather took their inspectors out of Iraq for the impending invasion.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
True. A vote was taken to give appropriations for new body armor for the Government Accountability Office to purchase and dispense body armor. Certain Dems and Reps both voted for and against, Bush voted no to hurry up his war effort.
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
I'm not familiar with this argument. Can you please explain it?
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
He didn't explicitly state that he wanted permanent bases, but it was implied in a memorandum.
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Please substantiate this claim.
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries
Secret task force? Please substantiate this claim.
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
This is a mishmash of blame from people in the Bush Admin and Democrats in Congress. (Like I said, truth and faleshood)
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
True
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Absolutely true.
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Truly true
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Correct
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Yes, again
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Not familiar with this allegation. Please clue me in.
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
The goal is to see the Iranian government overthrown, which everyone in Congress agrees with. I don't see any misleading. You're going to have to substantiate that they are fearmongering.
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
I don't know what "secret laws" you are referring to. Specific Executive Orders?
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Where, when and which branch of military?
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
True
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
True
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
?
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
True
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Not true. The Supreme Court declared it in favor if Bush.
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Again, not true as per the evidence rendered by the highest court in the land.
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
True
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Not true New Orleans was repeatedly warned of the levies and Bush did everything in his power to send all the resources possible to N.O.
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Not true, in several State of the Union addresses he specifically spoke about lessening dependence on fossil fuels and energy conservation. Bush doesn't buy the Gore model of "Global Warming" which in and of itself is suspect of misleading the public with its numerous instances of hands caught in the cookie jar.
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Not true. Please substantiate.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Cheney and Bush refused to testify under oath, but so did Gore and Clinton.
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
What??? Explain

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by dronestar, posted 03-08-2010 4:47 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 8:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 03-09-2010 10:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 110 of 124 (549573)
03-08-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
03-08-2010 8:28 PM


Re: Soapbox
Nitpick:
quote:
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
George Bush went on international television and publicly declared it. I remember watching it.
the president cannot declare war. Only Congress can make a legal declaration of war. What a President says is irrelevant on that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2010 8:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-08-2010 9:01 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 112 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-08-2010 9:19 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-09-2010 7:35 AM Rahvin has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 111 of 124 (549577)
03-08-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 8:38 PM


Re: Soapbox
Rhavin writes:
Dronestar writes:
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
George Bush went on international television and publicly declared it. I remember watching it.
the president cannot declare war. Only Congress can make a legal declaration of war. What a President says is irrelevant on that matter
Further nitpicking on this matter, the President can commit limited amounts of military forces in conflicts short of an all-out war declaration without first consulting congress as indicated in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. However, this is limited to conflicts shorter than 60 days w/ in additional 30 day withdrawel period. The President must also inform congress within 48 hours of allocating military forces.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 8:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 112 of 124 (549580)
03-08-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 8:38 PM


Re: Soapbox
George Bush announced on TV the commencement of the invasion of Iraq on Thursday 20 March, 2003:
George Bush writes:
My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign...
This was after the fact of congress authorizing the President to commence an extended military engagement with Iraq in the Iraq Resolution passed on October 10, 2002.
However, technically this resolution is not considered a 'formal' declaration of war, of which the last one was the US Declaration of War against Germany passed on December 11, 1941. Technically all the wars since than i.e. Korean, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War, etc are considered limited military engagements (or conflicts) authorized by Congress (many times after inital deployment and engagement authorized by the President).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 8:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 124 (549609)
03-09-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 8:38 PM


Re: Soapbox
the president cannot declare war. Only Congress can make a legal declaration of war. What a President says is irrelevant on that matter.
That's very true except he did have full support of Congress. Only a handful in the Senate voted against it: 19 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent.
The issue is that it is pertaining to President Bush's proposed impeachment, so I'm only relating to him.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 8:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-09-2010 2:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 114 of 124 (549618)
03-09-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
03-08-2010 8:28 PM


