stand firm
remove the timetables
I'm just against the war, against all wars, and against any aggression from our military. I don't really think I can say I support the troops, since I think those people shouldn't be troops any more, except for a very small number of National Guardsmen. I DEFINITELY think the Guardsmen who are in Iraq shouldn't have to be Guardsmen any more.
Is that part of the Democratic policy? Eliminate the military entirely, except for defensive uses?
"Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?"
"Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth.
Knowledge is my candy."
Because it was an "illegal war based on lies with no plan for "after the war."Quote by: bishop
It also helps that such a victory would enable the democrats to further an agenda which IMHO you agree based on your wittings here, despite your proclamations otherwise.
Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?
more of the usual hollow baiting, eh? color me surprised....
the war was illegal because a) congress never declared war under constitutional protocols b) it was not authorized by unsc resolution 1441 and c) it violated the u.n. threaty (which IS u.s. domestic law of the land) stating that one state cannot attack another unless in self-defense of an aggressive attack or imminent threat of attack.
and as far as planning for after the war goes, it's public knowledge that the administration had no plan - and at still has no plan. study after study, and even post-administration officials show that there was no true plan - unless you believe that wolfowitz's and cheney's fantasies of flowers and candy constituted plans, which wouldn't surprise me. if you can show us your president's post-invasion plan, prior to the invasion, please share...
regardless, i do not support this war and haven't for several years - starting from the realization that the wmd babble was nothing more than b.s., which grew when i realized just how incompetent this administration truly was... ending what has been the worst decision any president in history has made (arguably worse than vietnam) is a goal infinately higher than seeing the advancement of any political party's agenda. i.e., i could care less which party is pushing for an end to the war, because all i want is an end to the war.
I'm not baiting, I'm calling it as I see it. Despite all your protests otherwise, your agenda most matches the Democrat Agenda, you asked and I responded.
a)
Okay Congress never declared war... the war lasted less then 45 days, no need for declaration, so your point is moot.
b)
Here you are ignoring the UN to use the UN! Fascinating. Go back to 1991, the first war. Go read the terms of the Cease Fire. Yeah, we had every right under US and UN law to go back in and topple Saddam. You people don't like to bring that up...
c)
Again with the UN! Sadly again for you, this was trumped regardless, see the above answer b).
Bishop, so you accept and believe that the USA should look to the UN for it's protection?
Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?
I'm a conservative, and have been saying for a long time that this war will not be over for a very long time. I no longer know who wants us in Iraq and who doesn't.
There is no real way for me to know if the Iraqi citizens want us there or not. I do not trust the sensationalist media on polling. The government has not asked us to leave.
Therefore, I think because the Iraqi's are not providing any sense of this war, that an end is possible without setting exact dates.
I think several progressive benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet should be made.
Withdraw dates are not good to publicize. I know the Pentagon has a contingency plan for evacuating our troops, I don't need a set date to force anyone on our side to act. We are ready.
-Chris
"I guess we are the people our parents warned us about."
the war lasted less than 45 days??? on what planet did this fantasy war take place?
pretending to understand legal matters, which is presumably based off of some pundit's "analysis"..
1441 stated that the unsc:
that means that the security council is the decider in all future steps, including decisions regarding the use of force. despite what warmongers like to think, nobody granted us with the sole authority to decide how to implement unsc resolutions - and the unsc never absolved itself of that duty/power.
and, again to repeat... we were neither attacked by iraq, nor faced imminent attack - two clauses that would've permitted bush to legally attack iraq.
if you haven't read the constitution, this is what it says..
i.e. the u.n. charter is u.s. law, period. our ratification of the treaty is legally binding, although people in this country prefer to not be held accountable.
are you aware that the iraqi parliment is considering a 2-month long vacation? (in the meantime, our pawn soldiers would continue to fight and die for iraq.) fighting for foreigners who don't want to fight for themselves is one of the most unpatriotic things i believe i've ever heard.
Iraqi parliament's vacation plans infuriate lawmakers
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers divided over whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.
“If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages,” said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The Iraq parliament’s recess, starting this July, would likely come without Baghdad politicians reaching agreements considered key to easing sectarian tensions.
Examples include regulating distribution of the country’s oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.
Iraqi politicians said Thursday the break might not happen or may be less than two months, but said it should be of no concern to U.S. lawmakers.
bishop, the WAR was with the Iraqi Government. It's been toppled. Sorry but war over. We are fighting now to instill stability to the region after taking out the Saddam Government. War is fought between countries, we are fighting no country, thus, war over.
Amazing how that works isn't it?
And you believe the UN has a right, nay the RIGHT to say when America goes to war, hmmm... that's not a conservative view....
So what this boils down to is, you believe that the USA violated the UN's power over America, and you are claiming that the UN now has all right to say when America goes to war... that's something I'd expect....
From a Democrat.
Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?
Well considering they have only had enough people to meet quorum call about 2 times since their inception...no that doesn't' surprise me.
I don't think we can really expect politicians to put their lives on the line everyday to make it all the way to Baghdad.
Our congressmen don't even come to Washington when it rains
-Chris
"I guess we are the people our parents warned us about."
only in the twilight zone.
as for the rest.. i gave you a substantive rebuttal, citing hard laws, and you give me this hollow reply. and after choosing to ignore the cited laws as being mere opinion, you conclude your reply with the same asinine baiting calling me a democrat..
i'd like to think that intelligent debate could be possible, but i'm losing faith. if you can't even respond to the points i make, why do you respond at all?
Yea, war over, time to pull out the troops. This must obviously be a police action, which we learned our lesson about in Vietnam, right Vic?Vic said:
bishop, the WAR was with the Iraqi Government. It's been toppled. Sorry but war over. We are fighting now to instill stability to the region after taking out the Saddam Government. War is fought between countries, we are fighting no country, thus, war over.
Amazing how that works isn't it?
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Its a view I don't agree with, but the CONGRESS has that right and its enumerated in the Constitution, whereas emergency war powers are not.Vic said:
And you believe the UN has a right, nay the RIGHT to say when America goes to war, hmmm... that's not a conservative view....
Well how about the view that the Congress has the authority to make war, and end war?Vic said:
So what this boils down to is, you believe that the USA violated the UN's power over America, and you are claiming that the UN now has all right to say when America goes to war... that's something I'd expect....
From a Democrat
What label of view is that, other than Constitutionally approved and sanctioned?
Come on Vic.... reaching.
Petition of Redress of Grievances:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm
Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks:
http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/
Osborn F. Enready
If the "will of the people" is "out of Iraq now", then why not take definitive action to ensure that happens?
If the "war is lost", why not make the withdrawal immediate?
Who are you asking, me, or the deaf ears of an ignorant, incompetent president?
Petition of Redress of Grievances:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm
Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks:
http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/
Osborn F. Enready
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks