If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7557 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last
 
  2007-03-06 01:57:57 AM
Hi All.

I'd post this on the regular page, but it's really nothing more than an instance of tin-foil hattery come true.

So, my BF and I are watching the WalterReed CSPAN reruns tonight (yeah, I was gonna watch 24, but this was WAY sadder ans sicker).

So wee watch the panel with the eye-patch Sgt w/PTSD who "breaks things", the verklempt Army wife, and the soldier with sunglasses who's missing an ear; it's sad, and a long heartfelt indictment of the Army and VA medical system, told from the inside. The Congressthings looked appropriately outraged, and thanked the injured vets and families for their service and sacrifice. I got the feeling they'd be some new "independent committee" or agency that's supposed to represent the vets which won't be beholden to the Army *or* the VA. [YAY! a whole 'nother set of papers to fill out! More bullshiat political appointments!] Watch for this in the upcoming election cycle, swear to God.

So then the next set of people comes up for the hearing, and it's 2 top brass and a wonk from the GAO.

The first Brass is the current head of all Army Medical, who was the head of Walter Reed until 2004. He yammered on about how the Army gives the very bestest in Medical care EVAR. [Which is probably true for trauma medicine, but what happens after they stabilize you is anoth thing entirely].

The second Brass was head of Walter Reed from summer of 2006 until about 3 weeks ago (presumably when this shiat was breaking), when his lame ass was fired. He bloviated, and said he was sorry, and some other bullshiat.

At this point, I said to my BF, "Hey, I bet this is Rumsfeld's fault, some crap-ass privatization scheme for the VA or something, that's why the care sucks so bad now. Bet you five dollars it's a prison services contractor or Halliburton."

During the second Brass's testimony, or during GAO lady's testimony (I can't quite remember which, being three glasses into a bottle of portuguese wine) One of them mentions that in 2005 or 2006, there was a private bid for services and lay offs. The bid came from a company called "IAP Worldwide Services".

So, I stumble upstairs and consult the Oracle of GOOGLE.

Google points me to IAP's website, which says:

May 2004 - Cerberus Capital Management, L.C., a New York-based private investment group, becomes majority owner of IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. In addition to a whole range of government contracting (which sadly, doesn't include correctional facilities, I looked).

So, I say to myself, WTF is Cerberus Capital Management??

And the WIKI Answered me:

Cerberus Capital Management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cerberus Capital Management LP is a large privately owned hedge fund. The firm is based in New York, N.Y., and run by 45-year-old financier Steve Feinberg. Former Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.

Founded in 1992, Cerberus invests primarily in companies which are near bankruptcy and hopes to make the businesses it acquires profitable.

The company has been a voracious acquirer of businesses over the past several years and now includes sizeable investments in sportswear, paper products, military services, real estate, energy, retail, glassmaking, transportation, and building products. Its holdings amounted to $24 billion in 2006.

On October 19, 2006, John W. Snow, President George W. Bush's second United States Secretary of the Treasury, was named chairman of Cerberus.

Cerebus was recently involved in controversy surrounding its contributions to Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis. MCI, a company owned by Cerebus, had a $1 billion dollar contract to create the Navy/Marine computer network. However, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee released a critical report of MCI after receiving complaints about cost overruns and bad management. In response to this report, the committee had proposed to cut the MCI contract by 10%. In June 2003, Lewis, the head of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, received over $110,000 dollars in contribution from Cerebus. Shortly thereafter, Lewis decided to preserve full funding for the $1 billion dollar contract. In 2005, Lewis was elected as Chairman of the House Appropriations Commitee. He acknowledged that the fundraising efforts of Cerberus "played a very significant role" in winning the post. US Attorney Carol Lam began an investigation of Lewis's contributors in 2006. [1]


Carol Lam has since been fired by Alberto Gonzales.

My tinfoil hat is getting itchy and sweaty. Should we be concerned? Or just bored at this point by all this sleazy-ass shiat?

/needed to vent, so sorry.
 
  2007-03-06 02:11:50 AM
eeee, sorry for the typos. Buzzed typing's not the best.

But even better, I found the Cerebus website.

It's got no indication who's on their board or management at all.

THAT'S SOME SLEAZY SHIFTY SHIAT RIGHT THERE.
 
  2007-03-06 05:12:51 PM
dottedmint: What you linked to does NOT say the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is asking us to leave NOW.

You're in denial. What makes you think the Iraqi public's opinion is going to change in six months?

One of the world's highly-respected polling organizations, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducted a survey where the results were

seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year.

We're talking what they think now.

An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position-now six in ten.

They don't want us there, and what's more, they don't trust the intentions of this administration. They don't believe that their government would be anything more than a US puppet, and the fighting isn't going to even begin to quiet down until we leave. We don't trust them, either: we don't trust the Shiites, and we certainly don't trust them to arm themselves and put down any insurgencies.

U.S. SHOULD QUICKLY ARM IRAQI FORCES.

I supported going into Iraq

Well, I still don't know why. It turns out that Saddam was no threat, he had no WMDs nor any ties to 9/11.

Nor is the US in any position to hunt down every country it feels harbors "terrorism." Iraq has more than proved this.

We cannot succeed when the goal is imperialism. We have no allies other than shills like Britain, and we accomplish nothing.

and think leaving too soon would be a huge mistake.

And why do you continually defend and apologize for Bush's failed policy? Is it really too our of line for you to hold him accountable?

Being "wrong" with the intel is NOT an impeachable offense.

Again, I disagree. But Bush won't even admit he was wrong, and admits to no wrongdoing.

It warrants Congressional investigation.

The US Constitution ONLY says that Congress has the power to "declare war". NOWHERE in it is it written that a Declaration of War is somehow "required"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress is allowed to skirt the actual Declaration of War. The language is quite clear, and it certainly does not give the President to act as if he is declaring a war without due process.

Also Congress attempted to clarify how this country can goto war when it passed the War Powers Act.

This is un-Constitutional. It surprises me that someone who is concerned about campaign finance laws restricting free speech would overlook even more important abuses of our Constitution.

Face it, dottedmint. Support for the war is old and busted. All your arguments do is parrot party lines, and your admission of Bush administration foreign policy failures are forced and concluded reluctantly.
 
  2007-03-06 09:40:27 PM
"You're in denial. What makes you think the Iraqi public's opinion is going to change in six months?"

Are you UNABLE or UNWILLING to read what I actually post????

I said the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is NOT asking us to leave NOW.

.....(NOT THE IRAQI PUBLIC OPINION)......

"Well, I still don't know why. It turns out that Saddam was no threat, he had no WMDs nor any ties to 9/11."

Because based on what we knew or at least thought we knew Saddam WAS a threat and had WMDs. Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.

"Nor is the US in any position to hunt down every country it feels harbors "terrorism." Iraq has more than proved this."

No we are unable to go into EVERY country that we feel harbors terrorism. I never said we can.

"We cannot succeed when the goal is imperialism. We have no allies other than shills like Britain, and we accomplish nothing."

That is simply a lie......

"and think leaving too soon would be a huge mistake.

And why do you continually defend and apologize for Bush's failed policy?"

Because as I said before the IRAQ STUDY GROUP said the same thing. For some strange reason you ignored that.

"Being "wrong" with the intel is NOT an impeachable offense.

Again, I disagree. But Bush won't even admit he was wrong, and admits to no wrongdoing."

So Bush made a choice based on what our intel, not to mention the intel of other countries and the intel of past administrations said and you think that is somehow an impeachable offense???

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress is allowed to skirt the actual Declaration of War. The language is quite clear, and it certainly does not give the President to act as if he is declaring a war without due process."

It is "quite clear"?????

Alright.....

Tell me what a DoW MUST say if it is "quite clear".

Show me the template.

Also if you want to go STRICTLY by what The US Constitution says that's fine.

The Constitution says Congress has the "power to declare war".

It does NOT say a DoW must be passed before military action can be taken.

The Constitution also says that The President (AND ONLY THE PRESIDENT) is Commander in Chief.

And FINALLY The Constitution also says that the only option that Congress has is to cut the funding.
"Also Congress attempted to clarify how this country can goto war when it passed the War Powers Act.

This is un-Constitutional. It surprises me that someone who is concerned about campaign finance laws restricting free speech would overlook even more important abuses of our Constitution."

First this was passed in '70...what....3?.....

It has been around for some time and has NOT been ruled "unconstitutional".

Until it is ruled "unconstitutional" it is LAW and Bush followed that LAW.
 
  2007-03-07 12:12:19 AM
When did this show up?

Bush is the ghey
 
  2007-03-07 12:38:07 AM
dottedmint: Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.


See, this forum is never going to go anywhere. Your statement is proof. There is no changing the mind of someone who can make a statement like that. It's completely outrageous.


...

Oh hell.

How can you possibly say that? Are you going to let them off on the technicality that they never expressly said "Saddam Hussein blows Osama Bin Laden and here's proof"? Seriously?

I don't even think it's possible to measure the membrane between Dick Cheney's allusions to Saddam and his (nonexistent) ties to Al Queda and him actually saying it. There is no scale that small.


Look: This war was a cocked up affair from the get go. You have yet to state why you think it was justified in the first place (and I mean really. PLEASE don't say some bullshiat about the terrorists being in Iraq. The only real hotbeds of terrorists pre-9-11 were in Afghanistan and-- gasp-- Saudi Arabia. Why haven't we invaded SA?). I can only assume it's pride and loyalty to your leaders.

You damn sure can't seem to defend it now, except to say that we can't leave, which part of me agrees with, btw.

It does NOT say a DoW must be passed before military action can be taken.

You are, of course, free to try and steer this conversation onto a path about the minutae of what is and isn't under Congressional purvue, but that's not what we're really talking about, is it?

So Bush made a choice based on what our intel, not to mention the intel of other countries and the intel of past administrations said and you think that is somehow an impeachable offense???

Blah blah, cherry picking is tantamount to lying, yadda yadda. jeez.

The weapons inspections were working, they found what they were there to find, which is not much.

Saddam deserved to get the shiat kicked out of him, but we farked it up badly because of the cowboy antics of our Commander in Chief and his staff.

I think we could have already won this war and seen the flower of good democracy in the Middle East if not for the arrogance, impatience and hubris of the Bush Administration, and for that, yes, I hate them.

We have created a massive crop of Islamic extremists. Why wouldn't they hate America? Look at what we've done. Our children and theirs will pay the price for the actions of a small, small man born with a silver spoon near his nose.

I guess I'm a little tired and cranky, but I'm going to post this anyway, since there seem to be only 5 people reading this...
 
  2007-03-07 06:39:30 AM
"dottedmint: Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.


See, this forum is never going to go anywhere. Your statement is proof. There is no changing the mind of someone who can make a statement like that. It's completely outrageous."

No. It is not "outrageous".

It is TRUE.
...

"Oh hell.

How can you possibly say that? Are you going to let them off on the technicality that they never expressly said "Saddam Hussein blows Osama Bin Laden and here's proof"? Seriously?

I don't even think it's possible to measure the membrane between Dick Cheney's allusions to Saddam and his (nonexistent) ties to Al Queda and him actually saying it. There is no scale that small."

I can say that because WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.

This administration NEVER said Saddam was involved in 9/11.

It did (based on the intel) warn that Saddam could give WMDs to a terrorist (such as OBL).

As you say....

This forum is NEVER going to get anywhere if people like you are going to MISREPRESENT what others say....beit me or this administration.

"You damn sure can't seem to defend it now, except to say that we can't leave, which part of me agrees with, btw."

Unfortunately we are at a point where IT DOES NOT MATTER how we got into Iraq. We are already there.

To run around whinning.....

'Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied.'

.......IS POINTLESS when trying to decide what we are going to do in Iraq NOW.

"It does NOT say a DoW must be passed before military action can be taken.

You are, of course, free to try and steer this conversation onto a path about the minutae of what is and isn't under Congressional purvue, but that's not what we're really talking about, is it?"

UM..... Yes it is.

Whidbey said,

"They had no business funding another illegal police action, and defended the tissue of lies that justified the invasion."

Then my response was,

"There is nothing "illegal" about this war."

And then Whidbey came back with,

"It's not a war--it's a police action: it was never declared as a war and the reasons for invading were flimsy at best."

Whidbey and I were discussing Constitutional powers.

I have a funny feeling though that I am the only one in here who has actually read The US Constitution.


"The weapons inspections were working, they found what they were there to find, which is not much."

