Bush

[sub_zer0]

What is your view of Bush, as he is a born-again Christian? How do you think he is doing with the war on terror?

[dittohead not!]

He's the best argument you have against evolution.

[FlyingGuineapig]

George W comes across as a decent person, but not well suited for the presidency. One could argue that his opponents (Gore, Kerry) would have been even worse - probably, although I think the biggest problem with Bush is that he & Congress have allowed each other to get away with so much because they're in the same political party.

- So no one objected when the deficit went up $4 trillion.
- No one objected when Iraq was invaded despite rather shaky evidence of WMDs (that was the original reason - remember? The "American cities being turned into mushroom clouds by Saddam's nukes".)
- No one objected when the pursuit of OBL and those behind 9/11 got sidetracked into dealing with an Iraq insurgency.
- No one objects to the government is spending double on food stamps compared to Clinton years, or the whole Medicare/pharmacy give-away has become yet another endless hundreds-of-billions-of-entitlements.

Meanwhile, North Korea and Iran are much father along on their nuke programs, the US military & National Guard is stretched pretty thin, and the entitlements owed by the government over the next 50 years is about $70 trillion (all those paying into Social Security expect to get something out).

If you've got a $200K a year job, with a million or so in investments, I don't think the next few years are going to be too tough, and there will probably be a lot of good bargins to pick up while everyone else is panicing. If you're not pulling down a boatload of cash in a well-protected job, however, it could be for some rough seas.

Did Bush make all of these mistakes because he's a Born Again Christian, delibertly trying to destroy the US & the world's future to essentially force God's hand? Or is he just bungling things out of incompetence?

[Meek Heir]

No one objects to the government is spending double on food stamps compared to Clinton years, or the whole Medicare/pharmacy give-away has become yet another endless hundreds-of-billions-of-entitlements.

Technically, despite his passing of one medicare bill that I have heard of, most of those are mandatory spending and so neither congress or the President has control over those unless congress specifically passes a bill changing the rules.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Technically, despite his passing of one medicare bill that I have heard of, most of those are mandatory spending and so neither congress or the President has control over those unless congress specifically passes a bill changing the rules.
In the case of that single Medicare bill, the extra cost is estimated between $600 billion and $2.4 trillion, over a ten year period.

And as you point out, this mandatory spending is going to keep on going (increasing by at least a few percentage each year).

In cases such as social security - it's tough to find a way out. Folks have been paying money into a program, and the Government has made promises it needs to live up to that it can't afford. Likewise, Bush has done a lot for US war veterns, who do deserve financial support from a grateful country - but how are we going to pay for it? There really hasn't been any thought given to it.

In 2001, Bush projected the US budget for 2006 would be $300 billion in the black. Today, it's $300 billion in the red. And there's probably an addition $300 billion being spent "off budget" for the war.

If Bush is willing to pay for the "extra" $4 trillion he's spent out of his own pocket, I'm cool with it. I just haven't heard him say that, and since I'll be one of the folks settling the bill when he skips town in 2008, I'm less than amused.

[dittohead not!]

In the case of that single Medicare bill, the extra cost is estimated between $600 billion and $2.4 trillion, over a ten year period.

Let's see, your low estimate of $600 B works out to $60B per year, divide that among 100 million taxpayers, and it works out to $600 per taxpayer, or about $50 per month. Using the high end, you get $200 per month.

The $300 B you mention being put on the national Mastercard to finance the war works out to $3,000 per taxpayer per year.

I'm going to suggest a one time war tax of $6,000 to finance the war against Iraq for the next two years. This would be a non renewable one time tax, to be paid as a flat tax by all citizens. In addition, there needs to be a tax of between $50 and $200 per month so long as the medicare expansion continues.

Pass those taxes, and then we'll see just how much support there really is for Bush's policies. So long as all that money goes on the Mastercard, the average taxpayer will remain fat and happy, ignorant of just how much is being spent in his name.

While we're at it, let's put SS in a separate fund and pay back all of the money that has been borrowed since the Great Society of that Bush clone, Lyndon Johnson. That should put SS back in the black.

Taxes would be pretty high for a while, but then we survived high taxes during WWII. If we're really in a "world war", then reinstating the top tax rate of 90% shouldn't be out of the question, should it?

[steveksux]

Jesus ascended into heaven. Bush found Jesus in the bottom of a whiskey bottle. Unless you believe heaven is in the bottom of a whiskey bottle, Bush has a ways to go before he's a born again Christian.

"Born again Christian" sounds more electable than "Ex drunk". That's the extent of his born again Christianity.

Randy

[Sauniere]

What is your view of Bush, as he is a born-again Christian? How do you think he is doing with the war on terror?

Certainly you jest. This man is completely incompetent.
His administration will be the embarrassment for generations of Americans.
Their policies are completely diseased, relying upon faulty intelligence.
It will take this country years to recover from their deceit.

[sub_zer0]

Certainly you jest. This man is completely incompetent.
His administration will be the embarrassment for generations of Americans.
Their policies are completely diseased, relying upon faulty intelligence.
It will take this country years to recover from their deceit.

You sound like Cindy Sheehan, is Israel wrong and should our terrorists (troops) get out of New Orleans as well?

[Alvin T. Grey]

You sound like Cindy Sheehan, is Israel wrong and should our terrorists (troops) get out of New Orleans as well?
'Erm....No?

You see it's rather difficult to invade your own bloody country.

[dittohead not!]

Jesus ascended into heaven. Bush found Jesus in the bottom of a whiskey bottle. Unless you believe heaven is in the bottom of a whiskey bottle, Bush has a ways to go before he's a born again Christian.

"Born again Christian" sounds more electable than "Ex drunk". That's the extent of his born again Christianity.

Randy

The only president or ex president who could possibly lay claim to the title of "born again Christian" through his actions rather than his words is the one who still spends his time helping the rest of humanity as Jesus said we should do. You could see that as evidence that a real Christian, that is to say, one who tries to keep the cousel of Christ, is poorly equipped to play hardball with the forces of evil in the world.

[sub_zer0]

'Erm....No?

You see it's rather difficult to invade your own bloody country.

Tell that to Cindy Sheehan.

[Alvin T. Grey]

No. - How is that for a straight answer?

[Dangerrmouse]

Tell that to Cindy Sheehan.

Are you suggesting she has invaded America? :lol:

[Dangerrmouse]

Tell that to Cindy Sheehan.

Are you suggesting she has invaded New Orleans? :confused:

[JD3]

What is your view of Bush, as he is a born-again Christian? How do you think he is doing with the war on terror?

1. How can I know? I don't think his actions are particularly Chrisitan, but how can I see inside someone elses heart. I suspect those most dishonest often appear honest, so I just don't think we can know.

2. On the war on terrorism, poorly, very poorly.

[JD3]

The only president or ex president who could possibly lay claim to the title of "born again Christian" through his actions rather than his words is the one who still spends his time helping the rest of humanity as Jesus said we should do. You could see that as evidence that a real Christian, that is to say, one who tries to keep the cousel of Christ, is poorly equipped to play hardball with the forces of evil in the world.


Jimmy Carter.

I remember a woman long ago saying that she voted for Carter the first time because she thought he was a christian. She voted against him the second time because knew he was.

[sub_zer0]

1. How can I know? I don't think his actions are particularly Chrisitan, but how can I see inside someone elses heart. I suspect those most dishonest often appear honest, so I just don't think we can know.

2. On the war on terrorism, poorly, very poorly.

1. I indeed realize nobody can know the heart of an indiviudal, but you can by his actions.

2. What has been so bad about the war on terrorism?

[JD3]

1. I indeed realize nobody can know the heart of an indiviudal, but you can by his actions.

2. What has been so bad about the war on terrorism?

1. If by his actions alone, I would say no. He is took reckless with human life, and too attached to the big business side of politics.

2. He isn't really fighting it. He is creating it.

[sub_zer0]

1. If by his actions alone, I would say no. He is took reckless with human life, and too attached to the big business side of politics.

2. He isn't really fighting it. He is creating it.

1. He values human life and you are judging a book by its cover with the fact he is involved with big business.

2. How is he creating it?

[JD3]

1. He values human life and you are judging a book by its cover with the fact he is involved with big business.

2. How is he creating it?

1. I see nothing in his actions that proves he values human life. He has been too willing to take it to value it IMHO.

2. Look at Iraq. Look at how much terrorist acts have grown. See the world as it becomes more and more violent. He has to take credit for how his actions have contributed. What is the answer to the question, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

[sub_zer0]

1. I see nothing in his actions that proves he values human life. He has been too willing to take it to value it IMHO.

He has said no to stem cell extraction from human embryos which kills life.

2. Look at Iraq. Look at how much terrorist acts have grown. See the world as it becomes more and more violent. He has to take credit for how his actions have contributed. What is the answer to the question, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

Iraq is a democratically elected government with 200,000 man army and a great police force, more and more Iraqi's are taking back their country, a province at a time from the American army. The whole idea was to take it to them, so they couldn't take it to us with another WTC attack or something on our soil.

Iraq because of Bush now has all of Iraq liberated from Sadaam's ruthless hand. There is another example of how he values human life.

[USA-1]

Bush became a born again Christian for one reason. Political.

[Dangerrmouse]

He has said no to stem cell extraction from human embryos which kills life.

How so? They are thrown away anyway...nobody "saved" here.

[sub_zer0]

How so? They are thrown away anyway...nobody "saved" here.

As Bush said, "This research offers great hope for treatments and possible cures. Research on embryonic stem cells also raises profound ethical questions because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys the potential for life."

I am talking about him vetoing H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005", which would make us pay for the destruction of embryos.

[JD3]

He has said no to stem cell extraction from human embryos which kills life.



Iraq is a democratically elected government with 200,000 man army and a great police force, more and more Iraqi's are taking back their country, a province at a time from the American army. The whole idea was to take it to them, so they couldn't take it to us with another WTC attack or something on our soil.

Iraq because of Bush now has all of Iraq liberated from Sadaam's ruthless hand. There is another example of how he values human life.

1. Political. Again, I can't get in his head, but his actions have shown he will appease his based when needed. Remember he wasn't for a constitutional ban on homosexuality until he needed his base. Then once he won he forgot about it, until his ratings got low again, and then he brought it up.

His actions are what he does. When faced with a choice to error on the side of life, he choose to bomb and kill. He didn't seek all possible actions or show any restraint. Add to his willingness to use the death penalty, even when there were questions about guilt.

2. Iraq wasn't them, so we didn't take it to them. 14 of the fifteen highjackers were Saudis. They were financed by Saudis. T this date no one has yet proven any connection to Saddam and this so called war on terrorism. It is a sound bite unsupported, and in many ways unclaimed claim. Even Bush says he has no evidence Saddam was behind 9/11 or even involved. Nor is there any evidence he was doing anything to threaten us at all.

But, the measurable numbers tell the story. Terrorism has tripled. Nations are bombing and invading each other. NK has the bomb and Iran is on the threshold. Hard to argue any success here if you ask me.

[JD3]

As Bush said, "This research offers great hope for treatments and possible cures. Research on embryonic stem cells also raises profound ethical questions because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys the potential for life."

It's what he said, not what he did. Those lines now die.

[Dangerrmouse]

[QUOTE=sub_zer0] The whole idea was to take it to them, so they couldn't take it to us with another WTC attack or something on our soil.

So innocent Iraqis die in Americans' stead. Did anyone ask them?

[sub_zer0]

2. Iraq wasn't them, so we didn't take it to them. 14 of the fifteen highjackers were Saudis. They were financed by Saudis. T this date no one has yet proven any connection to Saddam and this so called war on terrorism. It is a sound bite unsupported, and in many ways unclaimed claim. Even Bush says he has no evidence Saddam was behind 9/11 or even involved. Nor is there any evidence he was doing anything to threaten us at all.

Iraq was them, actually. Why do you think former Baa'th members are fighting with al Qaeda?

[sub_zer0]

Or is that American life? Foreigners lives seem less valuable to him. And you.

Actually if you look at the Iraqi people, they want us there becuase they know they are better off now then they were.

[JD3]

Iraq was them, actually. Why do you think former Baa'th members are fighting with al Qaeda?

Don't know that they are. The intelligence says there are many groups fighting for different reasons. There is actually, howevr, very little Al Qaeda in Iraq. The goups with the closests connections to Al Qaeda happen to be the Kurds and the Shia, and the Shia are also closer to Iran. We are not fighting terrorism in any real way in Iraq.

[sub_zer0]

Don't know that they are. The intelligence says there are many groups fighting for different reasons. There is actually, howevr, very little Al Qaeda in Iraq. The goups with the closests connections to Al Qaeda happen to be the Kurds and the Shia, and the Shia are also closer to Iran. We are not fighting terrorism in any real way in Iraq.

You are actually completely wrong, Iraq under Sadaam Husein has connections to Taliban and al Qaeda.

You are completely wrong...
What was the relationship between Saddam Hussein's inner circle and Islamic terrorists? A newly released document captured in Iraq, but never before seen by the public, offers glimmers of new insight at the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office Web site. The FMSO is a research and analysis center under the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command. This particular document mentions two men with similar names, each with ties to Pakistani religious schools known as madrassas, Jihad training camps, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

This original translation by my translator-colleague, who goes by the nom de guerre of "Sammi," comes from a notebook kept by an Iraqi intelligence agent. It provides evidence of a cooperative, operational relationship agreed to at the highest levels of the Iraqi government and the Taliban. The notebook is lengthy and we will present it on the FOX News Web site in a series of postings. It deals extensively with meetings between Maulana Fazlur Rahman, an Al Qaeda/Taliban supporter, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice president of Iraq, and other unnamed Iraqi officials.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

[JD3]

Iraq was them, actually. Why do you think former Baa'th members are fighting with al Qaeda?

You are completely wrong...

Please see the tread on that document. It is both unconfirmed and doesn't prove that. To make that leap you have to add information that isn't there. So, no, I'm not wrong. ;)

[sub_zer0]

Please see the tread on that document. It is both unconfirmed and doesn't prove that. To make that leap you have to add information that isn't there. So, no, I'm not wrong. ;)

Read the transcript for petes sake...

Not only that, but Iraqis think we should be there... because they know we are helping them.

[JD3]

Read the transcript for petes sake...

I have several times, that is why I say see the thread on this. Is is both unconfirmed and only presents a maybe, not a proven. Have you read it? Investigated the objections to it?

[sub_zer0]

I have several times, that is why I say see the thread on this. Is is both unconfirmed and only presents a maybe, not a proven. Have you read it? Investigated the objections to it?

I can say it is confirmed with as much authority as you can say it isn't.

Anyway, Iraqi's think we should be there, because they know we are helping their LIVES.

[USA-1]

I can say it is confirmed with as much authority as you can say it isn't.

Anyway, Iraqi's think we should be there, because they know we are helping their LIVES.
Which Iraqis think we should be there? The Sunni or Shiites? How is civil war helping their lives?

[Dangerrmouse]

I can say it is confirmed with as much authority as you can say it isnt.

He provides supporting references. You dont.

Anyway, Iraqi's think we should be there, because they know we are helping their LIVES.

It has been consistently established that only 5% of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi, that means 95% are! They could not operate without at least tacit support from certain sections of the rest of the population.

[JD3]

He provides supporting references. You dont.



It has been consistently established that only 5% of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi, that means 95% are! They could not operate without at least tacit support from certain sections of the rest of the population.

Exactly.

[sub_zer0]

Which Iraqis think we should be there? The Sunni or Shiites? How is civil war helping their lives?

94% of Iraqis support a unity government

78% oppose segregation on religions lines - like you are trying to do

In Baghdad, where most of tte sectarian violence occurs 76% are opposed

It has been consistently established that only 5% of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi, that means 95% are! They could not operate without at least tacit support from certain sections of the rest of the population.

The Iraqi majority does NOT like terrorism by these insurgents, made up mostly by Sunni's, the ones who ruled before the unity government came into being.

Point is, 94% of Iraqis support a unity government, the one put into place because we did something.

[JD3]

94% of Iraqis support a unity government

78% oppose segregation on religions lines - like you are trying to do

In Baghdad, where most of tte sectarian violence occurs 76% are opposed

Your numbers come from where? Are they credible? and that says nothng as to whether they support us being there or the central question here about terrorism. All of that could be true, and still you could be wrong about the central question. ;)

[sub_zer0]

Your numbers come from where? Are they credible? and that says nothng as to whether they support us being there or the central question here about terrorism. All of that could be true, and still you could be wrong about the central question. ;)

Which is what? What is the central question?

[JD3]

Which is what? What is the central question?

That Bush is fighting terrorism. Remember? ;)

[sub_zer0]

That Bush is fighting terrorism. Remember? ;)

Our troops are in Iraq fighting terrorists.

[JD3]

Our troops are in Iraq fighting terrorists.

Which terrorist? Terrorism is a tactic. Bathists defending their side use the tactic and Shia and Sunnis use it to kill each other, something neither was doing before we got there, exactly how is this fighting terrorism?

[Dangerrmouse]

The International Republican Institute’s “Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion,” released July 19, 2006 is mentioned on www.blogsforbush.com I suspect that may be the source...

[sub_zer0]

Which terrorist? Terrorism is a tactic. Bathists defending their side use the tactic and Shia and Sunnis use it to kill each other, something neither was doing before we got there, exactly how is this fighting terrorism?

Terrorism is a tactic that was used by Sadaam... We fought him and are still fighting terrorism now.

We took down a regime in which the dictator used terrorism on its own people,how isn't that good for Iraq?

[steveksux]

We took down a regime in which the dictator used terrorism on its own people,how isn't that good for Iraq?Reminds me of a joke.

THere was a guy who's wife's credit cards were stolen. He never reported it to the credit card company. Why? The thief was spending less per month than his wife.

More people are dying a day in Iraq now than under Saddam. Thats how they could be worse off. At least under Saddam you knew how to keep out of trouble if you wanted to.

Randy

[JD3]

Reminds me of a joke.

THere was a guy who's wife's credit cards were stolen. He never reported it to the credit card company. Why? The thief was spending less per month than his wife.

More people are dying a day in Iraq now than under Saddam. Thats how they could be worse off. At least under Saddam you knew how to keep out of trouble if you wanted to.

Randy


I couldn't have said it better. And this is why human rights people opposed the invasion. They wanted Saddam removed, but this method, and somewhere in the achieves here there is an article on this, this method would kill so much more than any other, they simply couldn't support it. ANd that is exactly why many iraqis are not all that thankful. Saving me by killing me isn't really the option most would choose.

[Your_Embryo]

Exactly.
So, where is this support the mouse speaks of?

[Your_Embryo]

I couldn't have said it better. And this is why human rights people opposed the invasion. They wanted Saddam removed, but this method, and somewhere in the achieves here there is an article on this, this method would kill so much more than any other, they simply couldn't support it. ANd that is exactly why many iraqis are not all that thankful. Saving me by killing me isn't really the option most would choose.

What human rights groups were these? Could you look it up from the archives please? also, could you do a comparison as to what human rights groups projected as deaths of Iraqi children under the UN Food For Oil program were?

[JD3]

What human rights groups were these? Could you look it up from the archives please? also, could you do a comparison as to what human rights groups projected as deaths of Iraqi children under the UN Food For Oil program were?


I was three years ago. I'll see what I can do.

[Your_Embryo]

I was three years ago. I'll see what I can do.
You can just post em here and we can all look at the numbers from different sources. Does that sound ok?

I mean, I dont think i can access them can I? If so i will look myself and then post them here.

[JD3]

There are many of them, but this was the one I was thinking of:

In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.

(snip)

In our view, as a threshold matter, humanitarian intervention that occurs without the consent of the relevant government can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life. To state the obvious, war is dangerous. In theory it can be surgical, but the reality is often highly destructive, with a risk of enormous bloodshed. Only large-scale murder, we believe, can justify the death, destruction, and disorder that so often are inherent in war and its aftermath. Other forms of tyranny are deplorable and worth working intensively to end, but they do not in our view rise to the level that would justify the extraordinary response of military force. Only mass slaughter might permit the deliberate taking of life involved in using military force for humanitarian purposes.

(snip)

But if Saddam Hussein committed mass atrocities in the past, wasn’t his overthrow justified to prevent his resumption of such atrocities in the future? No. Human Rights Watch accepts that military intervention may be necessary not only to stop ongoing slaughter but also to prevent future slaughter, but the future slaughter must be imminent. To justify the extraordinary remedy of military force for preventive humanitarian purposes, there must be evidence that large-scale slaughter is in preparation and about to begin unless militarily stopped. But no one seriously claimed before the war that the Saddam Hussein government was planning imminent mass killing, and no evidence has emerged that it was. There were claims that Saddam Hussein, with a history of gassing Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds, was planning to deliver weapons of mass destruction through terrorist networks, but these allegations were entirely speculative; no substantial evidence has yet emerged. There were also fears that the Iraqi government might respond to an invasion with the use of chemical or biological weapons, perhaps even against its own people, but no one seriously suggested such use as an imminent possibility in the absence of an invasion.

That does not mean that past atrocities should be ignored. Rather, their perpetrators should be prosecuted. Human Rights Watch has devoted enormous efforts to investigating and documenting the Iraqi government’s atrocities, particularly the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds. We have interviewed witnesses and survivors, exhumed mass graves, taken soil samples to demonstrate the use of chemical weapons, and combed through literally tons of Iraqi secret police documents. We have circled the globe trying to convince some government—any government—to institute legal proceedings against Iraq for genocide. No one would. In the mid-1990s, when our efforts were most intense, governments feared that charging Iraq with genocide would be too provocative—that it would undermine future commercial deals with Iraq, squander influence in the Middle East, invite terrorist retaliation, or simply cost too much money.

But to urge justice or even criminal prosecution is not to justify humanitarian intervention. Indictments should be issued, and suspects should be arrested if they dare to venture abroad, but the extraordinary remedy of humanitarian intervention should not be used simply to secure justice for past crimes. This extreme step, as noted, should be taken only to stop current or imminent slaughter, not to punish past abuse.

In stating that the killing in Iraq did not rise to a level that justified humanitarian intervention, we are not insensitive to the awful plight of the Iraqi people. We are aware that summary executions occurred with disturbing frequency in Iraq up to the end of Saddam Hussein’s rule, as did torture and other brutality. Such atrocities should be met with public, diplomatic, and economic pressure, as well as prosecution. But before taking the substantial risk to life that is inherent in any war, mass slaughter should be taking place or imminent. That was not the case in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in March 2003.

(snip)

Another factor for assessing the humanitarian nature of an intervention is whether it is reasonably calculated to make things better rather than worse in the country invaded. One is tempted to say that anything is better than living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, but unfortunately, it is possible to imagine scenarios that are even worse. Vicious as his rule was, chaos or abusive civil war might well become even deadlier, and it is too early to say whether such violence might still emerge in Iraq.

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

[Your_Embryo]

I would argue that this is the point i was trying to make...

Human Rights Watch accepts that military intervention may be necessary not only to stop ongoing slaughter but also to prevent future slaughter, but the future slaughter must be imminent.

Future slaughter by means of UN non- intervention and via UN Food For Oil Sanctions justifies any means or justification for intervention that a so-called 'human rights" group should have looked for.

That is the reason the number should be compared and substantiated from different sources, by US citizens.

[sub_zer0]

Reminds me of a joke.

THere was a guy who's wife's credit cards were stolen. He never reported it to the credit card company. Why? The thief was spending less per month than his wife.

More people are dying a day in Iraq now than under Saddam. Thats how they could be worse off. At least under Saddam you knew how to keep out of trouble if you wanted to.

Randy

Again, let the Iraqi people speak, they would know better than you about how well they were under Sadaam.

94% of Iraqis support a unity government, that is the government the U.S. created for the Iraqis, they get it, why don't you?

[USA-1]

94% of Iraqis support a unity government, that is the government the U.S. created for the Iraqis, they get it, why don't you?
Where did you get that number?

[JD3]

I would argue that this is the point i was trying to make...



Future slaughter by means of UN non- intervention and via UN Food For Oil Sanctions justifies any means or justification for intervention that a so-called 'human rights" group should have looked for.

That is the reason the number should be compared and substantiated from different sources, by US citizens.

Remember it says the slaugther, the future slaughter, must, "must be imminent." It wasn't. And as we have seen, they were correct in that it has been worse for the Iraqi people, now dying at about 100 per day (UN report). And this doesn't even consider the disease brought on by unsafe water and lack of power.

[JD3]

Again, let the Iraqi people speak, they would know better than you about how well they were under Sadaam.

94% of Iraqis support a unity government, that is the government the U.S. created for the Iraqis, they get it, why don't you?

Which, even if true, doesn't say they support the US government (which countless polls say they don't) or the invasion. Be sure we know what polls are actually telling us. ;)

[steveksux]

Where did you get that number?If the evolution forums are any indication, don't shake his hand until after he washes his hands really good after handling those numbers. It appears he pulls them out of his back pocket, but they come straight out of his butt instead. Track record on misrepresentations and distortions is not impressive. You can expect not to see the source for those numbers, or it will be something like a newsmax internet poll.

Randy

[Rollo Gramaci]

When my Father was dying of Cancer in 1993, he felt he had time to make it right with God, although for the Life of Me, he was one of those rare individuals that EVERYBODY loved. He literally had no enemies . . . I for one cannot say the same. I asked him the fact he had lived his life pretty much the way Jesus would had wanted him to if the Lord's Son and the story about his father were true . . . perhaps it was a little bit of Fear, but because of how he lived his life, I had to believe him when he told me it was about getting personal with God before he left us.

I was the only sibling of five who lived near him, and in an effort to make him happy, we (my family) attended a Non Denominational "Born Again" Church with him every Sunday, and attended Bible study. It was not personally for me . . . I saw things I did not think were particularly religious in the way the Church seemed to be almost Corporate in its fund raising . . . which to me, seemed like the most Important matter. I worked with people who claimed "Born Again" status, and saw people I know attend my Father's church, who I had personally witnessed being some of the biggest sinners around during the week, simply because they could walk into Church every Sunday and ask God for forgiveness, and he would . . . oh yeah, that came at a price of the weekly donation. It's like a Christian get out of jail card, throw a few bucks at the preacher, say you are sorry, and do it all over again until next Sunday.

That said, I do not I have the ability to answer the God & Bush relationship, but I am going to anyway . . . cause I am wordy. Just because I didn't like church (even the Roman Catholic one I was raised in), doesn't mean I did not listen to the message in between donations. Truly, George can believe he is totally committed to God . . . he can, because he knows he will be forgiven every time he goes to church . . . slate gets cleaned, and because his intentions are good, God WILL Forgive. Otherwise, I do not know how he could get through the day dealing with the guilt. His actions are not what I understand to be Christian as it pertains to worldly matters, but if he is one of those "Forgive me on Sunday" guys, he could be like a whole lot of other "Born Agains" I know.

[Mirror Lake 444]

When my Father was dying of Cancer in 1993, he felt he had time to make it right with God, although for the Life of Me, he was one of those rare individuals that EVERYBODY loved. He literally had no enemies . . . I for one cannot say the same. I asked him the fact he had lived his life pretty much the way Jesus would had wanted him to if the Lord's Son and the story about his father were true . . . perhaps it was a little bit of Fear, but because of how he lived his life, I had to believe him when he told me it was about getting personal with God before he left us.

I was the only sibling of five who lived near him, and in an effort to make him happy, we (my family) attended a Non Denominational "Born Again" Church with him every Sunday, and attended Bible study. It was not personally for me . . . I saw things I did not think were particularly religious in the way the Church seemed to be almost Corporate in its fund raising . . . which to me, seemed like the most Important matter. I worked with people who claimed "Born Again" status, and saw people I know attend my Father's church, who I had personally witnessed being some of the biggest sinners around during the week, simply because they could walk into Church every Sunday and ask God for forgiveness, and he would . . . oh yeah, that came at a price of the weekly donation. It's like a Christian get out of jail card, throw a few bucks at the preacher, say you are sorry, and do it all over again until next Sunday.

That said, I do not I have the ability to answer the God & Bush relationship, but I am going to anyway . . . cause I am wordy. Just because I didn't like church (even the Roman Catholic one I was raised in), doesn't mean I did not listen to the message in between donations. Truly, George can believe he is totally committed to God . . . he can, because he knows he will be forgiven every time he goes to church . . . slate gets cleaned, and because his intentions are good, God WILL Forgive. Otherwise, I do not know how he could get through the day dealing with the guilt. His actions are not what I understand to be Christian as it pertains to worldly matters, but if he is one of those "Forgive me on Sunday" guys, he could be like a whole lot of other "Born Agains" I know.

Sounds reasonable but as brought up in the last election he rarely attends church services. If the excuse is he is too busy I don't buy it. If he is really born again he could find the time.

Anybody ever see the study done years ago of people that attended a Bill Graham crusade and professed to be "born again?" A follow up on them was done to see if their lives really had changed. It was not the case for most of them. Most of them went right back to their old ways.

