Will there be a regime change in 2008? - Page 13 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #121 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-13-2006, 02:53 PM
BenzWorld Veteran
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1982 300SD
Location: Bel AIr, MD
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Jim,
Your whole argument seems to start with " Bush lied". You have a piece of truth--no WMD were found in Iraq--I will grant that point. But you can't say that there never were any, as almost everyone, including the previous administration maintain that, at some point, there were WMDs. What became of them? I do not know, but can you afford to ignore the possibility?
From that fact you proceed to a series of half truths. You postulate that since no WMDs were found that Bush lied and there never were any. You take one phrase from the Senate;s (?) report about no direct link between Iraq and Al Quaida, adn twist that into, " NO linkage between Iraq and Al Quiada. There were links; Saddam was really training terrorists.
I know these all seem like clear, logical steps to you, but in fact they lead you to unsubstantiated conclusions. Time will tell.
I am not comfortable with any administration's infringing on rights. In fact, one phrase I have recently heard in the debate, is one of "granted Rights. The Rights that we, as Americans enjoy, were not granted by the government. Our Rights are unalienable. The Bill of Rights recognizes those Rights, but did not grant them. The problem I see is that if it becomes accepted that these Rights are granted, then they may be ungranted.
Like I said before, if Bush moves to halt future elections and have himself a[ppointed as Chancellro ( ah President) for life, then I will join you. Until then, I believe that that this rhetoric is simply aimed at crass political ends--the return of the dems to national power. The dems do not have any credibility in promoting restraint of the federal government. I do not trust them. Maybe, if they repudiate the cuurent, has-beens, leading their party, I will give them another look, but any party with Ted Kennedy as its spokesman is not to be taken seriously.
MS Fowler is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-13-2006, 09:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Shane - 2/13/2006 11:27 AM

Should we trust ANY politician with these kind of temporary powers when we are facing a war unlike any that came before? The shoe just doesn't seem to be the same shape as the foot, hence the distrust.
Rule #1. Never trust any politician.

Rule #2. Be fair and objective.

Rule #3. Resolve the inherent conflict between #1 and #2.

Rule #4. Regardless of Rules #1 - #4, every 4 years there will be a chance to boot the bastards out. Exercise it.

Botnst is offline  
post #123 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 04:11 AM
BenzWorld Veteran
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1982 300SD
Location: Bel AIr, MD
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Shane - 2/13/2006 11:27 AM

Should we trust ANY politician with these kind of temporary powers when we are facing a war unlike any that came before? The shoe just doesn't seem to be the same shape as the foot, hence the distrust.
Shane, I don't follow you exactly.
This "war against terror" is precisely the type of war that requires the extrordinary powers.
But then I agree with : Should we trust ANY politician..."
The short answer is "NO!". The more elaborate answer is , " HELL NO!"

Maybe its time for the old RR strategy, od "trust, but verify"
I trust the President, but I would be more comfortable with some verification.
That applies to any president, rep,dem or libertarian.
MS Fowler is offline  
post #124 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 05:37 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
MS Fowler - 2/14/2006 6:11 AM

Quote:
Shane - 2/13/2006 11:27 AM

Should we trust ANY politician with these kind of temporary powers when we are facing a war unlike any that came before? The shoe just doesn't seem to be the same shape as the foot, hence the distrust.
Shane, I don't follow you exactly.
This "war against terror" is precisely the type of war that requires the extrordinary powers.
But then I agree with : Should we trust ANY politician..."
The short answer is "NO!". The more elaborate answer is , " HELL NO!"

Maybe its time for the old RR strategy, od "trust, but verify"
I trust the President, but I would be more comfortable with some verification.
That applies to any president, rep,dem or libertarian.
Like he said.
Botnst is offline  
post #125 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 05:42 AM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

How can you tell a politicians is lying? His lips are moving.
430 is offline  
post #126 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 10:15 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
MS Fowler - 2/13/2006 4:53 PM

Jim,
Your whole argument seems to start with " Bush lied". You have a piece of truth--no WMD were found in Iraq--I will grant that point. But you can't say that there never were any, as almost everyone, including the previous administration maintain that, at some point, there were WMDs. What became of them? I do not know, but can you afford to ignore the possibility?
From that fact you proceed to a series of half truths. You postulate that since no WMDs were found that Bush lied and there never were any. You take one phrase from the Senate;s (?) report about no direct link between Iraq and Al Quaida, adn twist that into, " NO linkage between Iraq and Al Quiada. There were links; Saddam was really training terrorists.
I know these all seem like clear, logical steps to you, but in fact they lead you to unsubstantiated conclusions. Time will tell.
I am not comfortable with any administration's infringing on rights. In fact, one phrase I have recently heard in the debate, is one of "granted Rights. The Rights that we, as Americans enjoy, were not granted by the government. Our Rights are unalienable. The Bill of Rights recognizes those Rights, but did not grant them. The problem I see is that if it becomes accepted that these Rights are granted, then they may be ungranted.
Like I said before, if Bush moves to halt future elections and have himself a[ppointed as Chancellro ( ah President) for life, then I will join you. Until then, I believe that that this rhetoric is simply aimed at crass political ends--the return of the dems to national power. The dems do not have any credibility in promoting restraint of the federal government. I do not trust them. Maybe, if they repudiate the cuurent, has-beens, leading their party, I will give them another look, but any party with Ted Kennedy as its spokesman is not to be taken seriously.
I agree with you that time will tell.