Do you remember how much Saddam was blocking the inspections????


"Saddam deserved to get the shiat kicked out of him, but we farked it up badly because of the cowboy antics of our Commander in Chief and his staff."

Saddam did get the "shiat kicked out of him".

"I think we could have already won this war and seen the flower of good democracy in the Middle East if not for the arrogance, impatience and hubris of the Bush Administration, and for that, yes, I hate them. "

When Iraq had elections the turnout was MORE than what typically happens here in the States.

We currently have the "flower of good democracy" in Iraq and terrorists are trying to destroy that democracy.

We are IN IRAQ. The terrorists are trying to destroy the democracy that is currently in Iraq.

We now have to decide if we are going to stay in Iraq until that newly formed democracy can defend itself against the terrorists or if we are going to simply walk away and tell that democracy that they are on their own and hope it is not destroyed.
 
  2007-03-07 10:53:47 AM
You know what? I'm wrong. And so are you.

Cheney didn't just allude to the idea of cooperation between al qaeda and Iraq, he said it outright and the President backed him (even though the President eventually had to admit that, although he strongly suggested it before we invaded Iraq, there was no tie between Saddam and 9-11. By then it was too late, we were in a shooting war), even though it all turned out to be complete and utter bullshiat, like many of us suspected from the outset.
 
  2007-03-07 12:17:00 PM
dottedmint: We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.

You can't be that retarded. Maybe you should stick to the entertainment britney forum threads.
 
  2007-03-07 07:08:37 PM
"piaddic120 dottedmint: We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.

You can't be that retarded. Maybe you should stick to the entertainment britney forum threads."
__________________________________________________________

Hmmm..... Let's see.

We went into Iraq.

We blew the Iraqi army away.

The Iraqi people have held 3 or 4 (I forget the exact number) national elections. I am rather certain that each of these elections had higher turnout (even with the threat of being killed) than we have in the US.

Saddam and many of his generals have been brought to justice.

Unfortunately we currently have terrorists doing everything that they can to try to destroy everything that we have accomplished.

There have been setbacks and mistakes but we have not yet failed.

BTW.....I think it is more "retarded" for people to say that we have "failed" in Iraq before everything is said and done.
---------------------------------------------------------

"Calmamity You know what? I'm wrong. And so are you."

I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are only HALF right.

I said that Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.

This is a fact.

There were plenty of times when Saddam was accused of having links with terrorists and times when it was warned these links with terrorists had the potential of eventually turning INTO another 9/11.
 
  2007-03-07 07:23:02 PM
We could continue arguing the specifics ad nauseum, dottedmint, but my gut feeling is I don't care for my government dragging us fighting into countries where we really don't belong.

And I consider the War Powers Act just as un-Constitutional as the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Jim Crow days, which went unchallenged for 50 years, but the moral wrong within was obvious.

Having a formal declaration of war would make it harder to engage in one, it would make it clear to our lawmakers that war should be the very last course of action, no matter what.

Well, you know? This country doesn't think like that. We're not about peace, really. Take a look at our record in the past 40 years. We're hotheaded hypocrites with a penchant for imperialism.

I look at Iraq, and I don't see a plan to "liberate" anyone--I see a plan to keep an eye on the second-largest oil-producing resources in the world, and a strategic base of operations to fight real or imagined "terrorists."

I'm uncomfortable with my government making these foolish kinds of decisions and thinking they can score easily with results. They're incompetent, and hateful and shortsighted of their own goals.

It's time to step back with Iraq, to coin a phrase. Let's admit publicly that it was a mistake, and ask the international community's help in cleaning up the mess.

We can't do it ourselves. It's ridiculously expensive, and it's going to cause even more disgruntled consternation here at home, particularly if Bush arrogantly--ARROGANTLY, that's one of the biggest keywords here--if Bush arrogantly continues his plan for some kind of unilateral military action against Iran.

So, let's sum it up: We've got Iraq, Afghanistan, and now possibly Iran and Pakistan. How much more should this citizenry put up with before it gets completely off-the-chain out of hand here domestically?
 
  2007-03-07 08:08:25 PM
dottedmint: This is a fact.


It's only a fact on a technicality, and anyone with eyes saw what Bush was doing.
 
  2007-03-07 09:48:10 PM
Wow, I totally should have been here about a long time ago!

Anyone on the bandwagon for abolishing the Income Tax?
 
  2007-03-07 11:26:44 PM
"Calmamity dottedmint: This is a fact.

It's only a fact on a technicality, and anyone with eyes saw what Bush was doing.

No. A FACT is a FACT. And that is what I have posted here.
__________________________________________________________

whidbey And I consider the War Powers Act just as un-Constitutional as the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Jim Crow days, which went unchallenged for 50 years, but the moral wrong within was obvious.

The US Constitution says that Congress has the power:

Article 1 Section 8

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Since The Constitution does NOT say that a DoW (or anything for that matter) is needed to use military force Congress felt they needed to write a law that specified what is needed to use military force.

It was within the Constitutional power of Congress to pass that law.

IF at some point it gets overturned by a court then we will have to revisit it BUT AT THIS POINT it is the law of the land.

"Having a formal declaration of war would make it harder to engage in one, it would make it clear to our lawmakers that war should be the very last course of action, no matter what."

That's fine but as I have said MANY times The US Constitution does NOT NOT NOT say a DoW is needed to use military force.

I know you think it does or should but it DOES NOT say that.

"and ask the international community's help in cleaning up the mess."

There has ALWAYS been an invitation for the international community to help.

Those that are willing to help are helping.

Those that do not want to help are NOT helping.

BTW...

We don't need to leave Iraq in order to have the international community help.
 
  2007-03-07 11:37:30 PM
SirGnarls:

Wow, I totally should have been here about a long time ago!

Anyone on the bandwagon for abolishing the Income Tax?
----------------------------------------------------------

Well.....

Welcome SirGnarls.

There aren't too many people in here so there is definately room.

"Income Tax"

I've seen a sales tax proposed and I would say it does sound interesting.

IF I was very very rich and was buying all sorts of expensive items I would pay more in taxes than some poor working stiff.

Obviously the details would need to be worked out but as I said I think it sounds interesting.

Is this what you had in mind???

Whatever the case is I do think our current tax system is WAY messed up.
 
  2007-03-08 12:13:46 PM
dottedmint: There have been setbacks and mistakes...

That is an understatement

... but we have not yet failed.

Civil War + Terrorism increase 7 fold = Mission Accomplished?

I thought this "war on terrorism" was to reduce terrorism.

Where are the WMDs?
 
  2007-03-08 07:07:18 PM
piaddic120

dottedmint: There have been setbacks and mistakes...

That is an understatement

... but we have not yet failed.

Civil War + Terrorism increase 7 fold = Mission Accomplished?

I thought this "war on terrorism" was to reduce terrorism.

Where are the WMDs?
-----------------------------------------------------------

During WWII we had ALL SORTS OF "setbacks and mistakes".

We have had "setbacks and mistakes" in EVERY WAR we have ever been in.

So the fact that we have had "setbcaks and mistakes" does not even come CLOSE to meaning that we have failed in Iraq.

Also... IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like. Right now we have terrorists intentionally trying to destroy that government. You think it is bloody now? Just wait and see what happens in Iraq if the anti-war people get their way. The Iraq Study Group warned us what would happen if we pull out.

As far as the WMDs go.... I don't know where they are. Our intel said he had WMDs. The Clinton administration said he had WMDs. Gore said he had WMDs. Hillary said he had WMDs. Other countries said he had WMDs. If I recall correctly even the UN said he had WMDs.
 
  2007-03-08 07:21:48 PM
SirGnarls: Wow, I totally should have been here about a long time ago!

Anyone on the bandwagon for abolishing the Income Tax?



/ welcome.
// and no I do NOT want to abolish Income tax. we would not have a country anymore. (slightly less tax would be ok)
 
  2007-03-08 07:41:52 PM
dottedmint: Also... IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like


/ fine with me. they can kill eachother and not us. then who ever wins the civil war runs their country.
//hint 1861-1865
 
  2007-03-08 07:42:50 PM
dottedmint:

Iraq doesn't even come close to WWII, a declared war where the stakes were much higher, and we had actual allies helping us against a formidable enemy. It's a disingenuous comparison. We could leave Iraq today. We couldn't leave the Pacific nor Italy nor France.

There has ALWAYS been an invitation for the international community to help.

I doubt it. You recall the international community declined to invade Iraq in the first place. America took on this klstrfk unilaterally.

IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like.

When I said that the UN has to be called in, I mean that the United States has to publicly admit failure and basically beg the help of any UN member. That's right. We have to admit our disgrace in this, our rather arrogant dismissal of the Security Council's decision to not enforce its own resolutions. We are the ones out of line as far as the international community is concerned. They're not about to "help" us until we learn some humility, something we will indeed learn at a very high price.

Part of that humility is realizing we can't just tear ass around the world forcing lifestyles upon reluctant peoples, and for that matter, humility is realizing that the United States is but one member in the United Nations amongst 191 other sovereign states who, like it or not, have a say in world policy. After all, that's the very reason we created that organization, and the United States' tendency is to ignore that responsibility when it suits us.
 
  2007-03-08 10:42:14 PM
whidbey: Iraq doesn't even come close to WWII,

I was giving an example of a war where we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" and yet in the end because we didn't quit we WON.
-----------------------------------------------------------

There has ALWAYS been an invitation for the international community to help.

I doubt it. You recall the international community declined to invade Iraq in the first place. America took on this klstrfk unilaterally.

Are you again not reading what I post????

THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INVITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO HELP.

You "doubt" that????

You think that we wouldn't allow other countries to come and help???

I know there were countries that didn't want to come and help in Iraq. It is NOT because we wouldn't let them.

As I said they were always welcome to come and help.

They chose not to and you think now they would suddenly decide to help?
---------------------------------------------------------

sweatmasterB

dottedmint: Also... IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like

/ fine with me. they can kill eachother and not us. then who ever wins the civil war runs their country.
//hint 1861-1865

And if Al Quada ends up in control of Iraq what then???

Go back in???
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
  2007-03-08 11:23:41 PM
I miss isolationism. It was so nice when we took care of all of America's problems before we shouldered the rest of the world's.
 
  2007-03-09 12:17:22 AM
dottedmint: THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INVITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO HELP.

Source?

I know there were countries that didn't want to come and help in Iraq. It is NOT because we wouldn't let them.

Because they lost what little respect they had for us.

I was giving an example of a war where we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" and yet in the end because we didn't quit we WON.

Like I said, crappy example. People actually cared about WWII. Every day, fewer and fewer people believe that Iraq was anything but a mistake, and you're turning out to be quite an exhibit...:)

Again, support for the war is old and busted, and the only way it's going to NOT become a bloodbath is for the US to admit the ENTIRE OPERATION was a mistake, and plead to the UN to aid in cleanup operations.

And what's more the US should be sanctioned for acting outside of the agreed-upon Security Council arrangements, much in the way that Israel gets penalized when it gets a healthy dose of war lust.

This is despicable behavior of a nation that's purported to be the "leader of the free world" and it's time to call out this foolish dangerous warmongering policy for what it is and punish those who brought it on, from the top down.
 
  2007-03-09 06:59:42 AM
whidbey dottedmint: THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INVITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO HELP.

Source?

I know there were countries that didn't want to come and help in Iraq. It is NOT because we wouldn't let them.

Because they lost what little respect they had for us.

You doubt that there was an invitation to other countries?

Do you HONESTLY think that if the UN had stepped forward to help that we would actually say "No"???

Every country that WANTS to help is currently helping in Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------------

I was giving an example of a war where we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" and yet in the end because we didn't quit we WON.

Like I said, crappy example. People actually cared about WWII.

That basically supports what I was just saying.

In WWII we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" but people did not GIVE UP because they cared and wanted to WIN.

IF people actually cared and wanted to WIN in Iraq we will end up winning in Iraq.

IF people give up in Iraq we won't win.

It really is that simple.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Again, support for the war is old and busted, and the only way it's going to NOT become a bloodbath is for the US to admit the ENTIRE OPERATION was a mistake, and plead to the UN to aid in cleanup operations."

And if we actually do that and the UN says "No thanks"?

Do we just let the Iraqi government be overthrown by Al Quada or some other terrorists?

IF after 5 years of leaving Iraq Al Quada or some group like the Taliban was in power in Iraq and they were using the oil money to support terrorists that were attacking America what would you support doing then?
 
  2007-03-09 10:42:19 AM
dottedmint: And if we actually do that and the UN says "No thanks"?

They won't. The world needs America, they just don't like to be slapped around by that fact. If we'd show a modicum of humility, we'd do a lot to fix things.

There is good news, though: I'm hopful about these talks that include all of Iraq's neighbors, unless Iran screws it up by insisting on negotiating about their nuke stuff instead of talking about Iraq.

Do we just let the Iraqi government be overthrown by Al Quada or some other terrorists?

Don't you see that our handling of Iraq has been the best recruiting tool Al Quada ever had? shiat, we're helping them take ove Iraq.

Are you again not reading what I post????


We're trying, but it's a mishmash of unitalisized quotes from other people and yourself interspersed with a few new sentences saying exactly the same thing as the quoted stuff.
 
  2007-03-09 10:47:07 AM
dottedmint:


You doubt that there was an invitation to other countries?

Do you HONESTLY think that if the UN had stepped forward to help that we would actually say "No"??


I asked you for a source backing your claim that we're calling on all countries to help us in Iraq. Where is it?

Hint: You're not going to find one--most of the world already told us to f*ck off in 2002 when Bush forged the plan.

And if there is any offer to help, it's to help the Iraqis by getting us out of there as soon as possible.

IF people actually cared and wanted to WIN in Iraq we will end up winning in Iraq.

Uh, no. Your blind enthusiasm for a klstrfk is not shared by the rational minds of America.

This is not about "winning." It's about realizing that our leaders lied to us, and used us, appealing to our patriotism and manipulating us with our fears.

This is about how a "war" can go wrong when started with the wrong intentions by a cast of pompous warmongering idiots who thought they could just waltz on in to a hostile environment and set up shop.

Again: Bad Example Leadership which understandably drags us down in world opinion every day we put up with it.

These men failed--you don't keep allowing failures to call the shots.
 
  2007-03-09 10:49:20 AM
Calmamity: We're trying, but it's a mishmash of unitalisized quotes from other people and yourself interspersed with a few new sentences saying exactly the same thing as the quoted stuff.

Yeah, not to be too much of a dork about this, dottedmint, but you might want to italicize quotes you're replying to and bold people's names in discussions.

Makes it easier to read...:)
 
  2007-03-09 10:57:26 AM
Are we tired of Iraq?

How about this latest batch of outrageous bullshiat from the Bush Administration in today's paper?
 
  2007-03-09 09:22:22 PM
Sorry guys.

I would be more than happy to BOLD and/or ITALICIZE my posts but can I do that if I do not have TOTALFARK?

I haven't been happy with how my comments have been looking either and I am more than happy to do what I can to improve how they look.

IF it is something that can only be done with TOTALFARK I am sorry.....

-----------------------------------------------------------

WHIDBEY: "I asked you for a source backing your claim that we're calling on all countries to help us in Iraq. Where is it?

Hint: You're not going to find one--most of the world already told us to f*ck off in 2002 when Bush forged the plan."
-----------------------------------------------------------

I said there has always been an invitation for any country that wants to help to come and help in Iraq.

Some links:

"Bush seeks U.N. help in Iraq reconstruction"

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2003_Sept_29/ai_108316559


"Asking for help in Iraq"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/06/22/iraq_conference/index.html



"NATO urges all countries to help Iraq build democracy, stability"

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Jun/22-451712.html



"Germany says no to Rumsfeld request for help"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,420469,00.html



And to think you said that I wasn't going to find one source to support my claims.

I found FOUR.

Now NO....

Bush is not on his knees begging the UN to come in and save the day.

But any country that wants to help in Iraq can come and help in Iraq.

There have been MANY chances for other countries to come and help in Iraq.
 
  2007-03-09 10:50:24 PM
You don't have email, so I'm going to post this here, dottedmint.

I know this forum moves pretty fast, I hope nobody minds something off topic. :P

HTML codes have nothing to do with TF. Foaming has a list of many of the more popular codes in his profile, but if you use Firefox (and many would say you should, for the reasons listed in the next link) you can download the extensions I posted a few days ago and they'll do the coding for you... sort of.

You can go to the Scratchpad: Thread 69 to test your newfound HTML prowess without clogging up a thread with test posts. And I'm sorry I was snarky about it, I was frustrated.
 
  2007-03-09 10:51:25 PM
I mean you don't have an email address listed in your profile. I'm sure you have email.
 
  2007-03-09 11:44:40 PM
Thanks for theinfo.

I will try to make my comments easier to read.

I'll have to keep the codes handy.....
 
  2007-03-10 08:20:29 AM
I can't stand people who think this entire situation that we are in is so simple as to say "If this person was in this office then there wouldn't even be a problem right now."
As if the Islamic fascists would just stop wanting to kill people if Bush wasn't the President and if we didn't take the fight overseas.
I'm not saying that I agree with how things have been handled and with many of the decisions that out President has made, but to say that if someone else was in power that our problems would have been a memory by now is, pure fantasy.

I'd like to take this opportunity to debunk a couple liberal myths.

It's this administrations fault that tens of thousands of people have died.
We are in Iraq because it was a huge target after 9/11. Saddam has been proven to sponsor the breed of terrorist that attacked us, and considering that every intelligence agency worldwide believed that Saddam either 1.) currently possessed WMD's, 2.) had recently possessed WMD's or 3.) through sale or manufacture, was trying to acquire WMD's....this made him a justifiable target, and a long overdue one, honestly.
The vast majority of innocent death in Iraq is due to the insurgents suicide bombing. America did not force them to do this, they did it of their own free will. It is time to put the blame where it belongs. Many more of the deaths are those of our enemies. How can any sane person think this is bad?
By the way, if you honestly believe that Saddam did not have or was not trying to get WMD's then you are ignorant, just because they weren't there when we finally got to take a good look, really means nothing

The terrorists are only there because we are there.
This is bullshiat. The terrorists are all over the Muslim world, and if they come to fight us in Iraq, then great, let them come die. The only reason they are so prevalent now is because Saddam is not there to rule with that iron fist of his. America is does not murder and opress, and many of our enemies take this as a weakness, whereas Saddam would not put up with it. He would just have everyone murdered.

The government needs to provide health care for everyone.
Although it sounds nice, this is a pipe dream. It is not the job of our American government to provide health care for all of it's citizens. The only actual rights we have as Americans are as stated in our Constitution; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...not good health regardless of our personal choices, not to be taken care of in every aspect that we do not want to take care of ourselves, and definitely not to guarantee hapiness.
This applies to many other hot button issues in the mainstream today. The government has no right to tell a person what he or she can or cannot do with his or her own body and property as long as they do not violate anyone elses rights.

I could go on, but I would rather some of you add to my list. I even welcome anyone to debunk some conservative myths.

And as my final statement of this post:
Appeasement...peace at any price...even diplomacy with some of our irrational enemies, is a recipe for defeat. Our enemies do not want to compromise. We either submit to them, or we force them to submit to us.
Our ancestors here in America have fought and sacrificed much more than any of you will ever be able to comprehend to make this great country what it is, and I just cannot understand why you would be so willing to nullify all of that blood, sweat and tears just to get along in this modern world.
 
  2007-03-10 06:59:30 PM
Calmamity: Are we tired of Iraq?

Just about. But you do understand that this is the #1 political concern these days, along with the horse's asses they rode in on...;)

I figured I'd at least wrap up some arguments.

But your other topic is a nice transition:

From the men who brought you The Iraq Klstrfk comes another Epic Tale of Denial:

DON'T TALK ABOUT HOW THE POLAR BEARS ARE AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE! (NC-17)

img300.imageshack.us

Causarius: but to say that if someone else was in power that our problems would have been a memory by now is, pure fantasy.

You're right in the sense that there is pressure to put someone in office who is intent on carrying out the rather pointless and imperialistic practices in the Middle East.

Still, somehow Clinton managed to avoid calling for the invasion of Iraq despite the same intelligence. What's more, he wasn't the President when 9/11 occurred, and Bush was the one who set the ball rolling that any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.(pops)

By the way, if you honestly believe that Saddam did not have or was not trying to get WMD's then you are ignorant, just because they weren't there when we finally got to take a good look, really means nothing

That isn't proof, nor does it even justify invading Iraq in hindsight.

The only reason they are so prevalent now is because Saddam is not there to rule with that iron fist of his.

Your opinion. You won't find anything that will back up your argument. As far as the Bush administration's concerned, there are terrorists in every country over there.

The government needs to provide health care for everyone.

Whoa, nice divergence from the Iraq topic, there...:)

You clearly haven't read about this issue from all sides as the concept of Universal Health Care can be simple as establishing standards for existing programs so they can be used with ease nationwide. And I'm sure that the medical industry would disagree with the rest of your statement regarding whether people have a "right" to be treated...:)

I could go on, but I would rather some of you add to my list.

Set 'em up, we'll knock 'em down™.

Our enemies do not want to compromise.

My problem is that I don't even know who are "enemies" are anymore thanks to the incompetence of the warmongers that have dominated American politics for the past 25 years.

And all human beings compromise. When we realize that the will to peace is far greater than any short-term wargasm, we'll make some real progress in this world. That is, if it isn't too late and blow ourselves up like the ending of T3.

Until then, keep being fooled. Thanks...
 
  2007-03-10 09:16:16 PM
Whidbey: "And all human beings compromise. When we realize that the will to peace is far greater than any short-term wargasm, we'll make some real progress in this world."

I'm not so sure about that.

How do you compromise with someone who wants you dead?

What compromise will a suicide bomber be willing to make?

He is willing to blow himself up in order to kill you.

What compromise are you going to try to get to keep him from killing you?
 
  2007-03-12 06:52:09 AM
Does anyone else think that Justice Sosman was murdered?
 
  2007-03-12 10:47:53 AM
Why do you think that?
 
  2007-03-12 06:34:17 PM
Because it just seems suspicious..."respiratory failure." Usually, that results from a preexisting condition, in this case, breast cancer, but I have not found one article that asserts that it's cancer-related; they just imply it by mentioning the cancer. Have you ever seen that? That tells me that the doctors aren't sure. And why is everything we hear via Marshall? A national figure whose biggest threat just died, and her death won't even make the Globe's front page. How often does that happen?

This might just be the lack of sleep talking...and possibly getting me sued for libel.
 
  2007-03-12 10:29:19 PM
dottedmint
whidbey And I consider the War Powers Act just as un-Constitutional as the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Jim Crow days, which went unchallenged for 50 years, but the moral wrong within was obvious.

The US Constitution says that Congress has the power:

Article 1 Section 8

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Since The Constitution does NOT say that a DoW (or anything for that matter) is needed to use military force Congress felt they needed to write a law that specified what is needed to use military force.

It was within the Constitutional power of Congress to pass that law.

IF at some point it gets overturned by a court then we will have to revisit it BUT AT THIS POINT it is the law of the land.


Are you talking about the war powers resolution in the 70's? That isn't a law. It was a joint resolution; the president never signed it, no president said they'd ever intended to follow it, and it isn't a "law."

Why are you arguing for that anyway? If you're pro-Bush you want less power with congress during war time, which the war powers act was meant to counteract.

When did this thread show up anyway? How the hell is anyone ever going to stay on topic? What the hell is the topic? There's a lot more interesting sh*t to argue about then Iraq. I mean, who honestly still thinks that was a good idea?
 
  2007-03-13 01:04:05 AM
Cleveland-Steamer: I mean, who honestly still thinks that was a good idea?

Here's a clue: They're in power right now and they haven't owned up to their mistake. Why do you ask?

How the hell is anyone ever going to stay on topic?

I dunno. Have a discussion until it's played out, or have several discussions going at once. Be cool about it. I'd say Iraq's the perfect icebreaker, but I'd like to talk something else, myself.

But to answer your earlier point dottedmint, suicide bombing is obviously a farked statement, but at least the US could take a look at the reasons why they exist: we screwed Iraq on the rebuilding of infrastructure, unemployment is insanely high and some people feel they have nothing to lose but join militias and try to terrorize the occupation force.

Conditions are miserable over there, and it's not just because "the terrorists" are destroying everything, we never did the job right to begin with. Billions of dollars intended for rebuilding stolen and hustled away, no sense of security, underequipped troops. It's a no-brainer that this country has to change its ways, and stop listening to a bunch of soulless warmongers with their rosy vision of "spreading democracy."
 
  2007-03-13 02:10:53 AM
U.S. created most of its own problems. We backed unjust and immoral regimes during the cold war (definitely not spreading democracy there) all in the name of the fight against communism. We installed unjust and immoral regimes for economic reasons. Then we don't accept responsibility for our neglect to the people of those countries. We have justified totalitarianism, human rights violations, and genocide in other countries because it was in our economic interest.
Now we are shocked that other countries call us the enemy. Well, if my family was killed by a despot put in place, funded, and armed by the U.S., America would not be my favorite place.

The Neo-cons want to bring democracy to other nations in order to stabilize them economically, socially, and militarily. Is this not what Soviet Russia planned to do with the rest of the world? Is this not imperialism? Democracy has been the most effective form of gov't the world has seen, but to impose that through military means in pre-emptive strikes is imperialism.

The U.S. has done so many great things . . . it is the best country in the world to live in. We cannot, however, be naive anymore. The U.S. has a lot of blood on its hands, and we must own up to it.
 
  2007-03-13 02:52:14 AM
whidbey:

Here's a clue: They're in power right now and they haven't owned up to their mistake. Why do you ask?

Because I am a rhetorical ninja.


I dunno. Have a discussion until it's played out, or have and several discussions going at once. Be cool about it. I'd say Iraq's the perfect icebreaker, but I'd like to talk something else, myself.

Well it just seems unwieldy to have one thread for everything. It'd be cool if there were different subjects or threads within the politics thread.

But with that said, maybe I'll throw a bunch of stuff out there for people to chew on. How about the recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush? (pops). The SCOTUS won't hear it till next term and it is an interesting recent development in the Guantanamo Bay saga.

The case is a challenge to congressional authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pops) (MCA) to suspend habeas corpus, among other things. The detainees are basically arguing a) its unconstitutional to suspend habeas in this instance, and b) the MCA didn't retroactively suspend it.

Essentially the court sidestepped the issue of whether congress had the constitutional authority to suspend habeas for Guantanamo alien detainees by saying they never had the right to the writ in the first place. They also said "yes dummies, congress meant it to be retroactive."

My first point:
I agree that the MCA was clear about meaning to take away ALL habeas privileges for aliens at Guantanamo. I disagree that the detainees never had habeas to begin with. I think the detainees had the right to habeas corpus since the SCOTUS in Rasul v. Bush (pops) already said they did. The court of appeals made a clear error here, IMHO, by basically ignoring SCOTUS precedent which clearly stated that the historical reach of the habeas writ encompassed the detainees at Camp Delta.

My second point:
Since Congress is suspending habeas, it is unconstitutional because a) it's not a state of rebellion or invasion, and b) congress has not offered a viable alternative. If Congress suspends the writ when we are not subject to rebellion or invasion, Congress must (according to well established SCOTUS precedent) offer a viable alternative to allow people to challenge their detentions.

My third point:
The MCA is disgusting and maybe unconstitutional. At the very least congress should be ashamed of themselves, and the democrats should be even more ashamed that they aren't trying to repeal it immediately. Congress already HAD rules for military commissions that worked and were within our treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, they were called courts-martial. The Combat status review tribunals and the military commissions which follow them allow evidence obtained by torture, allow the accused to be dismissed from the proceedings, allow the accused and his attorney to be denied evidence against them, and in a myriad of other way completely disregard every evidentiary and procedural standard of American jurisprudence, and the act in general is a disgusting example of "justice." We literally treated Nazi war criminals better than this.

I should elaborate on this. I fully believe, as does the SCOTUS, that we should be constrained by the Geneva conventions, and I also believe we would be serving our national security interests by doing so. (We don't need Geneva Convention authority to still find the MCA unconstitutional, however.) For one thing, when you torture the enemy, they torture you back. Also, others who may not have tortured you before may start torturing your troops. Yes, al-qaeda are sick bastards who will torture anyway. But so were the Japanese, and we didn't torture their POWS. The Military has recognized the importance of not letting armed conflicts spiral out of control when it comes to the treatment of POWS, which is why for years the army field manual specifically mandated that all US troops must treat all POWS within the Geneva conventions. (All of them- civilans, enemy combatants, unlawful enemy combatants, everyone. There are many different geneva conventions that cover every type of person).

Another reason is that if we are trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the world, it'd be better if they didn't think we were a bunch of secretive, all powerful torturing bastards who do whatever the hell we want. If we respected human rights, maybe we'd be on firmer ground and terrorists wouldnt have such an easy sell to potential recruits.

My fourth (pseudo)point:
We are witnessing a remarkable power struggle between our branches of government. The Bush administration has done some historic things during their seven (six?) years in office, and have in general tried to expand the powers of the executive to absurd levels. NSA wiretaps, presidential signing statements, the detentions of hundreds, maybe thousands (who really knows?) of detainees in the war on terror in prisons around the world, two wars... my head asplodes. Seriously. It is mind boggling. This is a historic era of presidential power we are witnessing here. Everyone mocks the Bush administration for being dumb, but most of these guys are conniving, smart bastards.
 
  2007-03-13 05:44:20 AM
Question: How many members of the UN Security Council does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: Apparently none, because the Chinese would veto.
 
  2007-03-13 05:22:25 PM
Cleveland-Steamer: Well it just seems unwieldy to have one thread for everything.

I dunno, man. I'm often arguing several points at once myself. It all fits into the philosophy that while this country is getting more and more access to information, we're still living with the same "necessary evils" of politics: that we elect candidates who are out of touch with ordinary Middle Class Americans, there's always some "war" we need to be fighting, the disparity of rich and poor is getting ridiculous, people can't even own a home these days...

All while "real" institutional education seems more like a bust these days..."is our children learning?"

Sounds to me like there's much more pressure to raise kids who'll make millions instead of a true rounded education.

And I know it's stupid to put faith in the Internets, but think of the cultural explosion it's become in just the past seven years. It's really amazing, I can't help but put hope in it. That is, if our government doesn't decide the whole thing is a security breach.

The case is a challenge to congressional authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pops) (MCA) to suspend habeas corpus, among other things

And you'll find you're probably preaching to the choir with me. If we truly are a nation that stands up to the incredible milestone of the Constitution, we recognize those rights even in those we consider enemies. Anyone who's being held for trial has the right to know why they're held, and the right to a fair trial. I understand that the Bill of Rights was written for American citizens, but the spirit of that document applies to all people.
 
