Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Skeptic]

Another sleeping aid for you righties...

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,821
Unnecessary U.S. Troops Wounded: 13,559
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,209 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Thirsty_Possum]

:yawn:

[simply one]

Well, I'm glad the deaths of tens of thousands help you sleep. Since looking at death statistics makes you tired, here's some more sleep aids:

Deaths in the genocide in Darfur: 180,000 - 300,000

People displaced: 1,500,000

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict)

All under the watch of the great protector, George W. If he actually cared about the wellbeing of others (which is an excuse for invading Iraq), then Bush would have done SOMETHING to help in Darfur.


I'm glad that you (Frank and BB) will be sleeping well tonight. Just remember the hundreds of thousands around the world (including Iraq and Darfur) who go through each day fearing being killed, being bombed, trying to find food/water/sanitation.

[Frank Ernest]

Well, I'm glad the deaths of tens of thousands help you sleep. Since looking at death statistics makes you tired, here's some more sleep aids:

Deaths in the genocide in Darfur: 180,000 - 300,000

People displaced: 1,500,000

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict)

All under the watch of the great protector, George W. If he actually cared about the wellbeing of others (which is an excuse for invading Iraq), then Bush would have done SOMETHING to help in Darfur.


I'm glad that you (Frank and BB) will be sleeping well tonight. Just remember the hundreds of thousands around the world (including Iraq and Darfur) who go through each day fearing being killed, being bombed, trying to find food/water/sanitation.
:yawn:

[Skeptic]

:yawn: A testament to right-wing morality.

[simply one]

:yawn:

Thanks for proving my point.

Enjoy your body..i mean :sheep: count.

[Frank Ernest]

A testament to right-wing morality.
:darwinsm: Actually it's a testament to left-wing lack of morality.

[Frank Ernest]

Thanks for proving my point.

Enjoy your body..i mean :sheep: count.
:darwinsm: :yawn:

[simply one]

:darwinsm: :yawn:

We keep pointing it out, you keep proving us right.

But this line of thought needs to end, because its obviously getting us nowhere. Your rightwing fundamentalist neoChristian ideology lets you slept with comfort despite the uffering and deaths of thousands upon thousands.

[Skeptic]

Actually it's a testament to left-wing lack of morality. There have been few, if any, positive moral consequences of Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

The obvious lack of moral and practical justification for Bush's invasion FAR outweighs any good that may have been gained by getting rid of bad boy Saddam.

Do you want me to list (again) the reasons why Bush's invasion was unnecessary and, hence, immoral?

I didn't think so.

But, guess what? I'll be posting the reasons many times in many ways, until Bush is no longer in office! So, just in case you missed them before (which seems to be the case), you'll have plenty of opportunities to read them again. :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

We keep pointing it out, you keep proving us right.
since what you're posting has no point, there was nothing to prove.

But this line of thought needs to end, because its obviously getting us nowhere.
Correction: It is getting you nowhere.

Your rightwing fundamentalist neoChristian ideology lets you slept with comfort despite the uffering and deaths of thousands upon thousands.
Yada, yada, yada. :yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Frank Ernest]

There have been few, if any, positive moral consequences of Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
What would an atheist know about moral consequences?

The obvious lack of moral and practical justification for Bush's invasion FAR outweighs any good that may have been gained by getting rid of bad boy Saddam.
:yawn: :drum: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Do you want me to list (again) the reasons why Bush's invasion was unnecessary and, hence, immoral?
You're asking my permission? :D

I didn't think so.
Leave off the "so" and you've got it! :thumb:

But, guess what? I'll be posting the reasons many times in many ways, until Bush is no longer in office! So, just in case you missed them before (which seems to be the case), you'll have plenty of opportunities to read them again. :chuckle:
What a dire threat! :darwinsm: 3.5 more years of mindless :cow:

[BillyBob]

We keep pointing it out, you keep proving us right.

But this line of thought needs to end, because its obviously getting us nowhere. Your rightwing fundamentalist neoChristian ideology lets you slept with comfort despite the uffering and deaths of thousands upon thousands.


I suppose you lefties would rather Saddam still be in control. You know he killed millions of innocent people, don't you?

[BillyBob]

What a dire threat! :darwinsm: 3.5 more years of mindless :cow:


:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

What would an atheist know about moral consequences? That is one of the problems with you right-wing Christian fanatics: you think you have a monopoly on morality!

What a dire threat! :darwinsm: 3.5 more years of mindless :cow: Your reliance on smilies, instead of rational dialog, clearly demonstrates who is the mindless one.

[Jukia]

I suppose you lefties would rather Saddam still be in control. You know he killed millions of innocent people, don't you?

Is it our job to throw every tyrant out of office to protect the innocents in the tyrant's country who have neither the $ nor the stones to do it themselves?
W lied to us, his people lied to us. They continue to lie to us. W continues to be a moron. We started something in Iraq, now we have to finish it. But the bottom line is that we should not have started it. Interesting how all the hawks in the Bush administration were able to sit out prior combat, including W. He certainly had a plan to get out of Viet Nam, didn't he.

[BillyBob]

Is it our job to throw every tyrant out of office to protect the innocents in the tyrant's country who have neither the $ nor the stones to do it themselves?

No, I was just wondering if the deaths of innocent people are really what you lefties are concerned with, because Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of them. If the lives of innocent people is really what you are most concerned with, you would be hailing George Bush as a great liberator.


W lied to us,

About what?

his people lied to us.

About what?

They continue to lie to us.
About what?

W continues to be a moron.

Oh brother, here we go. You demo-commies say the same thing about EVERY Republican. :yawn:

Let me know when you have something original to add to this conversation.....

We started something in Iraq, now we have to finish it. But the bottom line is that we should not have started it.

Sure we should have, Saddam was a terrorist.

Interesting how all the hawks in the Bush administration were able to sit out prior combat, including W. He certainly had a plan to get out of Viet Nam, didn't he.

:yawn:

Same old demo-commie talking points....:sleep:

[BillyBob]

Your reliance on smilies, instead of rational dialog, clearly demonstrates who is the mindless one.


:cow:

[Skeptic]

If the lives of innocent people is really what you are most concerned with, you would be hailing George Bush as a great liberator. Bush's invasion did not liberate the Iraqi people from certain death at the hands of Saddam. If Bush had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq, many thousands of innocent men, women and children would still be alive today! Yes, Saddam ordered atrocities in the late 1980s. But there was NO indication that he was about to order similar atrocities in the years leading up to Bush's invasion. Given the fact that Iraq was being closely monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that Iraq was being bombed regularly by U.S. and allied forces during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that UN weapons inspectors were combing the Iraqi countryside during most of the years leading up to Bush's invasion, the probability that Saddam would commit the kinds of atrocities that occurred in the late 1980s was very low! There was plenty of time to deal with Saddam in other ways, short of a massive invasion! Therefore, if lives of innocent people were REALLY the concern of George Bush, then he would not have invaded Iraq, which unnecessarily killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children!!

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

:darwinsm: I this your rational critique of my argument?

Are we supposed to believe your position simply because you know how to post funny smilies?

[BillyBob]

I this your rational critique of my argument?

Are we supposed to believe your position simply because you know how to post funny smilies?

I have critiqued that argument countless times already. I'm laughing my head off at the fact that you think it's suddenly gonna gain traction today after failing all those many times before! :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

I have critiqued that argument countless times already. I'm laughing my head off at the fact that you think it's suddenly gonna gain traction today after failing all those many times before! Why do you think your smilies have any traction?

You have never successfully critiqued my argument.

If you think you have a good critique, then give it your best shot now.

[HerodionRomulus]

Oh brother, here we go. You demo-commies say the same thing about EVERY Republican. :yawn:

There are plenty of honorable ethical people on both sides. Sens. Hagel, Hatch and Snowe are 3 that spring to mind.


Sure we should have, Saddam was a terrorist.

So was Somoza, who Reagan tried to keep in power. So is Castro, whom no one advocates overthrowing---even though it would be much easier. But they have no oil in Cuba.
The list of evil and horrific dictators worldwide is long and the US has a long history of helping them. The US operates it's own terrorist training facilities for use in the Americas. But citizen patriots who object to it are put in prison.

[HerodionRomulus]

This is a disturbing and provocative article and book.

9/11: A Christian Theologian's Response (http://www.zionsherald.org/viewpointJuly05.html)

"In the spring of 2003, near the end of my 31-year teaching career at the Claremont School of Theology, I began writing a book about 9/11, which would be published as The New. Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11.....when I came to the conclusion that the Bush-Cheney administration had orchestrated 9/11 in order to promote this empire under the pretext of the “war on terror,” I decided that I needed to say so by means of summarizing the evidence for this conclusion...."

[BillyBob]

Why do you think your smilies have any traction?

Smilies don't have traction, they are simply a means to irritate you and express my general attitude toward your blatant partisan hysteria.



You have never successfully critiqued my argument.

:darwinsm:



If you think you have a good critique, then give it your best shot now.

Been there....done that......

I'm gonna start a website dedicated to your relentless, redundant babblings. I think I'll call it Moveon.Skeptic

:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Been there....done that...... You're a witness, folks! BillyBob does not need to support his positions. He already did that a long time ago!

Anybody remember how BillyBob successfully showed that Bush's invasion liberated the Iraqi people from certain death at the hands of Saddam?

Anybody remember how BillyBob successfully showed that, if Bush had not invaded Iraq, many thousands of innocent men, women and children would NOT be alive today?

Anybody remember how BillyBob successfully showed that, even though Saddam ordered atrocities way back in the late 1980s, there was indication that he was about to order similar atrocities in the years leading up to Bush's invasion?

Anybody remember how BillyBob successfully showed that, given the fact that Iraq was being closely monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that Iraq was being bombed regularly by U.S. and allied forces during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that UN weapons inspectors were combing the Iraqi countryside during most of the years leading up to Bush's invasion, the probability that Saddam would commit the kinds of atrocities that occurred in the late 1980s was still HIGH?

Anybody remember how BillyBob successfully showed that there was NO time to deal with Saddam in other ways, short of a massive invasion?

Anybody remember how BillyBob successfully showed that George Bush was REALLY so concerned about the lives of innocent Iraqi people that he decided to invade Iraq in order to save the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children?

Hmmmm. I don't remember either.

Maybe he should have another shot at it, .... just to refresh our memories.

[BillyBob]

I remember....

Hey Skeptic, here is an Iraqi who also remembers and he's giving you the 'finger' as a reminder of his new freedom given to him by the US and the other members of the coalition.