If 9-11 had not happened was there any reason to invade Iraq? The point you seem to ignore is that what Saddam had for WMD in the 1980's, 1990's and even in 2000 was not inspiring anyone to consider invading. Bush lied about the WMD issue to justify invading Iraq, and connected Iraq to the 9-11 hijackers, which was also a blatant lie. The rest of the quagmire that has become Iraq is entirely Mr. Bush's responsibility. The nearly trillion dollars dumped down the drain on this mission to secure those WMD we were told constituted a direct and imminent danger to the United States, that are now being spent doing god knows what (the exact mission has changed a few times and seems to be to bring democracy to Iraq at gunpoint now - hardly something Congress would have authorized back in 2002) is a direct consequence of the Bush lies.

Osamma is still at large. Sending crummy little video tapes to news companies to air and send us into a tizzy now and then. Voicing threats and being entertained by our reactions. And we are mired in Iraq.

I agree, time will tell. I am unwilling to wait until Bush's regime dismantles so much of what this country has stood for that he can declare himself President for Life. A good preemtive strike at the curtailment of our rights as citizens seems a better strategy than the one you are proposing. Once the deed is done, a trouble maker like you getting upset after the fact is an easy problem to eliminate, or solve, depending on your point of view. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #127 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 10:28 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
MS Fowler - 2/14/2006 6:11 AM

Quote:
Shane - 2/13/2006 11:27 AM

Should we trust ANY politician with these kind of temporary powers when we are facing a war unlike any that came before? The shoe just doesn't seem to be the same shape as the foot, hence the distrust.
Shane, I don't follow you exactly.
This "war against terror" is precisely the type of war that requires the extrordinary powers.
But then I agree with : Should we trust ANY politician..."
The short answer is "NO!". The more elaborate answer is , " HELL NO!"

Maybe its time for the old RR strategy, od "trust, but verify"
I trust the President, but I would be more comfortable with some verification.
That applies to any president, rep,dem or libertarian.
I think the argument that the war on terror requires the President be granted extraordinary power has not been made. By the President's own description the war on terror is here for the long run, maybe forever. Those conditions demand the war on terror be fought and won without such extraordinary powers because there is no limit, no way to know when the mission is complete and we can return to "normal." The demand for greater power should be met with a demand for a national strategy that preserves America's way of life, the way of life that so many Americans have died in genuine wars to preserve.

I think this thought process of needing to grant the President powers to do things that specifically have not be specified is exactly what leads to abuse of that power. Stop lowering the standards for our elected officials and giving them greater power to abuse instead of demanding extraordinary competence. No one has made a case for the President needing any particular expansion of powers. No one. Instead, the President has taken additional powers and shouted down critics with innuendo about motives and lack of patriotism.

There is definitely a pattern of abuse. Assumed power and a defiance of Congress to mount a challenge. The whole strategy is an affront to the Constitution. But you are willing to give him the rope to hang us all before asking those pointy questions. Why? Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #128 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-14-2006, 10:39 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
JimSmith - 2/15/2006 12:15 AM

Quote:
MS Fowler - 2/13/2006 4:53 PM

Jim,
Your whole argument seems to start with " Bush lied". You have a piece of truth--no WMD were found in Iraq--I will grant that point. But you can't say that there never were any, as almost everyone, including the previous administration maintain that, at some point, there were WMDs. What became of them? I do not know, but can you afford to ignore the possibility?
From that fact you proceed to a series of half truths. You postulate that since no WMDs were found that Bush lied and there never were any. You take one phrase from the Senate;s (?) report about no direct link between Iraq and Al Quaida, adn twist that into, " NO linkage between Iraq and Al Quiada. There were links; Saddam was really training terrorists.
I know these all seem like clear, logical steps to you, but in fact they lead you to unsubstantiated conclusions. Time will tell.
I am not comfortable with any administration's infringing on rights. In fact, one phrase I have recently heard in the debate, is one of "granted Rights. The Rights that we, as Americans enjoy, were not granted by the government. Our Rights are unalienable. The Bill of Rights recognizes those Rights, but did not grant them. The problem I see is that if it becomes accepted that these Rights are granted, then they may be ungranted.
Like I said before, if Bush moves to halt future elections and have himself a[ppointed as Chancellro ( ah President) for life, then I will join you. Until then, I believe that that this rhetoric is simply aimed at crass political ends--the return of the dems to national power. The dems do not have any credibility in promoting restraint of the federal government. I do not trust them. Maybe, if they repudiate the cuurent, has-beens, leading their party, I will give them another look, but any party with Ted Kennedy as its spokesman is not to be taken seriously.
I agree with you that time will tell.

