Agrajag wrote:11 years ago Saddam was told to allow U.N. inspectors into factories to verify there were no WMDs present. If he didn't, we would take appropriate action. 11 years later we made good on our promise. That is the reason for the war. Anything other is media rubbish and you have fallen for it.
Evermore wrote:the only rubbish here is what you are posting. Convienent how you leave out that Saddam would not allow the inspectors in. it looked to me at the time he was buying time to stash the weapons. get your facts straight and stop leaving out the pertainant information. THere was an article reciently on how this information was "fudged". I will look for it and post the link.
Reading comprehension FTL? I did imply that he didn't allow them in.
Since you agree that he may have been stashing weapons you must also agree that we should have reasonable cause to have gone to Iraq in the first place? Maybe YOU should quit while you're behind.
Agrajag wrote: Since you agree that he may have been stashing weapons you must also agree that we should have reasonable cause to have gone to Iraq in the first place?
Never said I agreed. That is what the situation looked like at the time. Nice try thou.
Please close the door to your world, you are letting real life in and apparently you cant comprehend from behind your rose colored glasses.
you need to stop basing your arguement on 1 other person's opinion.
game, set, match.
Last edited by Evermore on Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
lyion wrote:I'd be glad to debate policy, but it's tough to debate issues when it's all partisan bickering, and personal hatred.
You act like you don't contribute just as much frothing hatred.
It's not partisan bullshit because I've seen Arlos and Tossica post favorable things about Republicans like McCain and Powell. It's hard to say nice things about Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush? Do you want us to make it up just to seem less partisan? Because you'd have to.
kaharthemad wrote:congress can pull funding for everything but retreat. this will give the funds for them to leave.
Isnt that what you all want? Surrender? Retreat? There you go. Pull the funding. Shit or get off the pot.
Otherwise basically all this does is tell the troops that we over here dont like what you are doing. And we dont support you. Hell ever you were in the service. You know moral is key to troop loses. you also know what this will be taken as by the general soldier over there.
Kahar are we misunderstanding each other? I am not for cutting the funding off for the troops because it will affect only the troops. What I am for is preventing any new funding and any new deployments. We need to get OUT of Iraq not get more into it. Congress needs to force bush's hand. There are other ways of doing this, like limiting time between tours in a warzone or keep the military from extending tours of duty.
There is no forcing the hand Ever, it is shit or get off the pot. Their abilities are set forth and they have to follow in those guidelines. What did a non binding resolution actually do? Nothing cause it is Non binding. Stop pussy footing, Grow some nuts and push to cut funding.
Unfortunately you cannot limit tour of duty extensions. During times of war that power is given to the president.
As for the only way Congress can force the RETREAT of our troops is to cut funding off. that is within their power. That is their only power. so you got a choice. The whole we oppose the war is doing nothing but demeaning our troops. Just remember you democrats stood arm in arm with the republicans and said yes we support the war. Now you got only one way to stop it. You cant have it either way ever, they can either cut funding or they can let George cut the checks.Cutting funding will allow for provisionary withdrawl and Allow the funds for it.
Now the one thing I dont agree with the war is how many troops are deployed and when. There should have been alot more troops from the get go.
I've covered those issues in this thread, Zan. The only time Arlos or Toss post something by an (R) would be if it attacked Bush. Period. Posting a Mccain or Powell against Bush position is not being balanced, but exactly what I've quoted again and again.
It's easy to parse through the posts and see who is objective and who is an angry partisan. Since this board is populated by a lotta angry people, it's kinda useless to try and debate anything when you have Toss posting a temper tantrum like a three year old and others who could care less or have any semblance of respect for different opinions.
I post my viewpoints, but unfortunately many, especially Tikker who can't post here without trying to stir shit, and you seem to want to take potshots instead of respect people's positions. Hey, I'm guilty of this too, but I try to be objective, and seem to have no problem discussing things with many, many liberals, conservatives, and others on this board.
Vonkaar has an opinion, different from mine, that people with different viewpoints cannot civilly debate politics or religion. He probably is right in this instance.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. – C. S. Lewis
I agree with Arlos in that there is pretty much nothing this administration has done that I agree with. I call it like I see it. A pile of shit is a pile of shit to me. In trying to be "bipartisan" you could refer to it as a serving of processed food but we all know it's shit. You aren't fooling anyone.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying Arlos, Tossica, Tikker or any other of the other heathens are right or partisan, but in my time posting here, they are just as objective as you, Kahar, Finawin and others who only post when you get a nice juicy article that attacks the left (in Finawin's case he usually just utters a one or two word reply which has absolutely no opinion or insight thinking the mere fact the he's backed someone else up with an opinion more highly reguarded then his own makes him intelligent in some way).
You may have a million views which you keep to yourself that make you a God amongst us misguided sheep, but you certainly haven't hit us with that wisdom.
You are just as bad as they are. That's all I'm saying. You claiming otherwise will not convince me of that after reading your garbage for the last half decade (God I think it's been even longer).
This point would be valid if you weren't what you are, Zan.
You are part of the Arlos, Toss, Tikker faction. It's like a member of Al Qaeda saying the US is not being fair with them and doesn't see the big picture. I do not support the silliness, as can be seen. You are the silliness.
You have no problems with Tossica's temper tantrums or Tikkers silliness in this forum, and cheer them on but rail against any alternative political viewpoints. Harrison posts silliness, but you solely have a problem with that.
So, while I fully admit I can be partisan and biased, I make a pretty strong attempt to get along and discuss issues with people of different viewpoints.
Unfortunately, none of your cabal can make the same claim.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. – C. S. Lewis
I don't always agree with Arlos, Toss and Tikker, but I don't see any point in jumping in and adding to the noise from your cadre. I just move along and let you fight it out with them.
kaharthemad wrote:congress can pull funding for everything but retreat. this will give the funds for them to leave.
Isnt that what you all want? Surrender? Retreat? There you go. Pull the funding. Shit or get off the pot.
Otherwise basically all this does is tell the troops that we over here dont like what you are doing. And we dont support you. Hell ever you were in the service. You know moral is key to troop loses. you also know what this will be taken as by the general soldier over there.
Kahar are we misunderstanding each other? I am not for cutting the funding off for the troops because it will affect only the troops. What I am for is preventing any new funding and any new deployments. We need to get OUT of Iraq not get more into it. Congress needs to force bush's hand. There are other ways of doing this, like limiting time between tours in a warzone or keep the military from extending tours of duty.
There is no forcing the hand Ever, it is shit or get off the pot. Their abilities are set forth and they have to follow in those guidelines. What did a non binding resolution actually do? Nothing cause it is Non binding. Stop pussy footing, Grow some nuts and push to cut funding.
Unfortunately you cannot limit tour of duty extensions. During times of war that power is given to the president.
As for the only way Congress can force the RETREAT of our troops is to cut funding off. that is within their power. That is their only power. so you got a choice. The whole we oppose the war is doing nothing but demeaning our troops. Just remember you democrats stood arm in arm with the republicans and said yes we support the war. Now you got only one way to stop it. You cant have it either way ever, they can either cut funding or they can let George cut the checks.Cutting funding will allow for provisionary withdrawl and Allow the funds for it.
Now the one thing I dont agree with the war is how many troops are deployed and when. There should have been alot more troops from the get go.
just to clarify, I have been against the war from its inception. democrat or not.
It seems Congress has a bit more power then just being able to cut off funds. I am a bit skeptical on how well this will work thou. the thing that isnt mentioned in the article is if Bush veto's this bill he is going to be the one to cut off the funding.
Ever unfortunately that will end up in the supreme court. Pelosi is overstepping her abilities and her trying to pass resolutions to restrict war movements is unconstitutional. mark my words, it will end up in the supreme court.
On a side note I do see something that is scaring the hell out of me. democrat or republican, I think we are seeing the fall of the US as we know it. I would not be suprised to see the US's whole governmental system become dead within the next 10 years.
uh kahar, there is nothing unconstitutional about congress reigning in the president, in fact it has been done thru out our history. and the Supreme Court has backed it up.
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years To provide and maintain a navy To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" --The United States Constitution
