Bolton Nails it. - Page 12 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #111 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-13-2009, 10:06 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jdc1244's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 1991 300 SE
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Posts: 18,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Can you please elaborate? What Cold War? The one that had already ended (or should have ended)?
Just ended.

There is momentum among historians that GHWB’s foreign policy efforts were correct in the post Cold War era; leaving Saddam in place – neutralized – but still in place, for example. Clinton was smart enough to leave No Fly alone and the campaign in the Balkans followed the First Gulf War coalition building policy.

Needless to say when the above is contrasted with the debacle that was GWB’s foreign policy past administrations’ efforts were seen as mostly correct – at the very least America wasn’t going it alone. Indeed the only thing GWB was successful with was improving his father’s foreign policy record – Bush the Elder would not have authorized a unilateral invasion of Iraq and his decision to not occupy Baghdad – derided by some at the time – is now acknowledged as correct.

Bolton’s error is not realizing that Obama's efforts match those of previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
jdc1244 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #112 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-13-2009, 10:25 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
No argument here. My criticism is that Bush 41 did not do nearly enough to give impetus to the end of the Cold War. His term would have seemed a perfect time to completely remove our military from Europe, and reduce our presence in E. Asia. The game was over, we won. We should have taken our ball and gone home.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #113 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-13-2009, 11:54 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
TNTRower,

There was no threat to the United States, imminent or otherwise, from Saddam or the collateral damage victims you so readily accept as inevitable. Every single one of them was killed by the US in an illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjustifiable attack. Those "valid targets in war" were equally invalid. We had no business starting "Shock and Awe." The UN weapons inspectors were doing their job and the sanctions/no-fly zone was working better than anyone was willing to give it credit. Saddam was full of bluster and bullshit with the intent to keep Iran at bay.

And every subsequent Iraqi death as a consequence of a bullet fired by US or "terrorist" weapons, is on our account of that unjustifiable and immoral invasion. Because our action is the direct cause. We brought chaos to Iraq for 6 years. And the idea that Saddam might have killed a fraction of them anyway is an absurd justification.

Jim
So let me get this straight.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement (signed by Bill Clinton)

These were not reasons that were good enough to start the war in your mind? Sorry to hear that.

I did take out the references to WMD's and Al Qaida just because we can't agree on those here in BWOT.

As for the UN weapons inspectors you say they were doing their jobs. How is that when they were continuously thrown out and forbidden to inspect certain areas?

As for the immorality and illegality of this war please tell us all then why you are not lambasting Obama for continuing it? FTL refuses to answer that question and just resorts to name calling.

Why is it that the vast majority of Iraqi people were thankful when we ousted Saddam? The insurgents are for the most part, foreign fighters. The Iraqi civilians do not want to be in the middle of this and for that I am saddened. But to classify the US as murderers and killers of civilians is to rewrite the facts.

Especially when you are not willing to criticize the current President for continuing the war. That means you are not basing your characterization of the war as illegal and immoral on principle, but on political demogoguery.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #114 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 12:13 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
So let me get this straight.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. The '03 assessment of Mr. Blix differs somewhat with this statement. It may apply to previous inspection teams, but what happened prior to 2001 is irrelevant. I assume you've read Mr. Blix's book, Disarming Iraq, like the rest of us.
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." An unfortunate, but necessary evil, given the volatile political climate of the region. If that isn't clear to you yet, it will be sooner or later. In any case, not U.S. business.
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Please document any such incident (post-Desert Storm) that supports this statement, particularly in reference to 'other nations'. Since Iraq was not in possession of WMD's, they had no such capability
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. The "assassination attempt" was a hoax, which has been effectively debunked. Targeting of allied aircraft may have occurred post-2001, but I cannot recall any such incident. In general, Iraq's hostility toward the U.S. was not without cause, and I'll concede that it was unlikely to ever find remedy, given that cause
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Please document "anti-United States terrorist organizations" other than Al Qaeda. The 9-11 Commission report has effectively debunked any such claim in regard to Al Qaeda.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Which has nothing to do with Iraq by any reasonable measure
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement (signed by Bill Clinton) Not a big Clinton fan myself, but I suppose I'll have to grant you that, for what little it's worth
...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #115 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 12:51 AM
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
So let me get this straight.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors..
No, not a reason to invade Iraq. Get this straight, there was no intention to invade Iraq before 9-11-2001. This is "bait and switch" bullshit. No WMD, gotta come up with something to flimflam the public. You may think this is justification, but no way a Joint Resolution of Congress would have been authorized based on this thin line of bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population.".
Another "excuse" ginned up after the WMD and Al-Qaeda "implications" were found to be baseless. Read the Congressional Resolution you cite below "signed by Clinton" on this subject - it specifically prohibits US "boots on the ground" and limits the scope of US involvement in deposing Saddam to financial assistance, weapons and training, outside of Iraq. So, Congress doesn't agree with you on this one either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"..
I thought you weren't going to mention WMD - they didn't have any left. Again all old news from decades before 9-11-2001, and well before the Congressional Resolution "Clinton signed" that prohibited a US invasion. Again, you are out on a cold corner all by yourself if you think this is a reason to invade Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War..
An alleged assassination attempt is reason to invade another country? Are you out of your mind? And every time they fucked with us in the no-fly zone they got exactly what they deserved. Look at the date on the Congressional Resolution you quote below - the one "Clinton signed" and you will note this shit was covered by it as well. Only unbalanced people think this is a reason to invade another country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations..
So, we will just leave them unnamed to avoid the Al-Qaeda word. More hyperbole. All within the time span of when the Congressional Resolution you cite below was prepared, and again, not considered a reason to invade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism..
Oh, given the authorization by the Constitution and Congress means you arbitrarily invade countries? What the hell does this have to do with justifying the invasion of Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement (signed by Bill Clinton).
Read this fucking document. It specifically limits the scope any US involvement in any attempt to unseat Saddam to financial aid, which can include giving supplies and weapons to a group inside Iraq made up of Iraqis who wish to unseat Saddam themselves. Oh, and training of those types outside of Iraq.

Another complete red herring - you don't even read the shit you spout off or make any attempt to construct a coherent, cogent argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
These were not reasons that were good enough to start the war in your mind? Sorry to hear that..
No, and not in the minds of the people who composed and signed the CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION you cited above, which basically summed up the total of Saddam's direct threat to the US at the time, including all your examples of Saddam's boorishness in that regard, by saying it was not our business, but we have an interest, so we will grant assistance to any group inside Iraq that wants to do the job. No one ever stood up a rebel force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
I did take out the references to WMD's and Al Qaida just because we can't agree on those here in BWOT..
Not really. You watered it down a bit, but once you take the chance of WMDs and Al-Qaeda out of the picture, you had no case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
As for the UN weapons inspectors you say they were doing their jobs. How is that when they were continuously thrown out and forbidden to inspect certain areas?.
The only time that they were thrown out never to return was when we threw them out so they wouldn't become collateral damage during Shock and Awe. All the times Saddam threw them out they were allowed back in. God only knows the real reasons why Saddam didn't let them in everywhere. Or, no, actually an after the invasion search for evidence of WMDs documented by some Bush lackey who went by the name Duelfer, gave us the real reason Saddam was so uncooperative. Duelfer, in the Duelfer Report, discovered Saddam was posturing right up to the end because he never thought the US would invade and he was deathly afraid of letting Iran know he was a broken, two bit little shit because Saddam was sure they would invade if they knew he could not keep them out, or threaten to unleash his (phantom) WMDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
As for the immorality and illegality of this war please tell us all then why you are not lambasting Obama for continuing it? FTL refuses to answer that question and just resorts to name calling..
No, FTL has made it clear he is not pleased that Obama is not in a whole hog troop removal maneuver right now. So am I. However, all of us realize there is a difference between starting an illegal, immoral invasion, then presiding over an illegal, immoral occupation to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" for 60 months that killed several hundred thousand Iraqis and 5,000 or more US soldiers and trying to end the same event without trying to leave the space in some kind of order, while we withdraw in some kind of order. At the moment we are complying with the Iraqi government's requested timetable for withdrawing troops. Which means Iraq, as it exists today, has asked us to stay there for the duration of Obama's planned withdrawal. Makes it somewhat less illegal, and the immoral intent and motive for invading in the first place was never transferred to Obama. That stain is stuck on Bush's skin, and his neocon cohorts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Why is it that the vast majority of Iraqi people were thankful when we ousted Saddam? The insurgents are for the most part, foreign fighters. The Iraqi civilians do not want to be in the middle of this and for that I am saddened. But to classify the US as murderers and killers of civilians is to rewrite the facts..
No it isn't. Had Rummy and Cheney and Bush listened to the military, the scope of the invasion might have been too great in terms of acknowledged up front costs to have started. And, had they not opted for the "smaller, lighter, cheaper no-plan" and taken Saddam out, then maintained some semblance of order, the results might not have been so horrific. But that is speculation. The net result is the population turned on us when we behaved like savages and did nothing when the criminal elements of Iraqi society began to run rampant. They began to support an insurgency made up of mostly foreign fighters, and a chaotic, bloody reign of terror took over the country, motivate to drive American forces out. We invited them "to fight us over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and made Iraq the central front of the global war on terror. And innocent Iraqis were killed by the hundreds of thousands. That blood is on our hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Especially when you are not willing to criticize the current President for continuing the war. That means you are not basing your characterization of the war as illegal and immoral on principle, but on political demogoguery.
This is your central beef. Bush started the whole quagmire, steered the country into this abomination that now believes torture is ok, and no one should be expected to be held responsible for their actions - got shit for it from all of us "lefties" and now you want to equate Bush's immoral and illegal actions with Obama's efforts to understand how to meet our obligations to the Iraqi people as we withdraw. I am disappointed the timetable is not shorter. But we have a date and a schedule and we are working along that path to be out of there in a finite time period. Never had that from Bush. Just a lot of the same bullshit you are peddling for why he would do it again if he was faced with the same sets of circumstances. Like that means anything from someone who has no moral compass and figures the US Constitution is just an old sheet of paper.

The value of your posts on this subject at least has deteriorated to the point where you just sound silly.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #116 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 10:14 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jdc1244's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 1991 300 SE
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Posts: 18,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
So let me get this straight.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement (signed by Bill Clinton)

These were not reasons that were good enough to start the war in your mind? Sorry to hear that.
Here’s the problem with the above: Iraq was not the only country assumed conducting criminal activities – why not invade Iran, NK, or a half dozen other brutal dictatorships in Africa? Saddam was completely neutralized – he posed no threat to the Kurds in the north, the Shiites in the south, or any of his neighbors in the Region.

Of all the oppressed peoples around the world what makes the Iraqis so special and deserving to be liberated and free?

I think we all know the answer to that.
jdc1244 is offline  
post #117 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 10:17 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
No, not a reason to invade Iraq. Get this straight, there was no intention to invade Iraq before 9-11-2001. This is "bait and switch" bullshit. No WMD, gotta come up with something to flimflam the public. You may think this is justification, but no way a Joint Resolution of Congress would have been authorized based on this thin line of bullshit.



Another "excuse" ginned up after the WMD and Al-Qaeda "implications" were found to be baseless. Read the Congressional Resolution you cite below "signed by Clinton" on this subject - it specifically prohibits US "boots on the ground" and limits the scope of US involvement in deposing Saddam to financial assistance, weapons and training, outside of Iraq. So, Congress doesn't agree with you on this one either.



I thought you weren't going to mention WMD - they didn't have any left. Again all old news from decades before 9-11-2001, and well before the Congressional Resolution "Clinton signed" that prohibited a US invasion. Again, you are out on a cold corner all by yourself if you think this is a reason to invade Iraq.



An alleged assassination attempt is reason to invade another country? Are you out of your mind? And every time they fucked with us in the no-fly zone they got exactly what they deserved. Look at the date on the Congressional Resolution you quote below - the one "Clinton signed" and you will note this shit was covered by it as well. Only unbalanced people think this is a reason to invade another country.



So, we will just leave them unnamed to avoid the Al-Qaeda word. More hyperbole. All within the time span of when the Congressional Resolution you cite below was prepared, and again, not considered a reason to invade.



Oh, given the authorization by the Constitution and Congress means you arbitrarily invade countries? What the hell does this have to do with justifying the invasion of Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?



Read this fucking document. It specifically limits the scope any US involvement in any attempt to unseat Saddam to financial aid, which can include giving supplies and weapons to a group inside Iraq made up of Iraqis who wish to unseat Saddam themselves. Oh, and training of those types outside of Iraq.

Another complete red herring - you don't even read the shit you spout off or make any attempt to construct a coherent, cogent argument.



No, and not in the minds of the people who composed and signed the CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION you cited above, which basically summed up the total of Saddam's direct threat to the US at the time, including all your examples of Saddam's boorishness in that regard, by saying it was not our business, but we have an interest, so we will grant assistance to any group inside Iraq that wants to do the job. No one ever stood up a rebel force.



Not really. You watered it down a bit, but once you take the chance of WMDs and Al-Qaeda out of the picture, you had no case.