If 9-11 had not happened was there any reason to invade Iraq? The point you seem to ignore is that what Saddam had for WMD in the 1980's, 1990's and even in 2000 was not inspiring anyone to consider invading. Bush lied about the WMD issue to justify invading Iraq, and connected Iraq to the 9-11 hijackers, which was also a blatant lie. The rest of the quagmire that has become Iraq is entirely Mr. Bush's responsibility. The nearly trillion dollars dumped down the drain on this mission to secure those WMD we were told constituted a direct and imminent danger to the United States, that are now being spent doing god knows what (the exact mission has changed a few times and seems to be to bring democracy to Iraq at gunpoint now - hardly something Congress would have authorized back in 2002) is a direct consequence of the Bush lies.

Osamma is still at large. Sending crummy little video tapes to news companies to air and send us into a tizzy now and then. Voicing threats and being entertained by our reactions. And we are mired in Iraq.

I agree, time will tell. I am unwilling to wait until Bush's regime dismantles so much of what this country has stood for that he can declare himself President for Life. A good preemtive strike at the curtailment of our rights as citizens seems a better strategy than the one you are proposing. Once the deed is done, a trouble maker like you getting upset after the fact is an easy problem to eliminate, or solve, depending on your point of view. Jim



Huh????
You need a remedial history course. Remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Remember Saddam lobbing Scuds at Israel and threatening Saudi Arabia? Remember Saddam signing a ceasefire agreement that required elimination of all WMDs? Remember the establishment of two no fly zones to protect the Kurds and Shiites? Remember Saddam being caught repeatedly violating his disarment agreement? Remember the UN inspectors being kicked out and the Clinton administration bombing the piss out of Iraq? Remember the almost daily bombing of Iraq for 12 years under a sanctions regimen? Remember Saddams paying of suicide bomber families? Remember oil fields set ablaze? Remember the assasination attempt on Bush senior?
Remember Saddam confiscating money from the UN food for oil program? Remember George Tenet saying stockpiles of WMDs were a "slamdunk"? Etc



Yeah all that was fucking invented by the Bush administration, wasn't it?
Yeah Saddam was benign and no one but the crazy neo cons saw a threat, right?


BTW, what is with the OBL at large stuff? You don't think they're in pursuit?

chiphomme is offline  
post #129 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 12:25 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Ammonium
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

I like history...

After the Iran/Iraq war Iraq was heavily in debt to several Arab countries. They owed 14 billion dollars to Kuwait alone. Iraq planned to pay off its debt by raising oil prices through OCEP. That is until Kuwait decided to increase production and drive the price of oil low in an attempt to gain some leverage on their ongoing boarder dispute with Iraq.

Iraq then started claiming, which were never proven by the way, that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. Also Iraq was claiming that because Iraq served as a buffer to Iran that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait should negotiate away Iraq's debt.

The increased production oil production, along with Iraq's assertion of wanting to annex Kuwait back into Iraq to pre-1913 convention boarders, was what drove Iraq into Kuwait. Then there was Bush 41 talking about how the US had no strategic interest in Kuwait. Bush 41 basically goated Saddam into invading.

Also important to note is that the US and the UN is nothing while Iraq was launching mustard gas and nerve agents at Iran and killing tens of thousands. Hell we gave him the fucking weapons in the first place. Reagan and Bush 41 were selling him Anthrax, bubonic plague, small pox, and just about anything else he wanted. The important part is that those things don't last forever. Max shelf life of 2-3 years tops. Last heard of anything was 1998 so by 2003 when we rolled in there even if he had Anthrax that shit was as dangerous as sand.

You want to talk WMD's..how about all the DU rounds that were used in both Gulf Wars? That shit is radioactive for the next 4.3 BILLION years and kills anyone. US soldiers(Gulf War syndrome), Iraqi soldiers, civilians, and children.
Ammonium is offline  
post #130 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-15-2006, 12:31 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Ammonium
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

No, I don't think we're after OBL. Bush himself has said he has no fucking clue where he is so why should be believe anyone else in our government does. OBL was fucking CIA for christ sake.

http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

We'll never capture OBL and you know what? Because if we catch him than we'll have to end this war on terror thing. As long as he's on the loose Bush can say we're not safe and must do anything in our power to catch him blah blah blah. Mother Fucker is probably sitting in a CIA bunker in Nebraska sipping martini's laughing at Cheney and his drunk ass trying to shoot a gun.
Ammonium is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may 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 On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome