| Advertise Here » Browse ad-free by donating | |
|
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools |
Feb 20, 2004, 11:57 pm
| #1 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Some of the reasons put forth by Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski on the War in Iraq are quite damning for Cheney and Powell... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|  |
|
Feb 21, 2004, 12:50 am
| #2 (permalink) (top) |
| Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130 | I'm not sure how damning it really is, the assertion has already been put forth by others who used to be in the administration that Bush wanted war with Iraq from the begining, pre-9/11. The press covered that issue and let it drop quickly so I doubt that this woman's revelation will be in the news anytime soon... Of course, I think it is an issue people really should think about very carefully. It does reveal a lot about the proposed reasons given for the war when one also considers that 2 of the 3 major reasons given thus far have been proven to be without merit. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin |
|
| |
|
Feb 21, 2004, 01:05 am
| #3 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | I never said she'd take the wind out of Cheney's sails, I just said that she's got some pretty nasty words for the situation at hand - words I myself haven't heard, for pretty much the same reason you brought forward. And, of course, the third is "Saddam's an evil man," which just goes to memorialize FDR's "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" kind of thinking... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Feb 21, 2004, 07:07 am
| #4 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Posts: 240 | </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That has been supeseded by "Congress shall have Power to suppress Insurrections," Article I, Section 8, United States constitution. --Jackney Sneeb |
|
| |
|
Feb 21, 2004, 10:26 am
| #5 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | Off-topic, Libertarian. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
|
Feb 21, 2004, 11:41 am
| #7 (permalink) (top) |
| Molten Ash Posts: 106 | Paul O'Neill was the ex-treasury sec. who made the assertion that Bush was talking about invading Iraq before 9/11. He later recanted his statement. However, it has been reported that in most presidencies, the cabinet members and staff get together routinely and discuss potential trouble spots around the world and discuss different scenarios of what might or could happen and how they might or could deal with it. I understand that to mean that discussing a war with Iraq before 9/11, wasn't any different than any other discussion. It didn't mean that Iraq was necessarily in Bush's sights prior to 9/11, just that Iraq was on the table for discussion the same as North Korea, Iran and any other place where trouble could be expected. |
|
| |
|
Feb 22, 2004, 11:21 am
| #8 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739 | You obviously didn't read the article. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |
|
| |