[Frank Ernest]

That is one of the problems with you right-wing Christian fanatics: you think you have a monopoly on morality!
We do have a monopoly on morality. Nice of you to notice! :thumb:

Your reliance on smilies, instead of rational dialog, clearly demonstrates who is the mindless one.
:darwinsm: Your peculiar brand of "rational" dialogue clearly demonstrates you are a :Commie: fanatic.

[fool]

Empire!
What's wrong with it?

[Skeptic]

I remember.... Then you are delusional.

You have NOT shown that Bush's invasion liberated the Iraqi people from certain death at the hands of Saddam.

You have NOT shown that, if Bush had not invaded Iraq, many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children would NOT be alive today.

You have NOT shown that, even though Saddam ordered atrocities way back in the late 1980s, there was indication that he was about to order similar atrocities in the years leading up to Bush's invasion.

You have NOT shown that, given the fact that Iraq was being closely monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that Iraq was being bombed regularly by U.S. and allied forces during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that UN weapons inspectors were combing the Iraqi countryside during most of the years leading up to Bush's invasion, the probability that Saddam would commit the kinds of atrocities that occurred in the late 1980s was still HIGH.

You have NOT shown that there was NO time to deal with Saddam in other ways, short of a massive invasion.

You have NOT shown that George Bush was SO concerned about the lives of innocent Iraqi people that he decided to invade Iraq in order to save the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Anytime you are willing to give it your best shot and address the above issues, let us know. Until then, don't expect anyone to believe you. Anyone who claims to believe you should explain to us your positions, ... seeing as how you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

[Skeptic]

We do have a monopoly on morality. Right-wing Christian fanatics DO NOT have a monopoly on morality! No form of Christianity has a monopoly on morality.

Your peculiar brand of "rational" dialogue clearly demonstrates you are a commie fanatic. My "brand" of rational dialog is not peculiar at all. In fact, when it comes to Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of people on the planet agree with my reasoning!

I am not, nor have I ever been a "commie."

I am not, nor have I ever been a fanatic, except when it comes to eating certain foods.

[Skeptic]

Empire!
What's wrong with it? The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

[Skeptic]

Read this: Folly of Empire (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3911613)

[BillyBob]

Then you are delusional.

You have NOT shown that Bush's invasion liberated the Iraqi people from certain death at the hands of Saddam.

You have NOT shown that, if Bush had not invaded Iraq, many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children would NOT be alive today.

You have NOT shown that, even though Saddam ordered atrocities way back in the late 1980s, there was indication that he was about to order similar atrocities in the years leading up to Bush's invasion.

You have NOT shown that, given the fact that Iraq was being closely monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that Iraq was being bombed regularly by U.S. and allied forces during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that UN weapons inspectors were combing the Iraqi countryside during most of the years leading up to Bush's invasion, the probability that Saddam would commit the kinds of atrocities that occurred in the late 1980s was still HIGH.

You have NOT shown that there was NO time to deal with Saddam in other ways, short of a massive invasion.

You have NOT shown that George Bush was SO concerned about the lives of innocent Iraqi people that he decided to invade Iraq in order to save the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Anytime you are willing to give it your best shot and address the above issues, let us know. Until then, don't expect anyone to believe you. Anyone who claims to believe you should explain to us your positions, ... seeing as how you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.



:yawn:

[Skeptic]

:yawn: Sleep well, my delusional friend. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

=======================
Poll: Fewer Americans Think Bush Is Honest

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Less than half of Americans now say they think President Bush is honest, according to an AP-Ipsos poll taken at a time of increasing concerns about Iraq, a potential problem for a president who won re-election declaring that "people know where I stand."

The percentage of people who say they consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from the start of the year. In January, 53 percent described him that way in the AP-Ipsos poll, while 45 percent said they did not believe he was honest. Now, people are just about evenly split — 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not.

"Whether you agree or disagree with him, the president has taken a pounding on perceptions of his honesty," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. She cited as one example the administration's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but none have been found.

A solid majority still see Bush as likable and a strong leader, but a growing number view the president's confidence as arrogance, up from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

"He pushes and pushes and pushes until he gets his own way," said Diane Maley, a politically independent registered nurse from East Greenbush, N.Y. "I don't think he has the best interest of the country in mind."

For some people, especially Republicans, Bush is personally appealing.

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Ga., and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where his approval rating has been all summer but slightly lower than it was when the year began. His approval on handling Iraq was at 38 percent.

Some who don't approve of Bush's job performance admire him personally.

"I think he tries to be likable and I think he's somewhat honest," said Cindy Bashura, a Democratic-leaning resident of Seymour, Conn. "He tries to do what he thinks is right, but sometimes I think he takes the wrong advice from people in his circle."

Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

The war in Iraq also could have an impact on more than elections.

"Bush's standing with the public is a factor in his ongoing effort to influence legislation and to sustain support for his Iraq policy," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 1-3 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_ipsos_poll;_ylt=AsmfZ46.Z.Br.8ZvcDeCCUOs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-)

[Frank Ernest]

Right-wing Christian fanatics DO NOT have a monopoly on morality! No form of Christianity has a monopoly on morality.

My "brand" of rational dialog is not peculiar at all. In fact, when it comes to Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of people on the planet agree with my reasoning!

I am not, nor have I ever been a "commie."

I am not, nor have I ever been a fanatic, except when it comes to eating certain foods.
:darwinsm: :Commie:

[BillyBob]

Then you are delusional.

You have NOT shown that Bush's invasion liberated the Iraqi people from certain death at the hands of Saddam.

The Iraqi's have been liberated from a cruel rapist/torturer/murderer. But that isn't the reason we removed saddam from power, that was just a bonus for the Iraqi's.



You have NOT shown that, if Bush had not invaded Iraq, many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children would NOT be alive today.

We know that Saddam was a terrorist and he is no longer terrorizing.



You have NOT shown that, even though Saddam ordered atrocities way back in the late 1980s, there was indication that he was about to order similar atrocities in the years leading up to Bush's invasion.

His attrocities were not the main reason we ousted him. Do you think that Saddam suddenly stopped murdering people?

OK, smilie time... :darwinsm:



You have NOT shown that, given the fact that Iraq was being closely monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that Iraq was being bombed regularly by U.S. and allied forces during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, ... given the fact that UN weapons inspectors were combing the Iraqi countryside during most of the years leading up to Bush's invasion, the probability that Saddam would commit the kinds of atrocities that occurred in the late 1980s was still HIGH.

Yes....reading your psost is like listening to a skipping record that keeps playing the same phrase over...and over...and over...Maybe I'll call you Skippie.



You have NOT shown that there was NO time to deal with Saddam in other ways, short of a massive invasion.

After more than a dozen UN Resolutions and as many years, you what, wanna give him more time to comply???

[more smilies] :darwinsm:



You have NOT shown that George Bush was SO concerned about the lives of innocent Iraqi people that he decided to invade Iraq in order to save the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Actually, he was very concerned and offered a peaceful solution to which Saddam declined. Any spilled blood is on Saddam's hands, not Bush's.



Anytime you are willing to give it your best shot and address the above issues, let us know. Until then, don't expect anyone to believe you. Anyone who claims to believe you should explain to us your positions, ... seeing as how you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

Try this on for size, Skippie: Saddam Was A Terrorist! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17761)

[BillyBob]

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(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.
(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.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[simply one]

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(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.
(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.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


And what is this supposed to prove besides Bush and Co.'s adeptness at lying, decieving, and misleading?

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,827
Unnecessary U.S. Troops Wounded: 13,559
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,317 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Frank Ernest]

simpleton + :skeptic: = :yawn: :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Delmar]

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!Liar

[BillyBob]

And what is this supposed to prove besides Bush and Co.'s adeptness at lying, decieving, and misleading?


"If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me!" -John Kerry, Presidential Candidate


By the way, Simpleton, the Iraqi War Resolution was written by Congress, not the Bush Admistration.

[Skeptic]

"If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me!" -John Kerry, Presidential Candidate Kerry was one of many who were deceived.

By the way, Simpleton, the Iraqi War Resolution was written by Congress, not the Bush Admistration. Congress was deceived and mislead by the Bush Administration.

Prior to the Bush Administration, there were longstanding doubts about whether Iraq had any WMD left. But one does NOT justifiably launch a massive invasion against another country, which everyone knows would necessarily kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children, based on such doubts or suspicions!!

[BillyBob]

Kerry was one of many who were deceived.

Congress was deceived and mislead by the Bush Administration.




:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Liar Fig-Leaf Freedom
One Election Does not a Democracy Make

by Brian Whitaker

President George Bush has pronounced the election in Iraq a success. "The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," he said yesterday.

Since this is more or less what he was bound to say anyway, the only surprise is that he waited until four hours after the polls had closed before saying it.

It's a curious sort of freedom where candidates cannot campaign openly for fear of their lives and where, despite the tightest security that the occupation armies and the Iraqi forces can provide - curfews, banning cars from the streets, intensive searches at polling stations, etc - more than 40 people still die.

Violence on that scale is by no means unusual at election time in other parts of the world. Four years ago, for instance, municipal elections in Yemen, where there was no insurgency, left 29 people dead.

The problem in Iraq, though, is that such violence is not a one-off. It is a regular, almost daily, occurrence and nobody realistically expects it to subside any time soon.

It's almost two years since Donald Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, shrugged off the looting during the first few days after the fall of Saddam Hussein by accusing the media of exaggerating.

"Freedom's untidy," he said. "Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things.

"I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn't believe it," he continued. "I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest ... I've never seen anything like it! And here is a country that's being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they're free. And all this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines, they showed a man bleeding, a civilian, who they claimed we had shot - one thing after another. It's just unbelievable ..."

In those days, bringing stability to Iraq was just a matter of rounding up the Ba'athist "remnants" and catching the man who was orchestrating the trouble from his hole in the ground.

Eventually they caught Saddam, but it got worse.

Continuing violence was then attributed to the "run-up" to the handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government.

Sovereignty was duly handed over, George Bush famously scribbled "Let freedom reign" on his notepad, and again it got worse.

Since then, we have had violence in the "run-up" to the election. This time, American officials have been less optimistic. Applying a sort of inverse magic - the way actors superstitiously wish each other good luck before a performance by saying "break a leg" - they have been predicting that things may get worse still after the election. And this time their predictions are likely to be right.

None of this is to disparage the efforts of millions of Iraqis who turned out to vote yesterday in defiance of threats from the insurgents, but portrayals of the election as "historic" are way off mark: all the old problems remain.

The election has done nothing to help resolve the question of Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions - particularly that of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority. If anything, it has further institutionalized these divisions.

Whatever the results when the votes are finally counted, it is already clear that the emerging system of political parties is based around interest groups and men of influence rather than debates about policy - a system that may look vaguely democratic on the outside but is actually a barrier to genuine democracy.

Much of this is the fault of the Bush administration which, for its own reasons, has turned the ballot box into a symbol of freedom around the world without paying much attention to the slow and laborious business of creating the civil institutions that make elections meaningful.

Over the next few months, the new Iraqi parliament is supposed to draft a permanent constitution which, among other things, will have to grapple with the thorny issues of federalism and the role of Islam in the state - issues that the Americans ducked before handing over sovereignty.

Arguments about the constitution could bring Iraq to the crunch point - possibly with fatal consequences - or, more likely, the parliament will come up with another fudge, putting off the crunch (as the Americans did) for another day.

If the Iraqis are lucky, they may eventually arrive at the corrupt fig-leaf sort of democracy that flourishes in other Arab states such as Egypt. The sort of democracy where elections change nothing and their results are always a foregone conclusion. On the other hand, they may not be so fortunate.

The liberation of Iraq is still a long way off.

Source (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0131-24.htm)

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeptic, here is a free Iraqi giving you the 'finger'......

[Skeptic]

Read this: The Democracy Lie (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0320-23.htm)

[BillyBob]

Read this: The Democracy Lie (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0320-23.htm)


No thanks....:yawn:

We have watched you bash everything from our booming economy to freedom in the Middle East, Skeptic. Everything you write is so severely slanted to the extreme Bush Hating left that it is predictable, redundant and laughable.

I'd rather watch my dog lick itself than read any more of your commie drivel.

[Skeptic]

No thanks....:yawn:

We have watched you bash everything from our booming economy to freedom in the Middle East, Skeptic. Everything you write is so severely slanted to the extreme Bush Hating left that it is predictable, redundant and laughable.

I'd rather watch my dog lick itself than read any more of your commie drivel. Then, I guess we won't be seeing any more of you in this thread, right BillyBob? :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Then, I guess we won't be seeing any more of you in this thread, right BillyBob? :chuckle:


Oh no, I'll be here, I'm just not gonna waste my time reading your links or posts.

Hey, there goes my dog again! :firechyld

[Skeptic]

Oh no, I'll be here, I'm just not gonna waste my time reading your links or posts. Yeah, that's rational, ... read only things written by those who agree with you.

[BillyBob]

Yeah, that's rational, ... read only things written by those who agree with you.

Skeptic, I have been reading your redundant posts for at least 3 years now, there is nothing new about them. I can sum them up in 3 words: "I hate Bush". :yawn:

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, I have been reading your redundant posts for at least 3 years now, there is nothing new about them. I can sum them up in 3 words: "I hate Bush". :yawn: Since Bush invaded Iraq, nothing has changed regarding its justification.

There are plenty of reasons to hate what Bush has done. But, you've heard enough about that, right BillyBob? Now, all you want to hear are reasons to like Bush.

Which one of these (http://members.cox.net/skeptical/hear-see-say-no-evil.jpg) are you, BillyBob?

[drbrumley]

Billy, now Skeptic at least will admit he will vote for the pro muderer Clinton.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic has no problem admitting that.

[BillyBob]

Since Bush invaded Iraq, nothing has changed regarding its justification.



I agree, Bush was completely justified.

[Skeptic]

I agree, Bush was completely justified. Wrong.

Bush presented no confirmed pre-war evidence of Iraqi WMDs. There were plenty of doubts in the intelligence community about Iraq's alleged WMDs. Bush and Co. did their best to hide these doubts from Congress and the American people. Bush's own team failed to find any evidence of WMDs or programs. Hence, Iraq was not a threat and his invasion was not justified.

If you want to call Saddam a "terrorist" and claim that is THE reason Bush invaded Iraq, I say that there are many leaders of other nations that could equally be labeled a "terrorist" by your standards. Why didn't Bush invade them? Because he and his buddies felt they could only get away with lying about WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq was "do-able."

Saddam had no meaningful ties with the terrorist group that attacked America on 9/11. He was generally a small-time player. Therefore, even if Saddam had technically been a "terrorist," this in itself would NOT be a justification for launching a massive invasion of Iraq, killing thousands of innocent people in the process!!

Many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died unnecessarily as a result of Bush's immoral invasion!

Over 1800 brave U.S. troops have died unnecessarily as a result of Bush's immoral invasion!

Your perpetual claim that "Saddam was a terrorist" does not justify the horrors Bush has brought upon the people of Iraq and our brave soldiers.

[CRASH]

Wrong.

Bush presented no... our brave soldiers.

Don't you really hate Bush because you think he is a Christian?

[simply one]

Don't you really hate Bush because you think he is a Christian?

DO you actually have any idea what is going on? Bush being Christian has VERY LITTLE to do with this thread. This is due to the fact that he is not the only Christian US president..... in fact, ALL THE US PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN CHRISTIANS (just perhaps not in line with your fanatical views)



Billy, now Skeptic at least will admit he will vote for the pro muderer Clinton

so, brumley, are you the forgiving, Jesus-following type of Christian or are you the self-righteous, fanatical, fit-the-Bible-to-your-views type of "Christian"?

If you are the first, you too would have voted for Clinton.

Id you are the second, then you probably hate him.

And if you bring up the subject of his sex-life and his lies about that, I'll be forced to bring up how Bush has caused the uneccesary deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of US soldiers and his lies about jutification for invading Iraq.

[Army of One]

so, brumley, are you the forgiving, Jesus-following type of Christian or are you the self-righteous, fanatical, fit-the-Bible-to-your-views type of "Christian"?

If you are the first, you too would have voted for Clinton.

Id you are the second, then you probably hate him.

And if you bring up the subject of his sex-life and his lies about that, I'll be forced to bring up how Bush has caused the uneccesary deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of US soldiers and his lies about jutification for invading Iraq.
That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Exactly how would being a "Jesus-following type of Christian" cause someone to vote for Clinton (either Bill or Hillary).

And how does Bush causing unnecesary deaths (in your opinion) justify Bill Clinton's crimes. If your reasoning about Bush is correct, and I don't believe it is, that merely means that they are both wicked. It doesn't somehow justify Clinton.

[simply one]

That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Exactly how would being a "Jesus-following type of Christian" cause someone to vote for Clinton (either Bill or Hillary).

What you fail to note is the context of the conversation. The subject was the death-penalty and the Clinton was against in in all but the most extreme cases. In other words, a forgving person would believe that all life is sacred, while a vengent person would want eye-for-an-eye.


And how does Bush causing unnecesary deaths (in your opinion) justify Bill Clinton's crimes. If your reasoning about Bush is correct, and I don't believe it is, that merely means that they are both wicked. It doesn't somehow justify Clinton.

I am in no way praising waht Clinton did. But, look at the society around you. Children in MIDDLE SCHOOL are engaging in the same thing that Clinton did. It is our culture that is going downhill, not because of Clintion's presidency.

Bush's misleading and crimes are FAR FAR worse than Clinton's by any rational standards. Lying about having sex? bad thing to do. Lying about the reasons to invade another nation, resulting in the deaths of over 25000 Iraqi men, woman, and children, and of over 1800 US troops? MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE.

Look at the big picture? Who's truly damaged by Clinton lying about sex? Some over cautious mothers? Well, if they're that worried about corrupting their childrens' minds then they'd unplug the TV and the computer. Who's damaged by Bush's lying and subsequent invasion? Well, just ask the families of the tens of thousands who have died, because, unfortunately, you cannot ask those who have already been sacrificed on Bush's Crusade.

[Army of One]

What you fail to note is the context of the conversation. The subject was the death-penalty and the Clinton was against in in all but the most extreme cases. In other words, a forgving person would believe that all life is sacred, while a vengent person would want eye-for-an-eye.The mistake you're making is assuming that Jesus and His followers opposed the death penalty. Jesus was the One who intituted the death penalty for Noah and his decendants.

I am in no way praising waht Clinton did. But, look at the society around you. Children in MIDDLE SCHOOL are engaging in the same thing that Clinton did. It is our culture that is going downhill, not because of Clintion's presidency.
So does a President not have a responsibility to rise above the moral depravity of society? Is he justified by the assertion, "everybody is doing it"?

Bush's misleading and crimes are FAR FAR worse than Clinton's by any rational standards. Lying about having sex? bad thing to do. Lying about the reasons to invade another nation, resulting in the deaths of over 25000 Iraqi men, woman, and children, and of over 1800 US troops? MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE.

Look at the big picture? Who's truly damaged by Clinton lying about sex? Some over cautious mothers? Well, if they're that worried about corrupting their childrens' minds then they'd unplug the TV and the computer. Who's damaged by Bush's lying and subsequent invasion? Well, just ask the families of the tens of thousands who have died, because, unfortunately, you cannot ask those who have already been sacrificed on Bush's Crusade.I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Bush intentionally misled our country into war. Was he wrong about his claim that Iraq had WMDs? It appears so, but so was just about everyone in our government (as well as England's).

And your figure of 25,000 is somewhat misleading, as it implies that the U.S. has killed that many civilians. The truth is, less than half of that figure is attributable to U.S. servicemen (the majority is the result of crime, including that committed by the insurgants). Don't get me wrong. Even if our military only killed 1 innocent civilian in Iraq, that 1 death would be tragic. But war's are tragic, but at times needed (as I'm convinced our action in Iraq is). But we cannot be held accountable for every single death that has occurred in Iraq since we arrived. Also, is your figure of over 1800 US troops just combat related fatalities, or is that the total number of deaths in Iraq (in other words, including accidental deaths). The reason I ask is because it is also misleading to include accidental deaths, as these kind of deaths occur on a regular basis in the military, even when not deployed.

[Skeptic]

Don't you really hate Bush because you think he is a Christian? What makes you think I hate Christians? I have friends who are Christian!

I hate some of the things Bush has done! What I hate the most is his unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq. Those many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children did NOT have to die, and would NOT have died, if Bush had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq. Over 1800 of our brave U.S. soldiers did NOT have to die, and would NOT have died, if Bush had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq.

[Skeptic]

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that Bush intentionally misled our country into war. Was he wrong about his claim that Iraq had WMDs? It appears so, but so was just about everyone in our government (as well as England's). Bush knew he had not seen any hard evidence of WMDs. He knew information provided by Iraqi sources had not been confirmed. He knew there was plenty of doubt about WMDs within the intelligence community. He knew that invading Iraq would kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

==============
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption --when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Senator Bob Graham - a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee - told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

From: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

[fool]

Skeptic;
Short posts get read more.
Did or Did not Iraq invade Kuwait?
Did or did not that end with a surrender?
Did or did not that surrender contain conditions?
Did or did not those conditions get broke?
We should have done this long ago.

[Army of One]

Bush knew he had not seen any hard evidence of WMDs. He knew information provided by Iraqi sources had not been confirmed. He knew there was plenty of doubt about WMDs within the intelligence community. He knew that invading Iraq would kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children.
If you're looking for someone to unflinchingly defend Bush, you've got the wrong guy. Do I suspect that Bush made exagerated claims about WMD and overstated his case? Yes. But I don't think that he was aware that there were going to be none found. I think he was confident, as were most politicians on both sides, that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I just find it unreasonable to conclude that he was fudging all the intel that suggested that Saddam was a threat, since the vast majority of elected officials in the past 10 years seemed to be equally convinced (I'm sure you've heard the numerous quotes from Democrats that believed the same thing, even before Bush was in office).

But all that is beside the point, because I believe that Saddam was a legitimate target to go after. And I defend our decision to go into Iraq on those grounds, not out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to Bush. Even after discoving that there were no stockpiles, I still don't regret that we invaded Iraq, because Saddam needed to be taken out. I would argue though that some of our tactics were unwise, and that there were other nations that should have been a higher priority (we should have finished the job in Afghanistan first, then pressured nations such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

[Army of One]

Skeptic;
Short posts get read more.
Did or Did not Iraq invade Kuwait?
Did or did not that end with a surrender?
Did or did not that surrender contain conditions?
Did or did not those conditions get broke?
We should have done this long ago.
:thumb:

[fool]

Nobody thinks Bush is perfect.
But after 9-11 I was glad to see some turf getting taken back from terrorist rule.
Al quida was operating from Afgan land when they blew up that truck at world trade center the first time. Should have dropped the hammer then. And then two embassies in Africa got blown up.
Still no big response.U.S.S Cole, nothing. 9-11, invade Afganistan, invade Iraq, who else wants some? Some times you got to go on the offensive.

[Army of One]

Nobody thinks Bush is perfect.
But after 9-11 I was glad to see some turf getting taken back from terrorist rule.
Al quida was operating from Afgan land when they blew up that truck at world trade center the first time. Should have dropped the hammer then. And then two embassies in Africa got blown up.
Still no big response.U.S.S Cole, nothing. 9-11, invade Afganistan, invade Iraq, who else wants some? Some times you got to go on the offensive.Amen. My thoughts, exactly.

[fool]

Amen. My thoughts, exactly.
OK, now we got two problems.
You think the Dems are gonna press the attack?
Is it important the attack get pressed?
How are you gonna make sure the U.S. stays on top?

[Army of One]

OK, now we got two problems.
You think the Dems are gonna press the attack?
Is it important the attack get pressed?
How are you gonna make sure the U.S. stays on top?
Well, that is a good point. I do suspect that a Dem president would be a lot less likely to be as aggressive in the war on terrorism (unless lobbing a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant is considered being "aggressive").

But of course your point is contigent upon your idea that, by not voting Republican I am ensuring a Democratic victory, I don't see it that way. If the Republicans lose, they will have no one to blame but themselves. But if the Republicans are wise enough to run a truly Pro-Life candidate, they will get my support.

[fool]

Well, that is a good point. I do suspect that a Dem president would be a lot less likely to be as aggressive in the war on terrorism (unless lobbing a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant is considered being "aggressive").

But of course your point is contigent upon your idea that, by not voting Republican I am ensuring a Democratic victory, I don't see it that way. If the Republicans lose, they will have no one to blame but themselves. But if the Republicans are wise enough to run a truly Pro-Life candidate, they will get my support.
Your still focusing on who to blame after the fact rather than focusing on the goal itself.
Which is to get the good enough guy in, rather than the totaly wrong guy.

[BillyBob]

Wrong.

Bush presented no confirmed pre-war evidence of Iraqi WMDs. There were plenty of doubts in the intelligence community about Iraq's alleged WMDs. Bush and Co. did their best to hide these doubts from Congress and the American people. Bush's own team failed to find any evidence of WMDs or programs. Hence, Iraq was not a threat and his invasion was not justified.

If you want to call Saddam a "terrorist" and claim that is THE reason Bush invaded Iraq, I say that there are many leaders of other nations that could equally be labeled a "terrorist" by your standards. Why didn't Bush invade them? Because he and his buddies felt they could only get away with lying about WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq was "do-able."

Saddam had no meaningful ties with the terrorist group that attacked America on 9/11. He was generally a small-time player. Therefore, even if Saddam had technically been a "terrorist," this in itself would NOT be a justification for launching a massive invasion of Iraq, killing thousands of innocent people in the process!!

Many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died unnecessarily as a result of Bush's immoral invasion!

Over 1800 brave U.S. troops have died unnecessarily as a result of Bush's immoral invasion!

Your perpetual claim that "Saddam was a terrorist" does not justify the horrors Bush has brought upon the people of Iraq and our brave soldiers.



:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

What you fail to note is the context of the conversation. The subject was the death-penalty and the Clinton was against in in all but the most extreme cases. In other words, a forgving person would believe that all life is sacred, while a vengent person would want eye-for-an-eye.

Actually, my simple little friend, the subject was not the death penalty, it was abortion and was carried over from the 'Hillary for President' thread.

[On Fire]

I don't think Bush should be impeached.

I don't think Bush will be impeached.

Have a nice day.

[Skeptic]

Did or Did not Iraq invade Kuwait?
Did or did not that end with a surrender?
Did or did not that surrender contain conditions?
Did or did not those conditions get broke?
We should have done this long ago. Whatever conditions Saddam broke did not warrant the massive invasion, in March 2003, in which many thousands of innocent men, women and children died.

War means massive deaths! War is not a penalty for technical violations of anything. War is a last resort to address very specific conditions, such as a real, significant and imminent threat, or to stop some rare massive ongoing humanitarian crisis that could only be stopped buy such an invasion. In the case of Iraq, the cure (invasion) was worse than the disease (Saddam). This is why the UN did not vote to start a war with Iraq, even though Iraq and violated several of its own resolutions. The world (except Bush's lame "Coalition of the Coerced") knew that there were insufficient grounds for starting a war with Iraq.

[On Fire]

...technical violations...
Dr. Spin, you made my day. :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

If you're looking for someone to unflinchingly defend Bush, you've got the wrong guy. Do I suspect that Bush made exaggerated claims about WMD and overstated his case? Yes. But I don't think that he was aware that there were going to be none found. I think he was confident, as were most politicians on both sides, that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. One does not justifiably start a war (cause massive deaths) because one is "confident" threatening WMDs will be found after the fact. If one does not have hard pre-war evidence (is certain) of such WMDs and the clear intention to use them, there is no justification to start a war (cause massive deaths) with such a country.

I just find it unreasonable to conclude that he was fudging all the intel that suggested that Saddam was a threat, since the vast majority of elected officials in the past 10 years seemed to be equally convinced (I'm sure you've heard the numerous quotes from Democrats that believed the same thing, even before Bush was in office). When Bush invaded Iraq, for anyone (Reps or Dems) to believe that Iraq still had WMDs was essentially equivalent to having faith that Iraq had WMDs. Since faith is the belief that something is true despite the absence of evidence, Bush's unnecessary invasion was essentially a "faith-based" war. One does not invade other countries merely because one has faith that they possess WMDs.

But all that is beside the point, because I believe that Saddam was a legitimate target to go after. Let me rephrase your statement using my terminology, in order to help you see my point: "But all that is beside the point, because I believe that Saddam was a legitimate target to cause the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children." You see, when you use language like "go after," it sounds like all one is doing is "going after" a bad guy, a criminal, someone who needs to be taken out. Who can disagree with that? Saddam was a bad guy, a criminal, someone who needed to be taken out. Saddam was not, however, such a threat that it was urgently necessary to cause the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, just to take him out! Simply because the leader of a country is a bad guy, a criminal, someone who needed to be taken out, this does NOT mean that we should start a war (cause massive deaths) to achieve the otherwise noble end of "taking him out." The ends to not justify the means (Moral ends to not justify immoral means).

[Frank Ernest]

Whatever conditions Saddam broke did not warrant the massive invasion, in March 2003, in which many thousands of innocent men, women and children died.

War means massive deaths! War is not a penalty for technical violations of anything. War is a last resort to address very specific conditions, such as a real, significant and imminent threat, or to stop some rare massive ongoing humanitarian crisis that could only be stopped buy such an invasion. In the case of Iraq, the cure (invasion) was worse than the disease (Saddam). This is why the UN did not vote to start a war with Iraq, even though Iraq and violated several of its own resolutions. The world (except Bush's lame "Coalition of the Coerced") knew that there were insufficient grounds for starting a war with Iraq.
Saddam could have surrendered at any time in order to avoid causing the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

[On Fire]

Iraq shares a border with nearly 5 million square miles of sand, caves and mountains. Do ya think they could hide a few WMD's?

[Skeptic]

Nobody thinks Bush is perfect.
But after 9-11 I was glad to see some turf getting taken back from terrorist rule.
Al quida was operating from Afgan land when they blew up that truck at world trade center the first time. Should have dropped the hammer then. And then two embassies in Africa got blown up.
Still no big response.U.S.S Cole, nothing. 9-11, invade Afganistan, invade Iraq, who else wants some? Some times you got to go on the offensive. Ok, tough guy. Don't put Afghanistan in the same boat with Iraq. You know very well that al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, but that there is no good evidence that they were in Iraq.

"Who else wants some"? Ooooo, ... I'm afraid of you! :rolleyes:

The fact is that when Bush "went on the offensive" in Iraq, he went on the offensive against a country that was not a threat!

Bush's unnecessary invasion resulted in a dramatic increase in global terrorism. There was an understandable drop in terrorism after the world was shocked by 9/11. The numbers stayed low in the months following Bush's invasion of Iraq. Then, after the dust cleared, global moral outrage increased, especially among the worlds Muslim population. Have you seen this?

International Terrorist Attacks:

xxxx =========|=========|=========|=========|=========| =========|=========|
2005 = ?
2004 ================================================== ==========651
2003 ===================208 (March - Bush's invasion of Iraq)
2002 ===================205
2001 ===============================355 (October- Invasion of Afghanistan)
----GEORGE BUSH JR.
2000 ======================================426
1999 ===================================395
1998 ========================274
1997 ============================304
1996 =========================296
1995 =======================================440
1994 =============================322
1993 =======================================431
----BILL CLINTON
1992 =================================363
1991 ================================================== 565
1990 =======================================437
1989 =================================375
----GEORGE BUSH SR.
1988 ================================================== ======605
1987 ================================================== ==========665
1986 ================================================== ======612
1985 ================================================== =======635
1984 ================================================== 565
1983 ============================================497
1982 ===========================================487
1981 ===========================================489
----RONALD REAGAN
xxxx =========|=========|=========|=========|=========| =========|=========|

Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10235.htm
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1999/review.html
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/review.html
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm

[On Fire]

Bush's unnecessary invasion resulted in a dramatic increase in global terrorism.
Hey, toe jam, just because more little Mamoon's are strapping bombs to their torsos does not mean that the war was unjust. It means that Muslim extremists are WACKO!!!

[CRASH]

Why havn't we bombed the hell out of more of those terrorist bastards and taken over a few more countries?
Bush is a liberal.

[Skeptic]

Hey, toe jam, just because more little Mamoon's are strapping bombs to their torsos does not mean that the war was unjust. It means that Muslim extremists are WACKO!!! The fact that Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq helped to dramatically increase global terrorism is NOT why the war was unjust. Bush's war was unjust because it was not based on clear hard evidence of a real significant and imminent threat, but on speculations, fears, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations! Bush's war was, therefore, unnecessary! All unnecessary wars of choice are unjust!

The fact that Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq helped to dramatically increase global terrorism simply demonstrates the folly of such a military venture. Bush and Co. thought that all Iraqis would simply welcome the U.S. with open arms and thank them for "liberating" them from a brutal tyrant. Bush and Co. are now realizing, but not acknowledging publicly, just how naive their nation-building military adventure really was.

Bush's unnecessary invasion has had the opposite result of what the neocons had hoped. So much for the so-called "War on Terror."

Many of us knew better. One does not "go after" terrorists by invading a country that was not a significant terrorist threat. Bush and his buddies essentially stirred up a hornet's nest where one had not been previously. And this hornet's nest is not localized just in Iraq, but spans the globe. One does not win the "War on Terrorism" (which cannot actually be won) by creating more terrorists! This is exactly what Bush's unnecessary invasion has done. Bush war radicalized thousands of Muslims who would otherwise have remained law-abiding citizens.

[BillyBob]

Saddam could have surrendered at any time in order to avoid causing the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

That is exactly right, Frank. Any blood spilled in Iraq is on the hands of Saddam....and the current influx of foreign terrorists.

[BillyBob]

The fact that Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq helped to dramatically increase global terrorism simply demonstrates the folly of such a military venture.


Actually, I'd say that the increase of terrorism is proof that what Bush is doing is the right thing and the terrorists hate it.

[Skeptic]

That is exactly right, Frank. Any blood spilled in Iraq is on the hands of Saddam....and the current influx of foreign terrorists. Bush did NOT have to invade Iraq!

Bush chose to invade Iraq!

It was this choice by Bush that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops!

[Skeptic]

Actually, I'd say that the increase of terrorism is proof that what Bush is doing is the right thing and the terrorists hate it. :bang: How does fueling anti-American hatred and increasing terrorism help to reduce terrorism?

[BillyBob]

:bang: How does fueling anti-American hatred and increasing terrorism help to reduce terrorism?


Skeppie, they hate us because we are freeing millions of people from their fanatical religious clutches. Do you really care if terrorists and Islamo-fascists hate America? I sure don't. :nono:

[Delmar]

Skeppie, they hate us because we are freeing millions of people from their fanatical religious clutches. Do you really care if terrorists and Islamo-fascists hate America? I sure don't. :nono: I don't care if the dead ones hate us. The ones we havn't killed yet can be a bit of a problem.

[CRASH]

:bang: How does fueling anti-American hatred and increasing terrorism help to reduce terrorism?

Because the terrorist are terrorists regardless of what we do. They already hated America. They've been attacking us for decades. We are now in thier back yard killing them. It's a good feeling.
Don't you really hate Bush because you think he is a Christian?

[BillyBob]

I don't care if the dead ones hate us. The ones we havn't killed yet can be a bit of a problem.


Then we need to kill them, too.

[BillyBob]

International Terrorist Attacks:

xxxx =========|=========|=========|=========|=========| =========|=========|
2005 = ?
2004 ================================================== ==========651
2003 ===================208 (March - Bush's invasion of Iraq)
2002 ===================205
2001 ===============================355 (October- Invasion of Afghanistan)
----GEORGE BUSH JR.
2000 ======================================426
1999 ===================================395
1998 ========================274
1997 ============================304
1996 =========================296
1995 =======================================440
1994 =============================322
1993 =======================================431
----BILL CLINTON
1992 =================================363
1991 ================================================== 565
1990 =======================================437
1989 =================================375
----GEORGE BUSH SR.
1988 ================================================== ======605
1987 ================================================== ==========665
1986 ================================================== ======612
1985 ================================================== =======635
1984 ================================================== 565
1983 ============================================497
1982 ===========================================487
1981 ===========================================489
----RONALD REAGAN
xxxx =========|=========|=========|=========|=========| =========|=========|




Thank you, Skeptic, for proving that terrorists have been terrorizing for decades. It is not some new occurance, as you would have others believe. The difference is that NOW, we are FINALLY doing something about it!

Thank God for George Bush! :sam:

[BillyBob]

:bang: How does fueling anti-American hatred and increasing terrorism help to reduce terrorism?

What do you want to do, Skeppie, appease the terrorists?????? :doh:

[BillyBob]

:blabla:


:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

That is exactly right, Frank. Any blood spilled in Iraq is on the hands of Saddam....and the current influx of foreign terrorists.
And on the hands of his local vocal supporters ...

[BillyBob]

And on the hands of his local vocal supporters ...

Such as.......


:think:



:idea:



Skeptic?

[Frank Ernest]

Thou hast said it.

[CRASH]

yeah, Skeptic would have no complaints if the rape rooms and the terrorist training camps were still operating 24/7

[Frank Ernest]

Bush did NOT have to invade Iraq!

Bush chose to invade Iraq!

It was this choice by Bush that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops!
It was by choice by Saddam's did not surrender and caused the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops!

[Skeptic]

It was by choice by Saddam's did not surrender and caused the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as our brave troops! Nonsense!

If a known murderer were in a house, along with hundreds of innocent men, women and children held hostage, and the house was surrounded by heavily armed police, but the police had no hard evidence that this known murderer had any weapons, yet, after the murderer refused to surrender, the police chief chose to order his men to fire upon the house, killing most of the innocent men, women and children in the process, even though there was no reason negotiations could not have continued, who would be responsible for the deaths of those hundreds of innocent hostages?

The police chief!

[Frank Ernest]

Nonsense!

If a known murderer were in a house, along with hundreds of innocent men, women and children held hostage, and the house was surrounded by heavily armed police, but the police had no hard evidence that this known murderer had any weapons, yet, after the murderer refused to surrender, the police chief chose to order his men to fire upon the house, killing most of the innocent men, women and children in the process, even though there was no reason negotiations could not have continued, who would be responsible for the deaths of those hundreds of innocent hostages?

The police chief!
:darwinsm: Thank you for reducing your thoughts to simplistic stupidity.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeppie, you wanna hear about casualties, read this New York Times headline from 60 years ago:


THE NEW YORK TIMES


Guam, Thursday, Aug. 9 -- Gen. Carl A. Spaatz announced today that a second atomic bomb had been dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki, and that crew members reported "good results."

The second use of the new and terrifying secret weapon which wiped out more than 60 percent of the city of Hiroshima and, according to the Japanese radio, killed nearly every resident of that town, occurred at noon today, Japanese time. The target today was an important industrial and shipping area with a population of about 258,000.

The great bomb, which harnesses the power of the universe to destroy the enemy by concussion, blast and fire, was dropped on the second enemy city about seven hours after the Japanese had received a political "roundhouse punch" in the form of a declaration of war by the Soviet Union.

[BillyBob]

I love the fact that Crew Members reported 'Good Results'!

Skeptic and others like him have forgotten what war used to be like. Now, a couple thousand US casualties over a two year period is unaaceptable. In WWII, tens of thousands of US soldiers died in a single battle.

This is a war. People die. That's just how it is.

[Frank Ernest]

Collateral casualties in Iraq went from 1,000 to 5,000 to 10,000, to 100,000 just prior to November, 2004.
Now they are back to approximately 20,000 in August, 2005.

Using the rational rationality of scientific science and naturalistic naturalism advocated by :skeptic:, it is obvious that between November, 2004, and August, 2005, the American invasion of Iraq has SAVED approximately 80,000 lives of innocent men, women and children.

[BillyBob]

I wanna see Skeppie draw a graph for that one!

[HerodionRomulus]

Don't you really hate Bush because you think he is a Christian?

He claims to be a Christian but Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, by their actions:
"blessed are the peacemakers" not the war-makers.
"vengeance is mine saith the Lord" which means let God handle those who did 9/11 instead of doing it yourself.
"turn the other cheek" not retaliate, see above.
"thou shalt not kill" this includes war and capital punishment.
"Love" for all, not just those you like
'peace" see above
"blessed are the meek" not the arrogant
"love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful (bring em on) or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on it's own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...

[Skeptic]

I love the fact that Crew Members reported 'Good Results'!

Skeptic and others like him have forgotten what war used to be like. Now, a couple thousand US casualties over a two year period is unaaceptable. In WWII, tens of thousands of US soldiers died in a single battle.

This is a war. People die. That's just how it is. Some wars are necessary, some are not. Those that are not are immoral. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq a case in point.

[Skeptic]

Collateral casualties in Iraq went from 1,000 to 5,000 to 10,000, to 100,000 just prior to November, 2004.
Now they are back to approximately 20,000 in August, 2005.

Using the rational rationality of scientific science and naturalistic naturalism advocated by skeptic, it is obvious that between November, 2004, and August, 2005, the American invasion of Iraq has SAVED approximately 80,000 lives of innocent men, women and children. There have been at least 23,000 civilian causalities in Iraq since March 2003. The number could be as high as 100,000.

[BillyBob]

Some wars are necessary, Bush's invasion of Iraq [is] a case in point.


I agree! :BillyBob:

[Skeptic]

I agree! :BillyBob: You righties just love distorting the truth (and other people's posts).

Bush's war was unnecessary.

Please explain why you think it was so urgently necessary that Bush just had to rush into Iraq and kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003, BillyBob.