The only time that they were thrown out never to return was when we threw them out so they wouldn't become collateral damage during Shock and Awe. All the times Saddam threw them out they were allowed back in. God only knows the real reasons why Saddam didn't let them in everywhere. Or, no, actually an after the invasion search for evidence of WMDs documented by some Bush lackey who went by the name Duelfer, gave us the real reason Saddam was so uncooperative. Duelfer, in the Duelfer Report, discovered Saddam was posturing right up to the end because he never thought the US would invade and he was deathly afraid of letting Iran know he was a broken, two bit little shit because Saddam was sure they would invade if they knew he could not keep them out, or threaten to unleash his (phantom) WMDs.



No, FTL has made it clear he is not pleased that Obama is not in a whole hog troop removal maneuver right now. So am I. However, all of us realize there is a difference between starting an illegal, immoral invasion, then presiding over an illegal, immoral occupation to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" for 60 months that killed several hundred thousand Iraqis and 5,000 or more US soldiers and trying to end the same event without trying to leave the space in some kind of order, while we withdraw in some kind of order. At the moment we are complying with the Iraqi government's requested timetable for withdrawing troops. Which means Iraq, as it exists today, has asked us to stay there for the duration of Obama's planned withdrawal. Makes it somewhat less illegal, and the immoral intent and motive for invading in the first place was never transferred to Obama. That stain is stuck on Bush's skin, and his neocon cohorts.



No it isn't. Had Rummy and Cheney and Bush listened to the military, the scope of the invasion might have been too great in terms of acknowledged up front costs to have started. And, had they not opted for the "smaller, lighter, cheaper no-plan" and taken Saddam out, then maintained some semblance of order, the results might not have been so horrific. But that is speculation. The net result is the population turned on us when we behaved like savages and did nothing when the criminal elements of Iraqi society began to run rampant. They began to support an insurgency made up of mostly foreign fighters, and a chaotic, bloody reign of terror took over the country, motivate to drive American forces out. We invited them "to fight us over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and made Iraq the central front of the global war on terror. And innocent Iraqis were killed by the hundreds of thousands. That blood is on our hands.



This is your central beef. Bush started the whole quagmire, steered the country into this abomination that now believes torture is ok, and no one should be expected to be held responsible for their actions - got shit for it from all of us "lefties" and now you want to equate Bush's immoral and illegal actions with Obama's efforts to understand how to meet our obligations to the Iraqi people as we withdraw. I am disappointed the timetable is not shorter. But we have a date and a schedule and we are working along that path to be out of there in a finite time period. Never had that from Bush. Just a lot of the same bullshit you are peddling for why he would do it again if he was faced with the same sets of circumstances. Like that means anything from someone who has no moral compass and figures the US Constitution is just an old sheet of paper.

The value of your posts on this subject at least has deteriorated to the point where you just sound silly.

Jim
Again, it is just easier and less time consuming for you if you just say "It's Bush's fault."

I would like to point out that all those reasons were in the resolution passed by both the House and the Senate.

The denigrating of the Bush administration by you and others here is a testament to the political basis of your "Beef."

No one here other than those people who can be classified as on the right of the political spectrum has even brought this up. You libs here want to blame it all on Bush, you don't even blame it on the GOP for the war, you blame it on Bush.

You're inability to actually see who the culprits are is not surprising given your proclivity for screaming "It was Bush's Fault!" on everything.

And you talk about my posts being silly. You write 1000's of words on why it is Bush's fault that Obama is continuing the war. That my friend, is downright dogmatic. Funny. I guess we all find our religion one way or another.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #118 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 10:27 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jdc1244's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 1991 300 SE
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Posts: 18,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
My criticism is that Bush 41 did not do nearly enough to give impetus to the end of the Cold War. His term would have seemed a perfect time to completely remove our military from Europe, and reduce our presence in E. Asia. The game was over, we won. We should have taken our ball and gone home.
Agreed – however one of the joys of studying history is the objective realization of the truth of past events and those involved in given events. Truman is the classic example. Needless to say GHWB was no Truman but he did demonstrate a level of understanding and deft sophistication with regard to the ME his idiot son was lacking – and credit should be given accordingly. However bringing our military forces home from our Imperial possessions would more than likely been beyond the abilities of the most popular and successful of presidents.

