Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

best of three?

Syracuse
 9 (75%)
Albany
 1 (8.3%)
Akron
 2 (16.7%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Author Topic: Was the war in Iraq a war of choice?  (Read 10203 times)

Go Gators

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • I want my brother home form Iraq! I miss ya, Bro.
    • View Profile
    • Real News!
Re: Was the war in Iraq a war of choice?
« Reply #90 on: July 02, 2008, 05:40:52 PM »
My view is clearly stated in my picture and comment. However, I will say...BRING ALL OF THEM HOME!

Watch the movie: Iraq for Sale.( very good)

We are losing the very foundatation this country so comfortably sits on. Impeach Bush! Do not vote based on party lines...they all have the same masters!

Best website that simply gives you info from both sides: http://www.rense.com


"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, where as the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. Is it absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency? Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.”

- Thomas Edison

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.”

- Lord Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1940

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular? But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."

—Martin Luther King, Jr.


No one’s safe when freedom fails,
and good men rot in filthy jails,
and those who cried appease, appease,
are hung by those they tried to please.

—Author unknown


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

-- Benjamin Franklin


"Start by doing what's necessary, then do what's possible,
and suddenly you are doing the impossible."

- Francis of Assisi

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

-- Benjamin Franklin


http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=WannaGetIn

008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Was the war in Iraq a war of choice?
« Reply #91 on: July 03, 2008, 07:26:17 PM »
Clearly a war of choice rather than necessity
When a candidate faces the voters he does not face men of sense [but] a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion. As democracy is perfected the White House will be adorned with a moron.

fbartela

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Was the war in Iraq a war of choice?
« Reply #92 on: July 03, 2008, 08:13:16 PM »
I agree.  It could have been avoided.

Gone

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Goodbye All!
    • View Profile
Re: Was the war in Iraq a war of choice?
« Reply #93 on: July 03, 2008, 09:06:06 PM »
The only war of necessity is one where you are attacked first (9/11 was not an Iraqi attack). Regardless of whether it was a good choice or a bad choice (I think the latter), I don't see how you can say it wasn't a war of choice.
Best of luck to everyone!

brag

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Is Osama bin Laden Dying ... Again?
« Reply #94 on: July 04, 2008, 03:29:35 PM »
Which is closer to dying: Osama bin Laden or the CIA's effort to catch him? Nothing has characterized the fruitlessness of the hunt for the al-Qaeda leader so much as the recurrent — and mostly inaccurate — reports that he is seriously ailing, or even at death's door. In 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said bin Laden had kidney disease, and that he had required a dialysis machine when he lived in Afghanistan. That same year, the FBI's top counterterrorism official, Dale Watson, said, "I personally think he is probably not with us anymore." Since then, of course, bin Laden has appeared on multiple videos looking healthier than ever.


 
Now the CIA has produced a report saying that bin Laden has long-term kidney disease and may have only months to live, two U.S. officials familiar with the report told TIME. The agency ostensibly managed to get the names of some of the medications bin Laden is taking. One U.S. official familiar with the report, which came out between six and nine months ago, says it concluded, "Based on his current pharmaceutical intake, [we] would expect that he has no more than six to 18 months to live and impending kidney failure." That prognosis, along with some on-the-ground intelligence and a well-aimed Hellfire missile, will get you a dead terrorist leader. Close watchers of the al-Qaeda terror network find such reports inherently unreliable. "It's trying to make a diagnosis from thousands of miles away with only fragments of the medical chart," says Paul Pillar, former top analyst and deputy director of the CIA's counterterrorism center, who now teaches at Georgetown University. Says Frances Fragos Townsend, who stepped down last November as chief of President George W. Bush's Homeland Security Council, "I've read all the same conflicting reports [on bin Laden's health] that people have talked to you about. I never found one set of reporting more persuasive than another."