[Your_Embryo]

So let me get this straight.....when Bush first ran, the papers and the left attacked him when he went to Bob Jones University and gave a speech because they are "to fundamental". Now hes getting attacked by people applying their simple "secular" morals to actual theistic ethics?

Ludicrous.

[steveksux]

So let me get this straight.....when Bush first ran, the papers and the left attacked him when he went to Bob Jones University and gave a speech because they are "to fundamental". Now hes getting attacked by people applying their simple "secular" morals to actual theistic ethics?

Ludicrous.
Actually it was Bob Jones racist policies on interracial dating that were objected to. Not their fundamentalist mindset per se. Wizard of Oz auditions are next door. Strawmen are welcome there.

Randy

[JD3]

So let me get this straight.....when Bush first ran, the papers and the left attacked him when he went to Bob Jones University and gave a speech because they are "to fundamental". Now hes getting attacked by people applying their simple "secular" morals to actual theistic ethics?

Ludicrous.

You have to know what the real objections are before you can reasonably comment on them. Randy does, without the Oz stuff, point out that it wasn't Bush's fundamentalism that caused folks to object. And as long as Bush doesn't try to blame God for his error in going into Iraq, most of us don't care about his religious convictions or lack thereof.

[Your_Embryo]

Actually it was Bob Jones racist policies on interracial dating that were objected to. Not their fundamentalist mindset per se. Wizard of Oz auditions are next door. Strawmen are welcome there.

Randy


Uh..no it wasn't secular humanist. I think I can find plenty of liberal commentary on Bush going to Bob Jones that makes you look foolish. You wanna try me?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The president of Bob Jones University on Friday said his school has ended its ban on interracial dating in wake of the controversy stirred by George W. Bush's visit to the fundamentalist Christian school.

"We don't have to have that rule. In fact, as of today, we have dropped the rule," Bob Jones III told CNN's "Larry King Live."

He said he met with administrators earlier in the day and decided to end the policy, because "I don't want to hurt the church of Jesus Christ."

Besides, Jones said, the policy "is meaningless to us."

"Our concern for the school's broader usefulness is greater to us than a rule we never talk about," he said.

At another point, Jones said, "We can't back it up with a verse in the Bible."
Bush 'heartened' by school's decision

The South Carolina university was thrust into the political spotlight last month when Bush gave a speech to the 6,000- member student body. Bush has since said he regretted not speaking out more forcefully.

"I'm heartened to hear that Bob Jones University has reversed its ban on interracial dating. It was wrong to begin with," Bush said in a written statement. "Tonight, the school has done the right thing."

In the weeks following Bush's visit, GOP rival John McCain called the policy "idiotic," lashed Bush for not criticizing the university sooner and launched a phone drive in Michigan targeting Catholic voters that drew attention to Bush's visit to Bob Jones, whose founders also have called Catholicism a "cult."

During Friday's interview with Larry King, Jones, a Bush supporter, said the criticism of the Texas governor is "totally unfair," saying the school has a "long tradition" of presidential candidates speaking there, including Ronald Reagan.
Rule is 'not important'

He said the intense news media scrutiny has tarnished the school's reputation.

"We're being defined as a racist school. That's all the media is talking about," he said, adding that "we don't hate Catholics, we love Catholics."

Jones said the university first implemented the dating ban more than five decades ago, "because we were trying ... to enforce something, a principle, that is much greater than this. We stand against the one world government, against the coming world of the antichrist."

"The principle upon which it was based is very important, but the rule is not. So we did away with it," he said.

"We realize that an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/

Notice the date.

Bob Jones also practices homophobia. Two years ago, when a gay, 60-year-old alum asked if he could come back to visit the school, the dean of students wrote back, ''With grief we must tell you that as long as you are living as a homosexual, you, of course, would not be welcome on the campus and would be arrested for trespassing if you did. We take no delight in that action. Our greatest delight would be in your return to the Lord.''

http://www.commondreams.org/views/020900-101.htm

It was because Bush went to a school that didn't practice the ideals of secularism. You can take your strawman and put him back in his little logical fallacy heaven.

Next time you come up against me, personify something other than the Cowardly Lion, cause thats what you're gonna need.

Next.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Hmm, Randy states that the media objected to Bush's visit to Bob Jones University's due to its ban on interracial dating.

You triumphently prove him wrong by quoting a news story that begins: "The president of Bob Jones University on Friday said his school has ended its ban on interracial dating in wake of the controversy stirred by George W. Bush's visit to the fundamentalist Christian school."

Wow - you sure made him look foolish. :rolleyes: His point has been completely disproven by this reprt.

Still, it's good to know that they've figured out that the antichrist isn't triggered by interracial dating or blacks getting an education (well, at least that's what they say in the open, when they're talking about how much they love Catholics. And probably Jews. And anyone else they can burn a cross on the lawn of welcome with open arms..

[steveksux]

Uh..no it wasn't secular humanist. I think I can find plenty of liberal commentary on Bush going to Bob Jones that makes you look foolish. You wanna try me?



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/

Notice the date.



http://www.commondreams.org/views/020900-101.htm

It was because Bush went to a school that didn't practice the ideals of secularism. You can take your strawman and put him back in his little logical fallacy heaven.

Next time you come up against me, personify something other than the Cowardly Lion, cause thats what you're gonna need.

Next.
Wow, I've been schooled... nothing about interracial dating bans in there.... :rolleyes: :sorry: :laughter: Good lord, if that's your idea of rebutting someone.... :lol:

Randy

[Your_Embryo]

Wow, I've been schooled... nothing about interracial dating bans in there.... :rolleyes: :sorry: :laughter: Good lord, if that's your idea of rebutting someone.... :lol:

Randy

Yeah, it is in there. So what type of enforcement are the "secular humanist police force gonna" put on the Ahmish society today? Got any ideas? How about the Indian nations?

[JD3]

Yeah, it is in there. So what type of enforcement are the "secular humanist police force gonna" put on the Ahmish society today? Got any ideas? How about the Indian nations?

I don't follow you here.

[steveksux]

Yeah, it is in there. So what type of enforcement are the "secular humanist police force gonna" put on the Ahmish society today? Got any ideas? How about the Indian nations?Pandering to racists should be something Presidential candidates avoid, don't you think? I mean, seeing as how treating people differently by race is against the Constitution and all, and the President is supposed to uphold it. Perhaps he should familiarize himself with it beforehand? You think banning interracial dating is appropriate? :rolleyes:

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Pandering to racists should be something Presidential candidates avoid, don't you think? I mean, seeing as how treating people differently by race is against the Constitution and all, and the President is supposed to uphold it. Perhaps he should familiarize himself with it beforehand? You think banning interracial dating is appropriate? :rolleyes:

Randy

I don't know how many times you have sworn at me, made fun of my religion and/or faith that is in my heart... I think we should ban you!

[steveksux]

I don't know how many times you have sworn at me, made fun of my religion and/or faith that is in my heart... I think we should ban you!I know how many times I've sworn at you. Zero. That would be another lie. Neo? You were looking for an example? Here you go.

Your religious beliefs are your own business. I don't mock them.

But when you try to misrepresent science and attempt to portray psuedoscientific nonsense as backing up discredited notions such as a 6000 year old earth as scientific fact, and do so on a public discussion forum, that is something eminently mockable. It is my duty to do so. This is a forum for discussing theories. If your theories fall apart so severly under scrutiny that you feel mocked for believing in them, maybe you should consider the possiblility they may be flawed. If they engender dirision instead of discussion perhaps they are severely flawed. 90% of the other Christians on the planet have abandoned those midieval concepts along with the Flat Earth stuff. There's a reason. Its been proven false. Blame the errors on mans poor interpretations of the Bible rather than the Bible being wrong, just like all the other Christians on the planet (including the Pope) who have no problem with evolution. There is no conflict between science and Christianity. Truth does not contradict truth.

Randy

[dittohead not!]

I know how many times I've sworn at you. Zero. That would be another lie. Neo? You were looking for an example? Here you go.

Your religious beliefs are your own business. I don't mock them.

But when you try to misrepresent science and attempt to portray psuedoscientific nonsense as backing up discredited notions such as a 6000 year old earth as scientific fact, and do so on a public discussion forum, that is something eminently mockable. It is my duty to do so. This is a forum for discussing theories. If your theories fall apart so severly under scrutiny that you feel mocked for believing in them, maybe you should consider the possiblility they may be flawed. If they engender dirision instead of discussion perhaps they are severely flawed. 90% of the other Christians on the planet have abandoned those midieval concepts along with the Flat Earth stuff. There's a reason. Its been proven false. Blame the errors on mans poor interpretations of the Bible rather than the Bible being wrong, just like all the other Christians on the planet (including the Pope) who have no problem with evolution. There is no conflict between science and Christianity. Truth does not contradict truth.

Randy

Excellent summation, and hopefully the final word on the evolution vs. 6,000 year old earth discussion. Isn't it amazing how beliefs that have been proven false beyond any reasonable doubt still persist, and how some want to try to discredit 21st. century science in order to support medieval era beliefs?

[Dangerrmouse]

To be fair, mediaeval beliefs are a thousand years more modern than his....

[USA-1]

I know how many times I've sworn at you. Zero. That would be another lie. Neo? You were looking for an example? Here you go.

Your religious beliefs are your own business. I don't mock them.

But when you try to misrepresent science and attempt to portray psuedoscientific nonsense as backing up discredited notions such as a 6000 year old earth as scientific fact, and do so on a public discussion forum, that is something eminently mockable. It is my duty to do so. This is a forum for discussing theories. If your theories fall apart so severly under scrutiny that you feel mocked for believing in them, maybe you should consider the possiblility they may be flawed. If they engender dirision instead of discussion perhaps they are severely flawed. 90% of the other Christians on the planet have abandoned those midieval concepts along with the Flat Earth stuff. There's a reason. Its been proven false. Blame the errors on mans poor interpretations of the Bible rather than the Bible being wrong, just like all the other Christians on the planet (including the Pope) who have no problem with evolution. There is no conflict between science and Christianity. Truth does not contradict truth.

Randy

Very good.

[sub_zer0]

I know how many times I've sworn at you. Zero. That would be another lie. Neo? You were looking for an example? Here you go.

Your religious beliefs are your own business. I don't mock them.

But when you try to misrepresent science and attempt to portray psuedoscientific nonsense as backing up discredited notions such as a 6000 year old earth as scientific fact, and do so on a public discussion forum, that is something eminently mockable. It is my duty to do so. This is a forum for discussing theories. If your theories fall apart so severly under scrutiny that you feel mocked for believing in them, maybe you should consider the possiblility they may be flawed. If they engender dirision instead of discussion perhaps they are severely flawed. 90% of the other Christians on the planet have abandoned those midieval concepts along with the Flat Earth stuff. There's a reason. Its been proven false. Blame the errors on mans poor interpretations of the Bible rather than the Bible being wrong, just like all the other Christians on the planet (including the Pope) who have no problem with evolution. There is no conflict between science and Christianity. Truth does not contradict truth.

Randy

Those are not Christians only in the sense that they are not following the BIBLICAL TEACHINGS on the origins of life and the age of the universe. Therefore for you to say they are Christians in that area is false. I am not saying you cannot be Christian and accept those ideas, you just can't claim they are Biblical, which is core to Christianity---the Bible.

[JD3]

Those are not Christians only in the sense that they are not following the BIBLICAL TEACHINGS on the origins of life and the age of the universe. Therefore for you to say they are Christians in that area is false. I am not saying you cannot be Christian and accept those ideas, you just can't claim they are Biblical, which is core to Christianity---the Bible.


Just a note. Not all Chrisitans believe that. Some believe that science and Christianity are quite compatiable. I believe they are that what is explained as seven days in the Bibloe actually took quite a bit longer. As my preists notes, that was a way to describe complicated events to an audience of limited understanding. The Bible should begin the discussion and not end it. The only thing that can last for all time, as believers believe, has to be able to grow because without growth, there is death.

[USA-1]

Those are not Christians only in the sense that they are not following the BIBLICAL TEACHINGS on the origins of life and the age of the universe. Therefore for you to say they are Christians in that area is false. I am not saying you cannot be Christian and accept those ideas, you just can't claim they are Biblical, which is core to Christianity---the Bible.
What gives you the right to decide who are Christians? You really don't have a clue, do you?

[dittohead not!]

Those are not Christians only in the sense that they are not following the BIBLICAL TEACHINGS on the origins of life and the age of the universe. Therefore for you to say they are Christians in that area is false. I am not saying you cannot be Christian and accept those ideas, you just can't claim they are Biblical, which is core to Christianity---the Bible.

Do you consider the world's millions of Catholics to be Christians?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Those are not Christians only in the sense that they are not following the BIBLICAL TEACHINGS on the origins of life and the age of the universe. Therefore for you to say they are Christians in that area is false. I am not saying you cannot be Christian and accept those ideas, you just can't claim they are Biblical, which is core to Christianity---the Bible.
Back in http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46653, in post 58, even you state that Jesus is talking symbolically, not literally.

So apparently Jesus isn't Christian to you. Have you broken the news to Him? :eek: (oh well, He's probably used to thinking of Himself as still Jewish).

[sub_zer0]

Back in http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46653, in post 58, even you state that Jesus is talking symbolically, not literally.

So apparently Jesus isn't Christian to you. Have you broken the news to Him? :eek: (oh well, He's probably used to thinking of Himself as still Jewish).

You don't get what I was saying.

You said: Now, if we look at Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female", it would indicate that Jesus DOESN'T want to read Genesis literally, since taken literally it would mean that God begins creation by creating male and female. Note that Jesus specially says "At the beginning of", not "during creation". We're being literal here - word for word.

To clarify: Jesus is stating in that the "beginning of creation" indeed was and is within the first creation week.

[sub_zer0]

Just a note. Not all Chrisitans believe that. Some believe that science and Christianity are quite compatiable. I believe they are that what is explained as seven days in the Bibloe actually took quite a bit longer. As my preists notes, that was a way to describe complicated events to an audience of limited understanding. The Bible should begin the discussion and not end it. The only thing that can last for all time, as believers believe, has to be able to grow because without growth, there is death.

Evolution isn't science, it is a scientific theory, and yes science is quite compatible with what the Bible states and teaches. You thinking the Bible means that seven days is longer is not Biblical, you are reading what you want into it, instead of taking it for what it states. It is still a complicated event written to an audience (all of humanity) with limiteed understanding.

The Bible shuts doors on wrong things and keeps them open for good and truthful things through the word of God. That is what it is there for, it speaks of truth being Christ who taught creation and a creation week, not evolution or creation years.

Oh, BTW in support of President Bush and the Iraqi misson of succes:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3586/2102/1600/attackdensity.jpg

You see that? You see where the terrorists attack? Now look at that, then read the post from an American soldier in Iraq HERE (http://bandit36.blogspot.com/).

Thank God we have a President and an army willing to fight for freedom.

[Alvin T. Grey]

You see that? You see where the terrorists attack? Now look at that, then read the post from an American soldier in Iraq HERE (http://bandit36.blogspot.com/).
You did read the banner headline there?

"If you're looking for fair and balanced news from Iraq then you're in the wrong place"
Yes, well done.

Thank God we have a President and an army willing to fight for freedom.
Yes. Good luck with that.

[USA-1]

Evolution isn't science, it is a scientific theory, and yes science is quite compatible with what the Bible states and teaches. You thinking the Bible means that seven days is longer is not Biblical, you are reading what you want into it, instead of taking it for what it states. It is still a complicated event written to an audience (all of humanity) with limiteed understanding.

The Bible shuts doors on wrong things and keeps them open for good and truthful things through the word of God. That is what it is there for, it speaks of truth being Christ who taught creation and a creation week, not evolution or creation years.

Oh, BTW in support of President Bush and the Iraqi misson of succes:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3586/2102/1600/attackdensity.jpg

You see that? You see where the terrorists attack? Now look at that, then read the post from an American soldier in Iraq HERE (http://bandit36.blogspot.com/).

Thank God we have a President and an army willing to fight for freedom.
Most of those killed in Lebanon and Iraq were civilians.
If you were a real Christian you would be against the killing, not the war monger you are..

[FlyingGuineapig]

To clarify: Jesus is stating in that the "beginning of creation" indeed was and is within the first creation week.
Jesus didn't say "creation week" - he said the "beginning of creation" - two completely different statements.

Sounds like even Bible Christians need to do a bit of Bible reinterpretation in order to make it fit nicely within their beliefs.

:sorry:

[JD3]

Evolution isn't science, it is a scientific theory, and yes science is quite compatible with what the Bible states and teaches. You thinking the Bible means that seven days is longer is not Biblical, you are reading what you want into it, instead of taking it for what it states. It is still a complicated event written to an audience (all of humanity) with limiteed understanding.

The Bible shuts doors on wrong things and keeps them open for good and truthful things through the word of God. That is what it is there for, it speaks of truth being Christ who taught creation and a creation week, not evolution or creation years.

Oh, BTW in support of President Bush and the Iraqi misson of succes:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3586/2102/1600/attackdensity.jpg

You see that? You see where the terrorists attack? Now look at that, then read the post from an American soldier in Iraq HERE (http://bandit36.blogspot.com/).

Thank God we have a President and an army willing to fight for freedom.

First the Bible. Thinking the Bible is literal is a belief and not a fact. Many other real Chrisitians, just as Chrisitian as you, do not believe the Bible should be taken literal.

Now I know people have explained what a scientific theory really is to you before. It isn't like a guess. There is supporting evidence and observable and verifiable aspects to it. Not a belief system, but science. So, make sure when you mention evolution you keep it in that context. OK.

Now, if you want to talk soliders, you may want to check out what some said in the Political forum. Some are having quite a bit of trouble with this mission. Also, remember that the spreading of freedom is just an after thought for this president, something meant to cover his lack of reasoning for the invasion.

[green lantern]

i'll save you some effort sub....if it is George W. Bush, the general opinion of most of those from the left, is that he is the devil incarnate. no possible way that the man has done anygood, aint no way, no how.

[steveksux]

i'll save you some effort sub....if it is George W. Bush, the general opinion of most of those from the left, is that he is the devil incarnate. no possible way that the man has done anygood, aint no way, no how.As long as you ignore the facts, yes, that's a true statement...

However you will notice (or won't apparently) that most of the posters on the left agreed with his decision to go into Afghanistan after 9/11 to go after OBL. If they're unhappy with all the things he's screwed up since then, its not cause they hate him. Might not the whole "things he's screwed up since then" part have something to do with it?

Randy

[DRMIZER]

Is Bush a born again? He must be. Afterall his mission on earth is to eliminate the evil (evil doers) on earth.

Now. . . .Jesus tried and couldn't do it, Buda tried to philosophize away evil, Ghandi tried and failed. . .but now we have the man on the job who is going to take care of the evil. . . . .Praise the Lord for George. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[USA-1]

.if it is George W. Bush, the general opinion of most of those from the left, is that he is the devil incarnate. no possible way that the man has done anygood, aint no way, no how.
Many on the right feel the same way. Soon all on the right will.

[sub_zer0]

Now, if you want to talk soliders, you may want to check out what some said in the Political forum. Some are having quite a bit of trouble with this mission. Also, remember that the spreading of freedom is just an after thought for this president, something meant to cover his lack of reasoning for the invasion.

No, spreading freedom has been his main goal. This mission is doing just fine, the numbers don't lie, under 3,000 troops in 3 years to build a country from the ground up is VERY good!

[neo of the mind]

Is Bush a born again? He must be. Afterall his mission on earth is to eliminate the evil (evil doers) on earth.

Now. . . .Jesus tried and couldn't do it, Buda tried to philosophize away evil, Ghandi tried and failed. . .but now we have the man on the job who is going to take care of the evil. . . . .Praise the Lord for George. :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Jesus tried and coudn't do it"? Who thinks his purpose the first time was to remove evil? You are misguided on that thought. However, when he returns, he will remove evil. He defeated it when he rose from the dead. He obtained the victory for all who choose to accept it.

[USA-1]

No, spreading freedom has been his main goal. This mission is doing just fine, the numbers don't lie, under 3,000 troops in 3 years to build a country from the ground up is VERY good!
3000 troops and tens of thousands of civilians. Or don't they count? There is a civil war in Iraq. You are the most uninformed person on this board and are starting to embarrass yourself. You really should read more than one book.

[Dangerrmouse]

"Jesus tried and coudn't do it"? Who thinks his purpose the first time was to remove evil? You are misguided on that thought. However, when he returns, he will remove evil. He defeated it when he rose from the dead. He obtained the victory for all who choose to accept it.

Why is it still here then, "defeated" or otherwise, and why does the supposedly all-powerful need two bites at the cherry?

[neo of the mind]

Read the Bible to find out.

[USA-1]

Read the Bible to find out.
Why do you believe the Bible?

[neo of the mind]

Why do you believe the Bible?

Why do you?

[DRMIZER]

"Jesus tried and coudn't do it"? Who thinks his purpose the first time was to remove evil? You are misguided on that thought. However, when he returns, he will remove evil. He defeated it when he rose from the dead. He obtained the victory for all who choose to accept it.I'm aware. . .but it made good reading. And besides, he should have removed all the evil then George wouldn't have to try! :cool: One bite at the cherry should have been sufficient.

[neo of the mind]

I'm aware. . .but it made good reading. And besides, he should have removed all the evil then George wouldn't have to try! :cool: One bite at the cherry should have been sufficient.

But that wasn't the purpose of him coming the first time, you would know that if you read the Bible. Since you don't, then you didn't. You can have another bite at the cherry and get it right.

[Rollo Gramaci]

No, spreading freedom has been his main goal. This mission is doing just fine, the numbers don't lie, under 3,000 troops in 3 years to build a country from the ground up is VERY good!

I member that . . . in between every 247 regurgitations of the acronym WMD, GW did mention Saddam's Nasty Human Rights Violations . . . I am sure freedom and democracy were meant to be implied then. Which is why you inferred this was about spreading freedom . . . it was so darn obvious, and all this time I thought WMD and Saddam's threat to our National Security was this issue . . . but it was sitting right there in front of me all the time . . . "I see the light", said the blind man to his deaf daughter as she drove the car into the tree. Thank you so much for clearing this matter up for me.

I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in the future as it pertains to my ignorance.

[neo of the mind]

I guess the X amount of U.N. resolutions that Saddam thumbed is nose at for double digit years had nothing to do with it.

There is a plan for America to mold the world towards a direction that benefits America foremost and the world secondly. However, the benefit to the world, like helping umpteen nations feed themselves, is something that the world looses touch with. The ones doing the most crying about how America impacts the world are doing so out of the apparent belief that it doesn't selfishly benefit them. If you looked at the countries that whined the loudest about the invasion and ENFORECEMENT of the U.N. resolutions towards IRAQ, it was coutries that had contracts and other monetary reasons and not humanitarian or moral reasons for their opposition.

Let's face it, UNTIL another country steps up to take over America's position in the world ALONG with the responsibilites that go along with it, America will continue to be the lead. If and when that happens, then we will see how "bad" or "good" America was at the role.

[JoeR]

I guess the X amount of U.N. resolutions that Saddam thumbed is nose at for double digit years had nothing to do with it.

How do you enforce UN rules while simultaneously ignoring them? I'm not even opposed to taking Sadaam out, just wish it would've been executed better, but this line of reasoning doesn't make much sense.

[neo of the mind]

How do you enforce UN rules while simultaneously ignoring them? I'm not even opposed to taking Sadaam out, just wish it would've been executed better, but this line of reasoning doesn't make much sense.

and what UN resolutions was America ignoring while enforcing?

[JoeR]

The US didn't have the security council's votes.

[DRMIZER]

But that wasn't the purpose of him coming the first time, you would know that if you read the Bible. Since you don't, then you didn't. You can have another bite at the cherry and get it right.Thanks for sharing my preceived ignorance of the bible :lol: :lol: :lol: But I'll stand by my original thought. I would rather the savior of the world save the world from evil rather than GW trying to be the savior of the world.

Come to think of it, I do think I read that book at one time or another. . . . . ;) :thinking:

[neo of the mind]

Resolution 1441 was voted on and passed by the security council.

[neo of the mind]

Thanks for sharing my preceived ignorance of the bible :lol: :lol: :lol: But I'll stand by my original thought. I would rather the savior of the world save the world from evil rather than GW trying to be the savior of the world.

Come to think of it, I do think I read that book at one time or another. . . . . ;) :thinking:


Your original thought, that I took issue with is in relation to the purpose of the first advent of Jesus, nothing else. If you think that his purpose was to bring peace and wipe out evil from the planet, then you are wrong. His stated purposes were different. So, I took exception to your thought that he somehow didn't get it right and needs a second try at it. He got it right the first time in relation to his purposes, he will also get it right the second time, when his purposes will be different from the first time. That purpose being the full "removal" of everything offensive to God after a thousand year reign of Jesus culminating towards the final judgement.

[dittohead not!]

Thanks for sharing my preceived ignorance of the bible :lol: :lol: :lol: But I'll stand by my original thought. I would rather the savior of the world save the world from evil rather than GW trying to be the savior of the world.

Come to think of it, I do think I read that book at one time or another. . . . . ;) :thinking:

But, hasn't Jesus himself sent his emmissary, George, to rid the Earth of evil?

[DRMIZER]

But, hasn't Jesus himself sent his emmissary, George, to rid the Earth of evil?That's the way its been preached so I have to believe it!! :confused:

[dittohead not!]

That's the way its been preached so I have to believe it!! :confused:

I suppose we all have to accept it, or be a part of the evil he is trying to eradicate. I still wonder just why God told him to invade Iraq. Oh well, the lord moves in mysterious ways.

[USA-1]

Resolution 1441 was voted on and passed by the security council.
That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

Saddam did comply with 1441. All his WMDs and programs had been destroyed.

[neo of the mind]

That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

Saddam did comply with 1441. All his WMDs and programs had been destroyed.

Iraq did not comply with 1441.

[USA-1]

Iraq did not comply with 1441.
According to George all of Saddam's WMDs have been destroyed so in fact he had complied. It really did not matter what Saddam did GWB had made up his mind long before to invade Iraq. WMDs was just used to build support.

[neo of the mind]

build support? So all the U.N. resolutions calling for him to account for WMDs was just a joke.

This subject has been moot for a couple of years now, not certain why people still are hung up on trying to prove something they can't.

[USA-1]

build support? So all the U.N. resolutions calling for him to account for WMDs was just a joke.

This subject has been moot for a couple of years now, not certain why people still are hung up on trying to prove something they can't.


Prove what? That Saddam never had WMDs? Isn't that why we invaded and created the civil war there?
The subject is not moot. The fact is Saddam had indeed destroyed all his WMDs, just like he had said. Bush admits it why can't you? Are you one of the diehards that still believes it was a good idea to invade Iraq?

[JD3]

Iraq did not comply with 1441.

Actually they did. Inspectors were on the ground, which is in part why the Security Council would not authorize invasion.

[steveksux]

Actually they did. Inspectors were on the ground, which is in part why the Security Council would not authorize invasion.And before someone reposts the lie that Saddam kicked the inspectors out, it was BUsh that told them to get out because the invasion was imminent. Had to get them out of there get the war going quickly. Inspectors kept failing to find those WMD, the whole rationale for war was falling apart...

Randy

[dittohead not!]

Actually they did. Inspectors were on the ground, which is in part why the Security Council would not authorize invasion.

Ah, yes, but Bush rushed in where angels feared to tread, yes siree, it was Bush to the rescue. We don't need no stinkin' UN, not us! We're the mighty Americans. We can clean up this mess in Iraq and make a democracy here that will be the envy of the world, sure enough. We just need a good excuse. What'll it be? Why, weapons of mass destruction, that's the ticket. They have chemical and biological weapons, and will soon have nukes (that's nucular weapons, folks) to give to the terrorists to blow up one of our cities! Do you want to see San Francisco become a smoking pile of rubble? Wups! Bad example for the right wing Bushistas, who might just like to see such a thing. We'll sally forth and save New York City from being attacked by Saddam's WMD, just like he attacked the Kurds. Remember the Kurds! That's our new battle cry. Why, we'll be done with Hussain and have the Iraqis throwing flowers at our feet within a month.

What's that? No nucular program? Shhh.... don't tell anyone.

Mission accomplished! The hero, Bush, has conquered evil in our time and now is ready for the accolades to begin! Hurrah for the Bushistas! They've saved the day, and made the Middle East safe for democracy!

OMG! They're fight us! Now what?

OMG! They're fighting each other. Now what?

I know, I know! Stay the course, as long as it takes, we can't afford to lose! This is the war on terror, you know. The war against Iraq is the war on terror! They started it by attacking the World Trade Center.

What an unholy mess Bush and his buddies have gotten us into. Is there a way out? What are our choices now?

Hobsen's choice #1: Stay the course.
Hobsen's choice #2: Cut and run.