As with Rome and her emperors I suspect a president believes the further away the army is from Washington (like Rome), the better.
jdc1244 is offline  
post #119 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 01:27 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Again, it is just easier and less time consuming for you if you just say "It's Bush's fault."
No, however true it might be, a one liner with no back up in terms of facts and logic is a flawed argument on a subject as complex as this. But, given Bush very specifically asked for the power to send troops, and then went on a PR spree, including the State of the Union address in 2003, and sending Colin Powell to the UN to hype the case, and then was given the power and subsequently used it, well, that does make Bush responsible. He was the fucking President, don't you remember? I know you may feel you know him from your last drunk at a bar, but he was the President. That makes him "the decider" and he decided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
I would like to point out that all those reasons were in the resolution passed by both the House and the Senate.
They were cited as background "whereas" recitations that precede the actual words of the resolution. The only reasons cited in the actual resolution granting Bush the authority to send troops (because the prior Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 specifically did not allow anything more than a few million dollars and some military hardware and outside Iraq training to an internal Iraqi organization that might want to overthrow Saddam - all of which apparently went to our good friend Chalabi) are:
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.


And these are subject to the following conditions for the President's determination:

"(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution."


Read this stuff and tell me the reasons for going into Iraq with US forces was the collection of "whereas" clauses, most of which you copied preceded the 1998 law that made it clear no invasion was to be authorized for those reasons. Read it and tell me Bush even complied with the requirement to make a determination that the diplomatic initiatives were failing, and their failure was putting the US in danger from Saddam. All bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
The denigrating of the Bush administration by you and others here is a testament to the political basis of your "Beef."

No one here other than those people who can be classified as on the right of the political spectrum has even brought this up. You libs here want to blame it all on Bush, you don't even blame it on the GOP for the war, you blame it on Bush.

You're inability to actually see who the culprits are is not surprising given your proclivity for screaming "It was Bush's Fault!" on everything.
The Bush administration like no other before it, had the GOP under its thumb and got whatever it wanted, except for the Bush veto of stem cell research. They even gave him the Terry Schiavo soap opera. Now the lack of GOP critical assessment of their leader and willingness to knuckle under and the spinelessness of the Democratic party contributed to Bush acting like he was King and getting away with it, but it was still Bush deciding what to fuck up every morning when got up - and on those days when he was not vacationing what he elected to fuck up was of the public interest. To suggest he should not be held responsible for his actions is just, well, so bleeding heart liberal of you it makes no sense, even for a liberal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
And you talk about my posts being silly. You write 1000's of words on why it is Bush's fault that Obama is continuing the war. That my friend, is downright dogmatic. Funny. I guess we all find our religion one way or another.
Obama, whether you have noticed it or not, is engaged in withdrawing US forces according to the Iraqi timetable. That does not qualify as continuing Bush's illegal and immoral invasion. I would like him to be withdrawing faster. So would most of us who voted for him. But, given the chance that complying with the Iraqi timetable will help us leave Iraq in other than utter chaos, Obama is opting to comply. If we were going to stay there for 50 years or more, as McCain suggested, or forever as Bush and his "stay the course" rhetoric made clear, under Obama you would have a case for being upset. He isn't going to do that and you don't have a case for much but your feelings of "fairness" being offended. Grow up.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #120 of 124 (permalink) Old 06-14-2009, 09:34 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Were there civilian Casualties? Of Course there were. However your support of FTL statements make it sound like we went after the Iraqi People like we did the Japanes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Infrastructure, Government Buildings, Communications Facilities are all valid targets in war. I guess you must have forgotten that.

No Parsing and I have never done the parsing thing. I just think that if you want to go around saying something you should have some evidence of what it is that you are saying.
You said "We did not attack the Iraqi people. So quit with the leftist blog crap." and on this post you address government buildings, infrastructure and civilian casualties and then say "No Parsing and I have never done the parsing thing". YES, you do and did parse. Just then. You said that WE did not attack the Iraqi people and then tried to parse down the folks that you want to list to make it look like we might have only blown up buildings and towers and tanks and shit. That is not what we did. We blew up their country. Lots of their country. By denying that, you are PARSING that from your declaration that "We did not the attack Iraqi people".

When you invade a country, ANY country, whether Germany through Poland in 1939 or Iraq into Kuwait in 1990 or Japan against the Philippines in 1941 or Russia by Germany in 1941 or the US against Iraq in 2003, it is an invasion against the PEOPLE of the country. To deny that is to be delusional in your justifications of the war.

Oh, and I do evidence really well.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear 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



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Drifter Nails Bystander Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 10 03-07-2008 12:42 PM
    Nails On A Chalkboard - Any Suggestions? vip W163 M-Class 7 03-01-2008 02:31 PM
    Bolton bolted deathrattle Off-Topic 65 12-05-2006 09:28 AM
    New York Times nails it DriveByPoster Off-Topic 33 06-20-2006 11:59 PM
    Jon Stewart NAILS the debate... blackmercedes Off-Topic 4 10-07-2004 07:59 PM

    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