Bush Jr., a bad guy
Hey Hyro,
A most pleasant surprise. You rolled up your sleeves and gave a good solid OBJECTIVE, FOCUSED reply. I almost want to nominate your last post as POTM. And a cheer goes out to Rahvin. His patient and indefatigable posts about mindless middle were nearing sainthood. Wow.
Ok, so lets tally:
Article II, you agreed
Article IX, you agreed
Article XI, you agreed
Article XV, you agreed
Article XVI, you agreed
Article XVII, you agreed
Article XVIII, you agreed
Article XIX, you agreed
Article XXIV, you agreed
Article XXV, you agreed
Article XXVII, you agreed
Article XXX, you agreed
Article XXXV, You were unable to debate
Article XXVI, You were unable to debate
Article XXII, You were unable to debate, I would have to dig to find these for you.
Article XXI, You were unable to debate, But, it is quite AGAINST the law to overthrow governments.
Article XX, You were unable to debate, Children, under age the of 18 are held in open and secret prisons as war combatants
Article XIV, You were unable to debate, Valerie Plame Wilson, political vandetta
Article XIIII, You were unable to debate
Article XII, You were unable to debate, Look up Hydro Carbon Act
Article X, You were unable to debate, Look up Pat Tillman
Article VI, You were unable to debate
Article V, You were unable to debate
Article I, Article III, Article IV. certainly true; I get so tired of repeating this:
Bush's lies were so unbelievably transparent, it's impossible to believe anyone could have been mislead: Powell knowingly told pre-invasion lies at the the special UN session. He was then openly mocked after the session. OK, once again: Four main lies told BEFORE the invasion. LIE #1. Aluminum centrifuge tubes used for radium enrichment was thoroughly debunked by experts from different departments/agencies BEFORE the invasion; LIE #2. Saddam sought Uranium in Africa; Wilson discovered this forgery/lie BEFORE the invasion; LIE #3. Al-queda - Iraqi link. They were OPPOSED/enemies to each other's philosophy. Never ever a link! None of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi; LIE #4. C. Rice told the lie "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Sigh. Nuclear weapon manufacture is a big, big, big operation. It isn't done inside a mobile closet. America has spy satelites that can nearly identify car license plates from space. Plus weapon inspectors conducted spontaneous inspections all over Iraq. There was NO possibility that Saddam was HIDING a nuclear weapon production facility. And there was no way Saddam was gonna acquire a nuclear weapon from the black market when the international community was watching. Lastly, read the mission statement for the now discredited Project for the New American Century. Bush's cabinet comprised most of these members. Since 1998 (BEFORE 9/11) they strongly pushed for an Iraqi invasion to secure Iraqi's energy resources and to exert America's lone superpower status. Look it up, their mission statement is an open fact. Indeed, most prior members like William Krystal are still proud of their involvement. Lastly, compare the edited 2002 National Intelligence report given to congress to read. It deliberately omits tentative wording and admitted speculation. The report WAS FALSIFIED.
Article VIII, certainly true; The UN NEVER passed a war/invasion resolution, which the USA furiously tried to get by intimidating and bribing other countries.
Article XXXI, certainly true; levy funds were greatly diminished despite repeated warnings.
Article XXXII, certainly true; Bush Jr. policy often overrode/fabricated/marginalized science reports
Article XXXIII, certainly true, there were numerous high level warnings. C. Rice openly lied at the investigation.
Article XXXIV, certainly true, Cheney and Bush Jr. did everything in their power to reduce/stall the investigation.
Apothecus writes And I'll be honest: he [Bush Jr.] wasn't that bad of a guy
I'll stand by the above facts and my assertion. Yes, Bush Jr. was a indeed a bad guy. A criminal who caused the deaths of a million civilians should hang.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2010 8:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 115 of 124 (549625)
03-09-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Soapbox
More to the point, if Bush had invaded for oil, one would expect that US contractors or at least their international subsidiaries would have received the Iraqi contracts for repairing, mainaining and operating their oil fields,a nd that oil proceeds would be used to pay for the war effort.
In reality, the opposite happened. While energy concerns do contribute in large part to the US interest in teh Middle East, there is as ever more to it than that.
The Bush Jr. Admin had ADDITIONALLY hoped there would be big oil payoffs, but you're right, it didn't happened (but they sure tried, they sure tried. However, the Iraqis fought successfully to ultimately control their own national energy resources. For now). However, the CONTROL of the oil was the main reason for invasion, not the profits.
1. Read the mission statement for the now discredited Project for the New American Century. Bush Jr.'s cabinet comprised most of these members. Since 1998 (BEFORE 9/11) they strongly pushed for an Iraqi invasion to secure Iraqi's energy resources and to exert America's lone superpower status.
2. Read about the Hydrocarbon act. Kucinich: Congress Endorses Blackmail of Iraq
"this war is solely about oil."
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docume...
3. When American troops illegally and immorally invaded Iraq, the troops didn't guard the hospitals, police precincts, or museums of priceless, ancient antiquities. But, what did they guard successfully? The Ministry of Oil Building.
4. . . . a central component of the Persian Gulf resources that the State Department, in 1945, described as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history", namely the region's vast reserves of crude oil. Middle Eastern oil was regarded in Washington as "probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment", in what President Eisenhower described as the most "strategically important area in the world".
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021203.htm
Yeah, the invasion was/is about the oil.
Edited by dronester, : added #4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 5:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 116 of 124 (549655)
03-09-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
03-09-2010 7:35 AM