[neo of the mind]

The facts show that Iraq was not abiding by the 16 freaking U.N. resolutions to disarm. They ***** footed around all the way up to the last days, example, they had at least 100 Al Samoud 2 missiles and as of March 6, 2003 they only had destroyed 34 of them. They didn't destroy any from December 2003 till March 1st of 2003. From March 7th through the 17th, they didn't destroy any.

Point is, they were given resolution 687 on April 3, 1991 and after 12 years and 16 U.N. "paper tiger" resolutions later, they had still not complied. Of course they would do a little here and a little there in order for the knuckleheads crying for diplomacy to justify stalling and stalling, when in fact, Iraq was not going to fully disarm and they never did.

On the day of the invasion, Iraq fired numerous scud missles towards Kuwait and coalition forces which proved a material breech of of the U.N. resolutions.

If the U.S. and coalition forces did nothing, we would be on U.N. resolution 43 by now.

[JD3]

The facts show that Iraq was not abiding by the 16 freaking U.N. resolutions to disarm. They ***** footed around all the way up to the last days, example, they had at least 100 Al Samoud 2 missiles and as of March 6, 2003 they only had destroyed 34 of them. They didn't destroy any from December 2003 till March 1st of 2003. From March 7th through the 17th, they didn't destroy any.

Point is, they were given resolution 687 on April 3, 1991 and after 12 years and 16 U.N. "paper tiger" resolutions later, they had still not complied. Of course they would do a little here and a little there in order for the knuckleheads crying for diplomacy to justify stalling and stalling, when in fact, Iraq was not going to fully disarm and they never did.

On the day of the invasion, Iraq fired numerous scud missles towards Kuwait and coalition forces which proved a material breech of of the U.N. resolutions.

If the U.S. and coalition forces did nothing, we would be on U.N. resolution 43 by now.

That's alright, Israel isn't either. The point is 1441 was being abidded by. There was no timetable to that resolution and inspectors were on the ground.

[neo of the mind]

That's alright, Israel isn't either. The point is 1441 was being abidded by. There was no timetable to that resolution and inspectors were on the ground.

There are two camps of thought, one side says that as a part of not destroying you back in IRAQ WAR 1, you must do X,Y,Z in a reasonable time frame and 12 years is not reasonable. The other side says that as a part of not destroying you back in IRAQ WAR 1, you must do X,Y,Z in a reasonable time frame and a thousand years is reasonable. On top of that, any small amount of X,Y,Z is touted as grand gesture of compliance. The reason is, if they admitted that they were not abiding by the terms, then the U.N. would actually have to DO something. They wanted to continue ACTING like they were doing something, when in fact all they were doing was acting like a parent after giving 1001 ultimatums to a child to do something, thinking that number 1002 will be effective.

What does Israel have to do with it?

[JD3]

There are two camps of thought, one side says that as a part of not destroying you back in IRAQ WAR 1, you must do X,Y,Z in a reasonable time frame and 12 years is not reasonable. The other side says that as a part of not destroying you back in IRAQ WAR 1, you must do X,Y,Z in a reasonable time frame and a thousand years is reasonable. On top of that, any small amount of X,Y,Z is touted as grand gesture of compliance. The reason is, if they admitted that they were not abiding by the terms, then the U.N. would actually have to DO something. They wanted to continue ACTING like they were doing something, when in fact all they were doing was acting like a parent after giving 1001 ultimatums to a child to do something, thinking that number 1002 will be effective.

What does Israel have to do with it?

Israel first. We pick and choose what ignoring resolutions bother us. It's called hypocracy.

That 12 years works both ways. You may claim it was a reasonable time. And you may note he had done next to nothing aggressive in 12 years. I love Cato for pointing out that if Saddam was dangerous, "Why are we still alive."

Again, inspectors were on the ground. If concern for the resolution was the factor, you let them finish. If it wasn't, don't bring it up. Make another argument.

[neo of the mind]

Israel first. We pick and choose what ignoring resolutions bother us. It's called hypocracy.

That 12 years works both ways. You may claim it was a reasonable time. And you may note he had done next to nothing aggressive in 12 years. I love Cato for pointing out that if Saddam was dangerous, "Why are we still alive."

Again, inspectors were on the ground. If concern for the resolution was the factor, you let them finish. If it wasn't, don't bring it up. Make another argument.

I think Israel is a separate topic and I won't discuss it on this thread yet.

He had done next to nothing agressive? There were numerous no-fly zone incidents and the fact that he was not actively agreesive to a "serious" degree was because we contained him. You can only contain a problem for so long and eventually have to deal with it. America and others did, when nobody else would. Iraq only starting nickel and diming on the missle disarmement two weeks before the deadline. They would have slowed up even more and stopped numerous times when pressure was let up on them. They would be on Al Samoud 2 missile number 40 at this time juncture if America and coalition forces had not acted. The food for arms debacle would STILL be going on and a RESOLUTION to the situation would still be frozen in "matrix bullet time".

[JD3]

I think Israel is a separate topic and I won't discuss it on this thread yet.

He had done next to nothing agressive? There were numerous no-fly zone incidents and the fact that he was not actively agreesive to a "serious" degree was because we contained him. You can only contain a problem for so long and eventually have to deal with it. America and others did, when nobody else would. Iraq only starting nickel and diming on the missle disarmement two weeks before the deadline. They would have slowed up even more and stopped numerous times when pressure was let up on them. They would be on Al Samoud 2 missile number 40 at this time juncture if America and coalition forces had not acted. The food for arms debacle would STILL be going on and a RESOLUTION to the situation would still be frozen in "matrix bullet time".


I'm sorry, but peeing in the wind doesn't add up to aggression. Again, inspectors were on the ground. That covers 1441. ;)

[neo of the mind]

I'm sorry, but peeing in the wind doesn't add up to aggression. Again, inspectors were on the ground. That covers 1441. ;)

Resolution 1441 was not limited in scope in regards to compliance, with inspectors on the ground as the only thing that needed adherence. That was only a part of it. Resolution 1441 also cites among other things, that Iraq was in material breech of resolution 687.

[JD3]

Resolution 1441 was not limited in scope in regards to compliance, with inspectors on the ground as the only thing that needed adherence. That was only a part of it. Resolution 1441 also cites among other things, that Iraq was in material breech of resolution 687.

Which is another resolution and not 1441. Again, with inspectors on the ground, they were complying. Iraq wasn't the least little threat and we have spent tens of thousands of lives on it. Explain the morality of this.

[neo of the mind]

Resolution 1441's compliance was not limited to just inspectors being on the ground. Why do you keep infering that it was?

Iraq was not complying to the resolution, they were in material breech of the resolution on multiple counts.

Scud missles
Al Samoud 2 missiles
Drones
parts and supplies for weapons banned by resolutions supplied by France and China

Probably other things I could cite given time if I choose.

If Iraq was not a threat then there would have been no resolutions needed.

[JD3]

Resolution 1441's compliance was not limited to just inspectors being on the ground. Why do you keep infering that it was?

Iraq was not complying to the resolution, they were in material breech of the resolution on multiple counts.

Scud missles
Al Samoud 2 missiles
Drones
parts and supplies for weapons banned by resolutions supplied by France and China

Probably other things I could cite given time if I choose.

If Iraq was not a threat then there would have been no resolutions needed.

That is what the inspectors were there for, to find, document, and destory. So, yes, the inspectors being there is all that was required. No need for war even with them finding those.

And no, resolutions have little to do with threat level. Notice how fast Iraq feel, twice. Notice it coouldn't beat Iran. noticed it had no wmds. ;)

And yet, to date, tens of thousands of people dead with more lost every day.

[steveksux]

Odd that if we went in there to enforce UN resolutions that the UN would not sanction the actions taken. If that was the intention, Bush should have gotten a UN resolution authorizing force. That he did not, because he knew he would not get one, puts the lie to the whole excuse that he was trying to enforce UN resolutions.

You cannot claim you are enforcing UN resolutions against the wishes of the UN.

Next fallacious argument, please.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

It is not a fallacious argument. The U.S. and others drafted and presented a new resolution, number 17 to do just that. FRANCE said they would veto the resolution if passed, so it was obvious that those that did not want the U.S. and others to ACTUALLY enforce the previous 16 resolutions, would not allow it to occur through the U.N. security council.

So, given that some on the U.N. security council would veto anything anyway that would pass, the U.S. and others were left with no other choice and that was to take action without the "consent" of the security council vote BECAUSE it was going to be vetoed by FRANCE anyway, no matter what.

You wonder about the U.N. like they are a active governmental world body. They were at one time that, but it has been a long time that they were worth any salt whatsoever.

I take the side of America, Britain, Spain and others on this war and not the side of France or Germany. We all have picked sides and I am not ashamed of the side I am on.


So your rebuttal is fallacious and the stance that resolution 1441 consisted only of the need to have inspectors on the ground of Iraq is fallacious. I will not argue that point any further since resolution 1441 is public record and anyone can read it and see that it consists of much more than that.

[JD3]

It is not a fallacious argument. The U.S. and others drafted and presented a new resolution, number 17 to do just that. FRANCE said they would veto the resolution if passed, so it was obvious that those that did not want the U.S. and others to ACTUALLY enforce the previous 16 resolutions, would not allow it to occur through the U.N. security council.

So, given that some on the U.N. security council would veto anything anyway that would pass, the U.S. and others were left with no other choice and that was to take action without the "consent" of the security council vote BECAUSE it was going to be vetoed by FRANCE anyway, no matter what.

You wonder about the U.N. like they are a active governmental world body. They were at one time that, but it has been a long time that they were worth any salt whatsoever.

I take the side of America, Britain, Spain and others on this war and not the side of France or Germany. We all have picked sides and I am not ashamed of the side I am on.


So your rebuttal is fallacious and the stance that resolution 1441 consisted only of the need to have inspectors on the ground of Iraq is fallacious. I will not argue that point any further since resolution 1441 is public record and anyone can read it and see that it consists of much more than that.