[BillyBob]

Please explain why you think it was so urgently necessary that Bush just had to rush into Iraq and kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003, BillyBob.

There was nothing urgent about it. Saddam had been given a dozen years to comply with over a dozen UN Resolutions as well as conditions set at the end of the First Gulf War.

He declined.

Removing Saddam was not a sudden decision, contrary to what you neo-coms like to claim.

[Frank Ernest]

He claims to be a Christian but Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, by their actions:
"blessed are the peacemakers" not the war-makers.
"vengeance is mine saith the Lord" which means let God handle those who did 9/11 instead of doing it yourself.
"turn the other cheek" not retaliate, see above.
"thou shalt not kill" this includes war and capital punishment.
"Love" for all, not just those you like
'peace" see above
"blessed are the meek" not the arrogant
"love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful (bring em on) or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on it's own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...
:vomit:

[Frank Ernest]

There have been at least 23,000 civilian causalities in Iraq since March 2003. The number could be as high as 100,000.
:darwinsm: Could be as high as a billion too.

[BillyBob]

Maybe even 100 billion! :noway:

[simply one]

Because the terrorist are terrorists regardless of what we do. They already hated America. They've been attacking us for decades. We are now in thier back yard killing them. It's a good feeling.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html)

The unneccesary invasion of Iraq is breeding MORE terrorists!!! US soldiers may be able to kill some of the terrorists "in their backyard", as you put it, but in the process the US is providing incentive for scores of new jihadis for each "terrorist insurgent" who is killed.

NOT ALL ISLAMICS HATE AMERICA. Just like not all rednecks are ignorant and not all liberals are gay. BUT, the war in Iraq simply supports the Islamic fundamentalist claims of the "Evil American Empire". The Islamics see a country invade a Middle Eastern nation based on false statements and against the will of the world, and it does NOT foster support for the invaders. This "Crusade" is causing more damage to the world and to America in the long run!

:bang:

[Skeptic]

There was nothing urgent about it. So, you are saying that many thousands of innocent men, women and children died for something that was not an urgent matter?

Do you mean Bush actually had plenty of time to deal with Saddam in other ways, so as to avoid the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent people?

You're saying that Saddam did not need to be taken out so urgently that thousands of innocent people had to die?

:confused:

[Frank Ernest]

Maybe even 100 billion! :noway:
Hmmmmmmmmm. :think:

The world population is estimated at 6 billion currently. That means 94 (100 - 6) billion unnecessary casualties unaccounted for. You may be on to something, :BillyBob:!

Always wear your aluminum-foil helmet with the shiny side out.

[BillyBob]

So, you are saying that many thousands of innocent men, women and children died for something that was not an urgent matter?

Do you mean Bush actually had plenty of time to deal with Saddam in other ways, so as to avoid the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent people?

You're saying that Saddam did not need to be taken out so urgently that thousands of innocent people had to die?

:confused:


No, I am saying that your claim of rash, urgent actions is false. This is a leftover of the first Gulf War, Skeptic. Saddam had been given countless chances and 12 years to co-operate and his time was finally up.

I suppose you would have chosen to continue allowing Saddam to ignore the UN Resolutions, continue funding terrorism, continue harboring terrorists, continue his WMD programs and continue ignoring the restrictions placed upon him after the First Gulf War indefinitely?

Of course you would have.......stupid commie. :dunce: :Commie:

[BillyBob]

Hmmmmmmmmm. :think:

The world population is estimated at 6 billion currently. That means 94 (100 - 6) billion unnecessary casualties unaccounted for. You may be on to something, :BillyBob:!



It'll give Skeptic some inspiration next time he wants to make a graph.

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

Actually, the war against Islamic terrorism has been going on for about 1,300 years now. I am not linclined to think that our response has been "rash."

[BillyBob]

Yep, it's been a long time coming. I am thankful that GW took the first step, I just hope his successor is at least as bold.

Blair gets it. He is now cracking down on any Muslims who speak out against Britain. Deport the scumbags and clean up the UK! Way to go, Tony! :BRAVO: I hope our government is paying attention.....

[On Fire]

Bush should not be impeached for doing his job. Really.

[On Fire]

Yep, it's been a long time coming. I am thankful that GW took the first step, I just hope his successor is at least as bold.

Blair gets it. He is now cracking down on any Muslims who speak out against Britain. Deport the scumbags and clean up the UK! Way to go, Tony! :BRAVO: I hope our government is paying attention.....
BillyBob,

What does the "C" stand for?

[simply one]

BillyBob,

What does the "C" stand for?

could it be crap, for is inside is so full that it has manifested itself on his outside?

just kidding....

[Skeptic]

No, I am saying that your claim of rash, urgent actions is false. You just said "There was nothing urgent about it." However, Bush and Co. gave us the impression that it was urgent!

Statements by Bush and company, who speak for the Administration:

(my emphasis)

"He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." -- President Bush, September 13, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." -- President Bush, September 26, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." -- President Bush, 10/2/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." -- President Bush, 10/7/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" -- President Bush, October 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat..." -- President Bush, November 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat, and it is not, so we should strike before it becomes imminent.

"We cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of volatile, unpredictable leaders. Which is exactly why we must act quickly and decisively against Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, January 15, 2003
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Well, of course he is.” -- White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" -- President Bush, January 28, 2003
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat (due to terrorists), and it is not, so we should strike before it becomes imminent.

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat, and it is not, so we should strike before it becomes imminent.

"This is about imminent threat." -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now..." -- President Bush, March 17, 2003
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Absolutely." -- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." -- President Bush, November 7, 2002
Translated: I'll say whatever it takes to instill fear in the American people, even if I have no hard evidence to back it up.

Bush did not have to explicitly state that Saddam posed an "imminent threat." All he had to do was to clearly imply that the threat was imminent by saying "we cannot wait", "we must act quickly," or we must disarm him "now."

But now you are saying "There was nothing urgent about it." If there was nothing urgent about it, why did Bush and Co. say the opposite?

This is a leftover of the first Gulf War, Skeptic. Saddam had been given countless chances and 12 years to co-operate and his time was finally up. So, simply because Saddam repeatedly failed to cooperate in various ways, THIS justified the massive invasion of Iraq, which everyone knew would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children? Mere failure to cooperate with UN inspectors does NOT justify war, which necessarily kills thousands of people!!

I suppose you would have chosen to continue allowing Saddam to ignore the UN Resolutions, As long as there was no hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, if allowing Saddam to ignore UN Resolutions could have preserved the lives of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, then YES, I would have let him!

But you keep failing to acknowledge that Saddam was cooperating with UN inspectors, in the months leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion! And these inspectors were continuing to find NOTHING that would have given Bush a rational reason to think that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat!

continue funding terrorism, Saddam was a small-time player. His alleged "funding of terrorism" did NOT rise to the level that would have warranted a massive military invasion and resulting massive loss of lives! If allowing him to continue giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers could have preserved the lives of many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, the YES, I would have let him!

continue harboring terrorists, There is no evidence Saddam intentionally harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. If there were a few such terrorists in Iraq before March 2003, this did NOT warrant a massive invasion and resulting massive loss of lives!

continue his WMD programs What WMD programs? Oh, ... do you mean the ones that were dismantled many years before March 2003 by UN inspectors? Bush had no hard evidence that Saddam was reconstituting his old weapons programs.

On February 24, 2001, during Secretary of State Powell's visit to Cairo, he said: And frankly [the sanctions] have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq... Then, a mere seven months later, after September 11, 2001, all of a sudden Iraq is a clear WMD threat? I would say it is MORE clear that Bush and Co. was fixing the intelligence to fit the policy, than that Saddam was a WMD threat!

and continue ignoring the restrictions placed upon him after the First Gulf War indefinitely? As long as there was no hard evidence of any real, significant and imminent threat, which would have jeopardized the lives of many thousands of innocent people, then YES, I would have let him continue to ignore the such restrictions, as long as no such threats materialized and many thousands of lives were not needlessly lost.

But you talk as if the U.S. and the UN were doing nothing about Saddam's noncompliance with such restrictions. What do you call the sanctions and the "No Fly Zones"? During the time the inspectors were not finding any WMDs or programs, the U.S. was steadily bombing Iraq, right up to before Bush's unnecessary invasion! Saddam was cooperating with inspectors in the months before March 2003.

You, on the other hand, had no problem that many thousands of lives were lost merely because Saddam had not been as cooperative as some would have liked. Lack of cooperation in itself, in the absence of a real, significant and imminent threat, is NEVER a justification for war, no matter HOW LONG such lack of cooperation continues!! Wars should NEVER be waged out of frustration with lack of cooperation from other countries. If frustration were a justifiable reason to wage wars, humans would have killed themselves off a long time ago.

When there is no evidence of a significant imminent threat, there is ALWAYS time to explore non-lethal ways to deal with uncooperative leaders of other countries.

[BillyBob]

Actually, Bush used the phrase 'Before Iraq becomes an imminent threat'. But we've already been through all this and you were wrong and I was right the last time. :yawn:

[Skeptic]

Actually, Bush used the phrase 'Before Iraq becomes an imminent threat'. But we've already been through all this and you were wrong and I was right the last time. Bush and his buddies were fond of using code words for saying that Iraq was an "imminent threat" without explicitly saying so.

Because you forget so quickly:

"He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." -- President Bush, September 13, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." -- President Bush, September 26, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." -- President Bush, 10/2/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." -- President Bush, 10/7/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" -- President Bush, October 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat..." -- President Bush, November 7, 2002
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat, and it is not, so we should strike before it becomes imminent.

"We cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of volatile, unpredictable leaders. Which is exactly why we must act quickly and decisively against Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, January 15, 2003
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Well, of course he is.” -- White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" -- President Bush, January 28, 2003
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat (due to terrorists), and it is not, so we should strike before it becomes imminent.

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat, and it is not, so we should strike before it becomes imminent.

"This is about imminent threat." -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now..." -- President Bush, March 17, 2003
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"Absolutely." -- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
Translated: Iraq is an imminent threat.

"He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." -- President Bush, November 7, 2002
Translated: I'll say whatever it takes to instill fear in the American people, even if I have no hard evidence to back it up.


Even if Bush did really believe that he needed to invade Iraq (killing many thousands of innocent people), before they became an imminent threat, this would have been immoral.

No imminent threat, no moral justification for war!

When there is no evidence of a significant imminent threat, there is ALWAYS time to explore non-lethal ways to deal with uncooperative leaders of other countries.