Re: Soapbox
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
the president cannot declare war. Only Congress can make a legal declaration of war. What a President says is irrelevant on that matter.
That's very true except he did have full support of Congress. Only a handful in the Senate voted against it: 19 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent.
The issue is that it is pertaining to President Bush's proposed impeachment, so I'm only relating to him.
Matters not. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress may declare war. The president can request it, but Congress must do the actual declaration. Just because every president since Roosevelt has failed to do this, that doesn't make it right for Jr to do it too.
Impeachable offense.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-09-2010 7:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-09-2010 4:15 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 119 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-09-2010 5:11 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 121 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-09-2010 11:49 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 117 of 124 (549657)
03-09-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Apothecus
02-23-2010 10:10 PM


Clarification
Hey fellas.
Just thought, after 80+ posts following my "comment", that I'd attempt to cast some light on what I was getting at. I led in with this:
Did I hear of assassination threats to GW? Yes. Did I secretly wish they would come to fruition? Absolutely not. The threat of severe turmoil to national security, the economy, society and politics in general would be more than most reasonable people would prefer to experience.
The topic at that point was relating to religious whackos praying for Obama's death. Everyone remember that one? I was replying to a post by Hyro in which he asked Hooah if he'd have made such a fuss if it involved a president he didn't like. I then ended the paragraph with:
I'll be honest: he wasn't that bad of a guy; just sort of an idjit.
Apparently this remark (admittedly flippant) has caused a bit of a stir and has derailed this thread to the point of non-recognition. I'm surprised it's been allowed to go so long. But what I'd like to explain is that, when you take the above quotes as one statement, can you all at least try to accept that the reason for "not that bad of a guy" was mostly a function of that I didn't (and still don't) think he was the calibur of president who deserved to be assassinated?
See that?
Sorry. I should have been clearer than that. As I've stated before, it was meant lightheartedly, and some took it differently. But what I actually stated was very different from how some of you took it, and that, I feel was not my fault.
Again, sorry for this derailment, but hope everyone had a good time venting.
Edited by Apothecus, : syntax
Edited by Apothecus, : No reason given.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Apothecus, posted 02-23-2010 10:10 PM Apothecus has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 124 (549662)
03-09-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ZenMonkey
03-09-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Soapbox
The president can request it, but Congress must do the actual declaration. Just because every president since Roosevelt has failed to do this, that doesn't make it right for Jr to do it too.
Impeachable offense.
Well, the impeachment process has historically been a joke. The honorable thing to do when you've been naughty is step down. Apparently if you get fellatio in the Oral (Oval) Office and then perjure yourself in a sworn deposition and under oath, nothing will happen to you.
That the two previous presidents weren't impeached was surprising then. Now I think a triple homicide in the White House is the only way the charges might actually stick.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-09-2010 2:01 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by subbie, posted 03-09-2010 5:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 119 of 124 (549670)
03-09-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ZenMonkey
03-09-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Soapbox
Matters not. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress may declare war. The president can request it, but Congress must do the actual declaration. Just because every president since Roosevelt has failed to do this, that doesn't make it right for Jr to do it too.
As I stated above in Message 112. Congress approved the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107 - 243) which authorized the use of military force against Iraq.
Whether it is justifiable is up for interpretation but the POTUS did get congressional approval for the Iraqi War, whether you like it or not. Personally, and off the record, I do not agree with the justifications for the Iraqi War and thought it to be a piss poor strategic and tactical move after 9/11.
However, you would have a very hard time using his announcement of the commencement of the Iraq War on TV in March 2003 after congressional approval as grounds for impeachment.
Also, the POTUS does have the ability to quickly mobalize the military in limited military operations (less than 60 days occupation) as needed and back fill congress as authorized by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. However, yes, only Congress can authorize a full out war.
Past POTUS have walked the fine line of either intentionally or unintentionally misinterepreting legislation by Congress which approved limited military operations but was short of true "Declerations of War"; to illegitimately utilize the US military to fight what by all common sense should really be considered WARS requiring "Declarations of War" i.e. Korean, Vietnam, Iraq etc. This is really a judicial grey area between the branches of US Government which has yet to be fully clarified.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-09-2010 2:01 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 120 of 124 (549671)
03-09-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
03-09-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Soapbox
That the two previous presidents weren't impeached was surprising then.
Just picking a nit here. Clinton was impeached. He wasn't removed.
Carry on.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-09-2010 4:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024