Wrong. the US had many choices, including leaving things as they were. After all a fully armed Saddam fell in weeks, not years. A defeated and sanctioned Saddam wasn't a threat. He couldn't even actually hit a plane in the no fly zone. He was nuttered, unable t defend himself let alone threaten anyone.

And the UN knowing this, being able to reason and to see the servere lack of evidence, was not willing, rightly so, to spend tens of thousands of lives, destablize the region, and give terrorist what they most desire, war.

So, yes, it is a fallacy.

[neo of the mind]

Wrong. the US had many choices, including leaving things as they were. After all a fully armed Saddam fell in weeks, not years. A defeated and sanctioned Saddam wasn't a threat. He couldn't even actually hit a plane in the no fly zone. He was nuttered, unable t defend himself let alone threaten anyone.

And the UN knowing this, being able to reason and to see the servere lack of evidence, was not willing, rightly so, to spend tens of thousands of lives, destablize the region, and give terrorist what they most desire, war.

So, yes, it is a fallacy.


Your rebuttal is a total fallacy. Just look at the Socialists in America whining about "staying the course" with no results of their expectations. Their expectations would never or could they ever be met of course. The sanctions were doing nothing but hurting the Iraq civilian population. Remember the 100,000 "children" that died as a result? http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/Ritter1101.htm

So if we just "left things" as it was...according to the Liberals, hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians, mostly women and children would have died and they would still be dying....so what is morally better? 100,000 or 10,000.

[JD3]

Your rebuttal is a total fallacy. Just look at the Socialists in America whining about "staying the course" with no results of their expectations. Their expectations would never or could they ever be met of course. The sanctions were doing nothing but hurting the Iraq civilian population. Remember the 100,000 "children" that died as a result? http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/Ritter1101.htm

So if we just "left things" as it was...according to the Liberals, hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians, mostly women and children would have died and they would still be dying....so what is morally better? 100,000 or 10,000.


Yes, the sanctions were hurting, and we are losing more people now. Don't forget, war does not just kill by bullet and bombs, but with poor water, disease, lack of shelter, lack of power, unemployment. We merely added to the deaths, nothing more.

[steveksux]

It is not a fallacious argument. The U.S. and others drafted and presented a new resolution, number 17 to do just that. FRANCE said they would veto the resolution if passed, so it was obvious that those that did not want the U.S. and others to ACTUALLY enforce the previous 16 resolutions, would not allow it to occur through the U.N. security council.Fallacious argument. Everyone else felt the inspections were sufficient to ensure compliance so that military force was not yet necessary. Thus the collateral damage to civilians that would inevitably result from military force was therefore unnecessary.

So, given that some on the U.N. security council would veto anything anyway that would pass, the U.S. and others were left with no other choice and that was to take action without the "consent" of the security council vote BECAUSE it was going to be vetoed by FRANCE anyway, no matter what.As any foolish proposal such as this should be vetoed. Being OBVIOUSLY WRONG is not a defense to justify action without UN approval.

So your rebuttal is fallacious and the stance that resolution 1441 consisted only of the need to have inspectors on the ground of Iraq is fallacious. I will not argue that point any further since resolution 1441 is public record and anyone can read it and see that it consists of much more than that.Takes a big man to concede the point. Bravo.

1441 fell short of authorizing military force specifically at the insistence of France and Germany. They wanted another resolution AFTER 1441 was ignored to decide whether military force was warranted at that point. They did not trust Bush to make the call on his own based on his interpretation of the facts which were proving to be grandly exaggerated at best. Thus, again your argument is fallacious. 1441 did not authorize the invasion. It was designed explicitely to fall one step short of that.

As history shows, the UN was right not to trust Bush to make that call, and the US Congress was wrong to trust him regarding the authorization to use force against Iraq.


Randy

[USA-1]

Your rebuttal is a total fallacy. Just look at the Socialists in America whining about "staying the course" with no results of their expectations. Their expectations would never or could they ever be met of course. The sanctions were doing nothing but hurting the Iraq civilian population. Remember the 100,000 "children" that died as a result? http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/Ritter1101.htm

So if we just "left things" as it was...according to the Liberals, hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians, mostly women and children would have died and they would still be dying....so what is morally better? 100,000 or 10,000.
You should really read your own link......
"Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion"

The truth is that our adventure in Iraq has led to civil war and the result will be a Shia controlled Iraq that will be aligned with Iran. Is that a good thing?

I could never figure out why religious fanatics care so little about human life. Are they too worried about the hereafter?

[neo of the mind]

Fallacious argument. Everyone else felt the inspections were sufficient to ensure compliance so that military force was not yet necessary. Thus the collateral damage to civilians that would inevitably result from military force was therefore unnecessary.

As any foolish proposal such as this should be vetoed. Being OBVIOUSLY WRONG is not a defense to justify action without UN approval.

Takes a big man to concede the point. Bravo.

1441 fell short of authorizing military force specifically at the insistence of France and Germany. They wanted another resolution AFTER 1441 was ignored to decide whether military force was warranted at that point. They did not trust Bush to make the call on his own based on his interpretation of the facts which were proving to be grandly exaggerated at best. Thus, again your argument is fallacious. 1441 did not authorize the invasion. It was designed explicitely to fall one step short of that.

As history shows, the UN was right not to trust Bush to make that call, and the US Congress was wrong to trust him regarding the authorization to use force against Iraq.


Randy

Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, Iraq was not in compliance, the U.N. never said they were at any time. The U.N. could not trust Bush? How about Bush could not rely on the U.N. to solve the problem. They had 12 years to disarm completley....the fact that they went 12 years and waited to the last 10 days of a final ultimatum BY A POWER THAT WOULD do something, is proof alone. There is no credible stance whatsoever to suggest that the Iraq regime would be disarmed TODAY if the U.S. and others didn't invade and militarily disarm them.

[neo of the mind]

You should really read your own link......
"Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion"

The truth is that our adventure in Iraq has led to civil war and the result will be a Shia controlled Iraq that will be aligned with Iran. Is that a good thing?

I could never figure out why religious fanatics care so little about human life. Are they too worried about the hereafter?


I just picked out a link that cited the 100,000 figure, you can find many more. That being said, what was it that I didn't read? Your very quote doesn't contradict what I stated, so don't know what your getting at there.

As far as our adventure leading to civil war? With that logic, blame Saddam for not going into exile, or a hundred other reasons that can be cited that daisy chains to the current status.

As of this time, Iraq is not under shia law and nothing suggest that it will be.

Religious fanatics? Who exactly are you refering to?

[USA-1]

.

As of this time, Iraq is not under shia law and nothing suggest that it will be.



At the present time Iraq is in the middle of civil war. There really is no law right now except that enforced by US personel.

[USA-1]

There is no credible stance whatsoever to suggest that the Iraq regime would be disarmed TODAY if the U.S. and others didn't invade and militarily disarm them.

You really are out of touch. No WMDs were found in Iraq. He already had disarmed. Actually there is proof that most of his WMDs had been destroyed over a decade ago.

[neo of the mind]

Out of touch? The resolutions called for the destruction and verification of the destruction of other weapons other than WMD, such as the Al Samoud 2 missiles.

[JD3]

Out of touch? The resolutions called for the destruction and verification of the destruction of other weapons other than WMD, such as the Al Samoud 2 missiles.


:sorry: Not worth tens of thousands of lives. Not something any sane nation kills so many for. Inspectors were on the ground, fully armed, Saddam couldn't be Iran. He just wasn't a threat, and look at what we produced. :(

[steveksux]

Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, Iraq was not in compliance, the U.N. never said they were at any time. The U.N. could not trust Bush? How about Bush could not rely on the U.N. to solve the problem. They had 12 years to disarm completley....the fact that they went 12 years and waited to the last 10 days of a final ultimatum BY A POWER THAT WOULD do something, is proof alone. There is no credible stance whatsoever to suggest that the Iraq regime would be disarmed TODAY if the U.S. and others didn't invade and militarily disarm them.There is no credible stance that Iraq was a credible threat. They had no WMD. They were already disarmed before the first US soldier crossed the border into Iraq.

1441 specifically did NOT authorize force. That was by design. Bush wanted it to, but France and Germany wouldn't go along if that was the case. They wanted to see what happened with the inspectors to see if that would work before committing to war. They wanted to see how that went before authorizing war. If Bush could make a case for it after the inspections failed, they might have gone along. He didn't wait for the inspecdtions to fail, so we'll never know.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

There is no credible stance that Iraq was a credible threat. They had no WMD. They were already disarmed before the first US soldier crossed the border into Iraq.

1441 specifically did NOT authorize force. That was by design. Bush wanted it to, but France and Germany wouldn't go along if that was the case. They wanted to see what happened with the inspectors to see if that would work before committing to war. They wanted to see how that went before authorizing war. If Bush could make a case for it after the inspections failed, they might have gone along. He didn't wait for the inspecdtions to fail, so we'll never know.

Randy

Thank God we got rid of Sadaam and his rape rooms. Anybody who has those in their government needs to be taken out. Would you agree?

[JoeR]

So when are we going to go help out in Sudan, North Korea or any of the other places in the world worse than Sadaam's Iraq?

[steveksux]

Thank God we got rid of Sadaam and his rape rooms. Anybody who has those in their government needs to be taken out. Would you agree?Are you referring to Abu Ghraib under US management?

Randy

[JD3]

So when are we going to go help out in Sudan, North Korea or any of the other places in the world worse than Sadaam's Iraq?

That question never gets answered.

Again, when the cost to the people is worse than the situation they live under, it is hard to justify invasion. From that point of view, there is no humanitarian justification for Iraq.

[neo of the mind]

Give me liberty or give me death, would be my response.

[Mickey Shane]

Give me immortality, or give me death, is another good one.