  2007-03-13 07:19:55 PM
whidbey:

And I know it's stupid to put faith in the Internets, but think of the cultural explosion it's become in just the past seven years. It's really amazing, I can't help but put hope in it. That is, if our government doesn't decide the whole thing is a security breach.

It's funny, we all joke about how Fark is so full of irreverent commentary, inane political ramblings, and "morans", but really I think America could use more of something like this. It's a public forum, and we have lost the classic public forum in this country. People dont go to parks to listen to politicians or commentators preach from the soapbox like they did in, say, the 20's. (Unless its some stupid moveon.org organized rally that attracts cookie cutter democrats and folks who dont really want to do anything, but think going to a rally or a protest constitutes their annual contribution to democracy.)

The internet is the modern equivalent of the public forum and it gives people the chance to engage one another in debate, which is what every healthy democracy needs. People need to think critically. It's such a simple concept, but it gets lost on everyone. We live in a country that values independent people, but only so far as they are independently spending money on things they dont need. When it comes to actually thinking for themselves, oh no, we cant have that!
 
  2007-03-14 12:53:43 AM
If clinton had blown up bin laden when he had a chance we would not be in Irag and the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of our people would still be alive and 9-11 would not be a date the world will never forget....but he didn't kill bin laden and we sat around on our assess knowing that those terrorist hated us and did nothing to rid the world of them and geuss what... they came here and hit us hard......SO now is bin laden right in what he said when we did go in to irag "that if you punch america in the nose they will run away" which is what I'm seeing when I hear people say "well we need to pull out because our soldiers are dieing" where would the world be today if our people had done that when hitler's armies were killing a lot more of our soldiers back when.....where would we be if people had want us to run when japan hit pearl harbor and killed thousands and drove us to war and agian thousands of our men and women were dieing, you know if the world was as full of pussies back then like it is today the whole world would be a really different place...a really bad place for us and our kids and grandkids, so maybe people should see that making the hard choice sometimes is the right choice because if the leaders of the past had taken a different path because soldiers were dieing and people were yelling lets bring our soldiers home things could be much worse and we may not have the freedom to go to the street and biatch or call for our president to be impeached because we don't agree with every little thing he say's or does....so before you yell and biatch think about what could have been if past leaders were more like you!
 
  2007-03-14 01:16:58 AM
Cleveland-Steamer:I should elaborate on this. I fully believe, as does the SCOTUS, that we should be constrained by the Geneva conventions, and I also believe we would be serving our national security interests by doing so. (We don't need Geneva Convention authority to still find the MCA unconstitutional, however.) For one thing, when you torture the enemy, they torture you back.

AH have you seen the terrorist chop of heads of our people? Did you see the twin towers crumble to the ground? I personally have not seen one prisoner of war get his head chopped of....hell we give them comforts they wouldn't get fighting us in irag living in one place today another tommorow always on the run eating who knows what.....show me one terrorist we have tortured....PLEASE! Also these guy's in gitmo shouldn't be covered by our constitutional rights they are not americans they do not want to be american and they want america to be wiped of the face of the earth and I'm my opinion the constitution was meant for americans and people who came to this country in search of the american dream and was willing to live as an american would by following our laws so don't say its unconstitutional what we are doing to them it only unconstitutional if it was our people in those jail cells down there and we were doing it do our own people!
 
  2007-03-14 02:33:14 AM
blogwiz: I'm my opinion the constitution was meant for americans and people who came to this country in search of the american dream and was willing to live as an american would by following our laws

Laws like the Constitution?

Yes, the Constitution is for Americans. But the rights guaranteed within apply to all people, otherwise they mean nothing.

show me one terrorist we have tortured...

I can't show you anything we're not privvy to. But the fact that Bush is fighting to re-write international law so that torture is acceptable should tell you something.

you know if the world was as full of pussies back then like it is today the whole world would be a really different place.

Is that how you look at it? People that believe that war is a waste of time, money and lives are pussies? Just wondering. And I rather take issue with your comparison: the "War" on "Terror" (note quotes) has nothing on the real threat that was World War II. That was a real war with real enemies, and a real sense that someone was going to try and conquer or destroy this world.

Think about it, and then compare your notes with the half-assed, unilateral, imperialistic sham of a police action Iraq was and is.
 
  2007-03-14 09:03:20 AM
blogwiz: If clinton had blown up bin laden when he had a chance we would not be in Irag Afghanistan

There
 
  2007-03-14 12:17:03 PM
whidbey:
Yes, the Constitution is for Americans. But the rights guaranteed within apply to all people, otherwise they mean nothing.

Does that also apply to people who were being tortured and killed by saddam and his death squads or don't you think he needed to be stopped....maybe we didn't find wmd's but we did find mass graves of the people he killed just because they tried to resist his supressive rule, did he have the right to use chemical weapons on towns of men, women and even babies in his country while the world turned a blind eye to it...in my opinion he should have been stopped along time before now and it should have been done by every free nation on the planet not just by a hand full and I also think the people of all free nations should stand up and stop every brutal ruler so every person of the world has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution!

whidbey:Is that how you look at it? People that believe that war is a waste of time, money and lives are pussies? Just wondering.

Sometimes war is needed!

whidbey: And I rather take issue with your comparison: the "War" on "Terror" (note quotes) has nothing on the real threat that was World War II. That was a real war with real enemies, and a real sense that someone was going to try and conquer or destroy this world.

"9-11" (note quotes) and what do you think the terrorist were trying to do? Just wondering! They may not have been trying to conquer the world but I believe they had every intent of destroying us....you know sort of like japan was trying to do when they attacked us at pearl harbor....so maybe you think after the terrorist hit us on 9-11 we should have done what talk to them ask them please don't hurts us again....or maybe sit down with them and make nice because they weren't trying to take over the world or maybe you think because the terrorist don't have uniforms that they are not a real enemy and that the "war on Terror" is not a real war........THEY ATTACKED US and we warned the world that anyone who supports the asshole terrorist in anyway were our enemies and would be dealt with! If we did nothing at all they would have kept trying to destory us and isn't it better we fight the enemy somewhere other than in our own country!
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report