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,843
Unnecessary U.S. Troops Wounded: 13,877
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 23,456 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[BillyBob]

Bush and his buddies were fond of using code words for saying that Iraq was an "imminent threat" without explicitly saying so.




Not as fond as you are of 'Translating' their words for them! :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Not as fond as you are of 'Translating' their words for them! Their words speak for themselves. I merely point out the obvious.

[BillyBob]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0

The 9-11 Commission disagrees with you.


Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0

"If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me" -John Kerry


WMDs found in Iraq: 0

That isn't true, there were illegal long range missles found. The rest of the WMD was shipped to Syria.


Imminent threats from Iraq: 0

Bush stated that we were going into Iraq "Before Saddam becomes an imminent threat".


Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 1

Saddam was a terrorist.

[BillyBob]

Their words speak for themselves, however they do not say what I want them to say so I 'translate' them.

We know. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

The 9-11 Commission disagrees with you. Wrong.

"If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me" -John Kerry Kerry was hoodwinked by the war mongers like most Americans.

That isn't true, there were illegal long range missles found. Old news. When were they accounted for and dismantled?

The rest of the WMD was shipped to Syria. Bush's own experts disagree with you.

Bush stated that we were going into Iraq "Before Saddam becomes an imminent threat". He and his buddies also strongly implied that Saddam was an imminent threat.

No significant imminent threat, no moral justification for war!

Saddam was a terrorist. He was a small-time player, who was not a threat that warranted a massive invasion resulting in massive lives lost.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

I have to admit, your argument does make a lot of sense.

Perhaps, Bush was wrong to invade Iraq after all. You are finally seeing the light, BillyBob! :thumb:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic, admit it, you don't give a flying crap about the Iraqi's. You are so filled with hatred of George Bush and America that you have become blinded by your own spite and will post anything, no matter how wacky, if you think it will damage Bush and the United States of America.


You are finally seeing the light, BillyBob! :thumb:

Finally??? I've known this for quite some time.

[Skeptic]

Just remember, BillyBob:

No imminent threat, no moral justification for war!

When there is no evidence of a significant imminent threat, there is ALWAYS time to explore non-lethal ways to deal with uncooperative leaders such as Saddam!

Bush did not take this time, even though he had plenty of it.

As a result, many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, as well as over 1800 of our brave soldiers, have died UNNECESSARILY!

[BillyBob]

Just remember, BillyBob:

No imminent threat, no moral justification for war!



That simply is not so.

[Skeptic]

That simply is not so. It simply IS so!!

[BillyBob]

Is Not!

[Skeptic]

Is Not! :doh: Is!

[BillyBob]

:sozo: IS NOT!

[Skeptic]

IS NOT! No imminent threat, no moral justification for war!

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Ninjashadow]

"Ah, a buffet and me without my wallet."

[Zimfan]

Zoidberg, eh?

"Stop! Stop! If you interrupt the mating dance the male will become enraged and maul us with his fearsome gonad!"

[Ninjashadow]

"I don't trust that doctor. I bet I've lost more patients than he's treated."

[Zimfan]

"Finally I have a good claw. See, three human females, a number and a king giving himself brain surgery."

[Ninjashadow]

"Instead of 'clause' he writes 'claws.' Now that's funny. Today's comedians could learn from this card."

[Zimfan]

"Have either of you ever stopped to think about Dr. Zoidberg's feelings?" -Evil Robot Santa
"Never, I swear it!" Fry

[Zimfan]

"What are you moaning about? Just get on your claws and do the apology dance! (Starts doing a weird dance) Yadadadadadadadada..." -Zoidberg
"So it's left, left... wait! I've got a better idea!" -Fry

[Ninjashadow]

"It was a horrible dream, full of zeroes and ones. I think I might have even seen a two."
"It was just a nightmere, Bender. Twos don't exist."

[Zimfan]

"That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared." -Fry

[simply one]

:darwinsm:

I'm glad that you can find humor in your error after all these years!

[Zimfan]

"I've only got two fantasies left: to be invisible in a
chocolate factory, and to be romantically linked to a celebrity." -Fry
"I could pound your head 'til you think that's what happened." -Bender
"Okay." -Fry

[Zimfan]

"Doomsday device? Ah, now the ball's in Farnsworth's
court. I suppose I could part with one and still be feared. " Professor Farnsworth.

[Ninjashadow]

Bush is the greatest president that the United States has ever had. The Iraq War is a good thing. Liberals are stupid jerks.

[Zimfan]

Bush is the greatest president that the United States has ever had. The Iraq War is a good thing. Liberals are stupid jerks.

And big meanie stupid heads, too.

[Ninjashadow]

Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath.

[Zimfan]

And while we're at it, I blame Clinton for Global Warming, the decline of the value of the dollar, poverty in Africa, and the slow but eventual demise of our sun some 4.5 billion years hence.

[Ninjashadow]

Exactly!! How come Clinton figured it would be ok to decrease our military? He's was/is an idiot.

[Zimfan]

And where does he got off calling himself Bill? That's my name!

[koban]

Fry: Uh, could I have some Slurm please?
Glermo: No food or drink allowed on the tour. You'll have to wait until you're partying with Slurms McKenzie.
Fry: When will that be?
Glermo: Soon enough.
Fry: That's not soon enough.

[Zimfan]

"So many memories, so many strange fluids gushing out
of patients' bodies..." -Zoidberg

[koban]

Exactly!! How come Clinton figured it would be ok to decrease our military? He's was/is an idiot.



His wife's ugly, too.

[koban]

Leela: There's no such thing as mutants. That's a ridiculous urban myth.
Farnsworth: Oh, don't be so sure. Many scientists believe humans really could mutate down there. Uh, due to exposure to toxic waste and radioactive runoff and good old American feces.
Fry: (holding his hand to his heart) God bless America.

[Ninjashadow]

And where does he got off calling himself Bill? That's my name!

Your name is Zimster.

[koban]

Your name is Zimster.



I thought his name was Stubby. :D

[Lovejoy]

Your name is Zimster.
I thought his name was :chicken:

[Zimfan]

Your name is Zimster.

And your name is ninjasissy :flamer: .

[koban]

George Washington: So telleth, Bender. What happend to thou body.
Bender: I hocked it.
George Washington: Hocked it! Why wouldst thou do that?
Bender: Same reason you hocked your teeth.
George Washington: Ah. Booze money.

[Zimfan]

But I digress. We were insulting Clinton, right?

Ok, His mother was a hamster, and his father reeeked of elderberry!

[Ninjashadow]

And your name is ninjasissy :flamer: .

That was uncalled for.

[Zimfan]

Fry: I refuse to testify on the grounds that my organs will be
chopped up into a patty.
Judge Whitey: Ah, the sixty-seventh ammendment.

[Zimfan]

That was uncalled for.

Gomen Nasai, :Ninja: san.

[koban]

Fry: This snow is beautiful. I'm glad global warming never happened.
Leela: Actually, it did. But thank God nuclear winter cancelled it out.

[Zimfan]

Fry: I'm not a robot like you. I don't like having disks crammed
into me... unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth.

[Lovejoy]

"You may need to metaphorically make a deal with the devil. By 'devil' I mean robot devil and by 'metaphorically' I mean get your coat." - Bender

[koban]

Zoidberg: I'm confused Fry. I'm feeling a strange new emotion. Is it love when you care about a female for reasons beyond mating?

[Zimfan]

"Who would have thought that there was an actual, factual hell, and that it was in New Jersey?"
-Leela
"Well, actually-" -Fry

[Lovejoy]

"Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!" - Professor

[Zimfan]

Zoidberg: I'm confused Fry. I'm feeling a strange new emotion. Is it love when you care about a female for reasons beyond mating?

Fry: No, that must be some kind of wierd alien emotion. ( I hope that's right, haven't seen that episode in a while.

[koban]

Fry: I'm so confused. The Bender I liked turned out to be evil, and the Bender I hated was good. How can I live my life when I can't tell good from evil?
Bender: They're both fine choices, whatever floats your boat.

[Ninjashadow]

Gomen Nasai, :Ninja: san.

It's all good.

[Zimfan]

I'm reposting this one cause I think it's funny and can't come up with a new one at the moment.

"Stop! Stop! If you interrupt the mating dance the male will become enraged and maul us with his fearsome gonad!" - Zoidberg

[Lovejoy]

Fry: Hey, you have no right to criticize the 20th century. We gave the world the light bulb, the steam boat and the cotton gin.

Leela: Those things are all from the 19th century.

Fry: Yeah, well, they probably just copied us.

[Ninjashadow]

"You can't count on God for jack. He pretty much told me so himself. Now, let's go let those monks out of the closet."

[Zimfan]

"How can I hate what is essentially me? I love me!" -Bender

[Zimfan]

P.S. Bill Clinton's mom dresses him funny.

[Zimfan]

"Ah, beer, so many choices, so little difference." -Bender

[koban]

Prof. Farnsworth: Bender, be careful! That's the ship's diamond filament tether, it's unbreakable.
Bender: Then why do I have to be careful?
Prof. Farnsworth: (thoughtfully) It belonged to my grandmother.

[Zimfan]

Fry: I must be a robot. Why else would human women refuse to date me?
Leela: Oh, lots of reasons.

[koban]

Mom: One Mother's Day, seventy years ago, the only man I ever loved walked out on me. Some snot-eating b***ards say it made me a bitter woman.
Larry: Gee, ma, you're not a bitter-
Mom: CRAM IT, APE! *smack*
Fry: Wait, you mean you and Mom-
Professor: Played pelvic pinochle? I'm afraid so.

[Zimfan]

One of Bender's kids: Can we have Bender burgers again?
Bender: No, the cat shelter's onto me.

[Ninjashadow]

Bill Clinton is a disgrace to the presidencacy.

[Ninjashadow]

So, koban, when did you become a christian?

[koban]

Bill Clinton is a disgrace to the presidencacy.



Yeah! Let's vote him out of office!

[Zimfan]

Yeah! Let's vote him out of office!

It may be a bit late for that...

[Ninjashadow]

So, koban, when did you become a christian?

[koban]

So, koban, when did you become a christian?


Some would say at my Christening as a newborn.

[Zimfan]

Fnord!

[Ninjashadow]

Some would say at my Christening as a newborn.

That's not what I asked. You were an agnostic just a little while ago.

[koban]

It may be a bit late for that...



OK - then let's have the Supreme Court install a new President. :chuckle:

[Zimfan]

That's not what I asked. You were an agnostic just a little while ago.

So was :lucky: a few days ago, until he noticed he had accidently changed that part of his profile and switched it back.

[koban]

That's not what I asked. You were an agnostic just a little while ago.



I was not!

My original religious affiliation in my profile said Christian (other). I changed it early on to Christian.

Never said agnostic, nope. :nono:

[Ninjashadow]

So was :lucky: a few days ago, until he noticed he had accidently changed that part of his profile and switched it back.

Koban was the whole time. I'm just curious to see why the title was switched.

[koban]

Koban was the whole time. I'm just curious to see why the title was switched.

.

Seriously - it always said "Christian" when I looked. Damned smart aleck electrons.

[Zimfan]

:spam: !

[koban]

Bender: I'm trying to watch my input. I need plenty of wholesome, nutritious alcohol. The chemical energy keeps my fuel cells charged.

[Zimfan]

I like sporks, yes I do,
I like sporks, how 'bout you?

[koban]

Leela: Doesn't it bother you even a little to be taking advantage of your girlfriend's trust?
Bender: Ha ha ha ha... oh, wait, you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

[Ninjashadow]

.

Seriously - it always said "Christian" when I looked. Damned smart aleck electrons.

Hmmmm....I must be crazy.

[koban]

Hmmmm....I must be crazy.



If you think you might be, you probably aren't. The ones to look out for are the ones that insist that there's no possibility that they are, if you catch my drift.

[koban]

one more, then I'm off.



Bender: You know, I was God once.
Galactic intelligence: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died.

[Zimfan]

"We can all fight after we're drunk" -Leela

[Zimfan]

"What makes a man turn neutral. Lust for money, power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" _ Zapp Brannigan

[Zimfan]

"I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What do I call it, Kiff?" -Zapp
"Sigh, sexlexia, sir."-Kiff

[Ninjashadow]

If you think you might be, you probably aren't. The ones to look out for are the ones that insist that there's no possibility that they are, if you catch my drift.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but Murdock from the A-Team knew he was crazy.

[Zimfan]

"I think I might be too poor to follow a band around in a van."-Zoidberg

[Ninjashadow]

That was only one more, not "some" more.

[Zimfan]

I count three.

[Zimfan]

And here's another one.

"I'll save me!"-Bender

[Ninjashadow]

I'm only counting the van one because it was after my post about the A-Team.

[Zimfan]

"I'm Bender baby, please insert liquor!"-Bender

[Zimfan]

"I used to drink 100 sodas a week until my third heart attack"-Fry

[Zimfan]

Happy now?

[koban]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.


Skeptic bad.

Bush good.

War good.






No it isn't!


Yes it is!


No it isn't!






There - that oughta get it going again.

[Skeptic]

Where are responsible moderators when you need them?

[HerodionRomulus]

Where are responsible moderators when you need them?

Haven't you been paying attention? They only respond on opinions or actions which they don't agree with, no matter how offensive or wrong.
OTOH, have you reported whatever it is that you need the mods for? They will respond, if only to tell you to forget it.

[HerodionRomulus]

Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath.

Lying under oath? I thought that was Oliver North and Jerry Falwell.

[HerodionRomulus]

Their words speak for themselves. I merely point out the obvious.

OIC
And here I was thinking you had simplifed it so that the mesmerized sycophants could understand. Mea cupla.

[HerodionRomulus]

Some wars are necessary, some are not. Those that are not are immoral. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq a case in point.

Sorry, but I must disagree. All war is wrong. All violence is wrong. Thou shalt not kill. Period.
I realize that the Heretic of Hippo perverted Christianity with his notion of a "just war" but there is no such thing. Principles are not made to be thrown away when expedient.

[HerodionRomulus]

I said:
"Originally Posted by HerodionRomulus

He claims to be a Christian but Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, by their actions:
"blessed are the peacemakers" not the war-makers.
"vengeance is mine saith the Lord" which means let God handle those who did 9/11 instead of doing it yourself.
"turn the other cheek" not retaliate, see above.
"thou shalt not kill" this includes war and capital punishment.
"Love" for all, not just those you like
'peace" see above
"blessed are the meek" not the arrogant
"love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful (bring em on) or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on it's own way; it is not irritable or resentful;... "


and then FE replied.
:vomit:

What specifically do you disagree with. The people who said those things (Paul and Jesus) or the concepts themselves.
They are certainly essentials of their teachings. In NO instance did Jesus advocate violence or killing--quite the opposite. He came to bring peace and reconciliation.
Do you need a copy of the NT to read? Clearly you have never encountered it before or if you have, you did not understand it's meaning.
Give me 3 clear and unambiguous NT citations which support your pro-death policy.

[simply one]

Sorry, but I must disagree. All war is wrong. All violence is wrong. Thou shalt not kill. Period.
I realize that the Heretic of Hippo perverted Christianity with his notion of a "just war" but there is no such thing. Principles are not made to be thrown away when expedient.

When someone espouses their principles they should stick by them. Violence is wrong. Therefore violence is always wrong. On must show resolution and firmness in their beliefs, and not claim values when its convenient and drop these values the next second, like the current Administration. You hit the nail on the head, HR.

[simply one]

I said:
"Originally Posted by HerodionRomulus

He claims to be a Christian but Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, by their actions:
"blessed are the peacemakers" not the war-makers.
"vengeance is mine saith the Lord" which means let God handle those who did 9/11 instead of doing it yourself.
"turn the other cheek" not retaliate, see above.
"thou shalt not kill" this includes war and capital punishment.
"Love" for all, not just those you like
'peace" see above
"blessed are the meek" not the arrogant
"love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful (bring em on) or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on it's own way; it is not irritable or resentful;... "


and then FE replied.


What specifically do you disagree with. The people who said those things (Paul and Jesus) or the concepts themselves.
They are certainly essentials of their teachings. In NO instance did Jesus advocate violence or killing--quite the opposite. He came to bring peace and reconciliation.
Do you need a copy of the NT to read? Clearly you have never encountered it before or if you have, you did not understand it's meaning.
Give me 3 clear and unambiguous NT citations which support your pro-death policy.

HR, do you not realize that Frank only follows his New Testament when it is convenient? When actual Christianity coincides with what FE and many other "conservative christians" believe, they shout it fromt he rooftops! But when what Jesus ACTUALLY said goes completely against waht they are fighting for then they simply ignore it (ie smilies)

[simply one]

I do believe that :Ninja:, koban, and sim just served up a hearty, heart-attack-inducing portion of :spam:... to you three: START A NEW THREAD (perhaps titled Conservative Christians Who Like Futurama). Unfortunately, if you named it that, I could not post, although I do particularly enjoy Futurama.

[simply one]

Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath.

Clinton lied under oath. Ok, that's against the law, so persecute him. BUT he lied about a personal affair, an affair that did not, and should not, have had effects outside the White House.

Bush lied repeatedly and publicly to 300 million Americans. He lied over and over. He lied to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that he placed in harms way. he lied to other governemnts, he lied to the Iraqi people. 1850 US soldiers and 26000+ Iraqi civilians have died as a result of Bush and his Administrations open misleading.

"The executive power is better to be trusted when it has D screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes. . . . Add to all this, that officer is placed high, and is possessed of power far from being contemptible, yet not a single privilege is annexed to his character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment."

Source (http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIALREPORTS/impeachment.html#anchor856735) (letter by James Wilson at the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention)

According to this, both Bush and Clinton should be (should have been) impeached. Clinton for breaking a law of the United States, and Bush for hiding his "negligence and innattention" on the intelligence reason for invading Iraq. The numbers breakdown:

Clinton lied under oath: no one killed, no one injured

Bush lied to the American people, therefore neglecting his duty as president to be open:
-1844 US soldiers(1464 in combat) killed
-13877 US soldiers wounded (estimate)
SOURCE (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

-23456 to 26559 Iraqi civilians killed (37% killed by U.S.A., 36% killed by post-invasion criminal activities, 9% killed by insurgents)
-42500 Iraqi civilians injured
source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

In conclusion, who is MORE worthy of impeachment (since they both are). Clinton, who broke a law. Or Bush, who's irresponsible actions as president, and his deliberate misleading of Americans has lead to the deaths of tens of thousands?

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Hey Herod and Simpleton, stop spamming Skeptic's thread! :mad:

[koban]

I do believe that :Ninja:, koban, and sim just served up a hearty, heart-attack-inducing portion of :spam:... to you three: START A NEW THREAD (perhaps titled Conservative Christians Who Like Futurama). Unfortunately, if you named it that, I could not post, although I do particularly enjoy Futurama.



Awww - we was just funnin' last night - went for a road trip out of the Redneck's Club and ended up here.


Besides, I brought it full circle: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=834728&postcount=3232


:cheers:

[HerodionRomulus]

Awww - we was just funnin' last night - went for a road trip out of the Redneck's Club and ended up here.


Besides, I brought it full circle: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=834728&postcount=3232


:cheers:

Maybe you should spend less time clubbing and more time praying, reading your Bible and doing love--you know: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, soothe the suffering, heal the sick, support the helpless, hopeless and hapless.

[HerodionRomulus]

Now, regarding UN resolutions being ignored, shall we then invade Israel, which has ignored dozens of UN resolutions over the years?

[koban]

Maybe you should spend less time clubbing and more time praying, reading your Bible and doing love--you know: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, soothe the suffering, heal the sick, support the helpless, hopeless and hapless.



Of course you're right, but only if I could be doing those things instead of "Clubbing". If I have to be sitting in front of this keyboard anyways, I might as well kill some time and have some fun.

[Frank Ernest]

I said:
"Originally Posted by HerodionRomulus

He claims to be a Christian but Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, by their actions:
"blessed are the peacemakers" not the war-makers.
"vengeance is mine saith the Lord" which means let God handle those who did 9/11 instead of doing it yourself.
"turn the other cheek" not retaliate, see above.
"thou shalt not kill" this includes war and capital punishment.
"Love" for all, not just those you like
'peace" see above
"blessed are the meek" not the arrogant
"love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful (bring em on) or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on it's own way; it is not irritable or resentful;... "


and then FE replied.


What specifically do you disagree with. The people who said those things (Paul and Jesus) or the concepts themselves.
They are certainly essentials of their teachings. In NO instance did Jesus advocate violence or killing--quite the opposite. He came to bring peace and reconciliation.
Do you need a copy of the NT to read? Clearly you have never encountered it before or if you have, you did not understand it's meaning.
Give me 3 clear and unambiguous NT citations which support your pro-death policy.
you wanna try that again without the obviously loaded request? :vomit:

[Ninjashadow]

Clinton lied under oath. Ok, that's against the law, so persecute him.

So why didn't they?