The CIA, for its part, is disavowing the claims attributed to the report. "I have found no one here familiar with this alleged report or the analytic line it supposedly conveys," says Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman. "The fact that anonymous sources attribute views to the CIA is not, by itself, reason to believe the agency actually holds those views," he says. If bin Laden really is dying, the news would doubtless be greeted with some ambivalence. On the one hand, his demise is what the U.S. government has been fervently trying to hasten — since before 9/11. But death by kidney disease is not exactly what it had in mind. "Wouldn't that be a tragic situation if, with all this effort, bin Laden died without it happening at the hands of coalition forces?" says one current senior counterterrorism official. Given the reliability of past long-distance diagnoses, however, and the continuing threat al-Qaeda poses around the world, that may be the least of America's worries.


Oh Nicole, that's a moot argument!

elvira

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Was the war in Iraq a war of choice?
« Reply #95 on: July 07, 2008, 02:31:56 PM »
You've got to be kidding me, brag - that was your way of saying "Happy July 4"?!

008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Is Osama bin Laden Dying ... Again?
« Reply #96 on: July 07, 2008, 04:03:26 PM »
Which is closer to dying: Osama bin Laden or the CIA's effort to catch him? Nothing has characterized the fruitlessness of the hunt for the al-Qaeda leader so much as the recurrent — and mostly inaccurate — reports that he is seriously ailing, or even at death's door. In 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said bin Laden had kidney disease, and that he had required a dialysis machine when he lived in Afghanistan. That same year, the FBI's top counterterrorism official, Dale Watson, said, "I personally think he is probably not with us anymore." Since then, of course, bin Laden has appeared on multiple videos looking healthier than ever.


 
Now the CIA has produced a report saying that bin Laden has long-term kidney disease and may have only months to live, two U.S. officials familiar with the report told TIME. The agency ostensibly managed to get the names of some of the medications bin Laden is taking. One U.S. official familiar with the report, which came out between six and nine months ago, says it concluded, "Based on his current pharmaceutical intake, [we] would expect that he has no more than six to 18 months to live and impending kidney failure." That prognosis, along with some on-the-ground intelligence and a well-aimed Hellfire missile, will get you a dead terrorist leader. Close watchers of the al-Qaeda terror network find such reports inherently unreliable. "It's trying to make a diagnosis from thousands of miles away with only fragments of the medical chart," says Paul Pillar, former top analyst and deputy director of the CIA's counterterrorism center, who now teaches at Georgetown University. Says Frances Fragos Townsend, who stepped down last November as chief of President George W. Bush's Homeland Security Council, "I've read all the same conflicting reports [on bin Laden's health] that people have talked to you about. I never found one set of reporting more persuasive than another."

The CIA, for its part, is disavowing the claims attributed to the report. "I have found no one here familiar with this alleged report or the analytic line it supposedly conveys," says Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman. "The fact that anonymous sources attribute views to the CIA is not, by itself, reason to believe the agency actually holds those views," he says. If bin Laden really is dying, the news would doubtless be greeted with some ambivalence. On the one hand, his demise is what the U.S. government has been fervently trying to hasten — since before 9/11. But death by kidney disease is not exactly what it had in mind. "Wouldn't that be a tragic situation if, with all this effort, bin Laden died without it happening at the hands of coalition forces?" says one current senior counterterrorism official. Given the reliability of past long-distance diagnoses, however, and the continuing threat al-Qaeda poses around the world, that may be the least of America's worries.


Oh Nicole, that's a moot argument!
Why is it moot?  Has he been captured or has the CIA reversed course?
When a candidate faces the voters he does not face men of sense [but] a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion. As democracy is perfected the White House will be adorned with a moron.

QIR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11, WTC7
« Reply #97 on: July 19, 2008, 06:44:52 PM »

Nice work - however, this part of the diagram is not that clear what exactly means ..




Maybe I'm not being paranoid enough, but I don't think it means anything sinister.


So this diagram was part of some picture posted on this board?
IT'S @ # ! * I N G TIME, BABY!

008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11, WTC7
« Reply #98 on: July 19, 2008, 10:56:11 PM »

Nice work - however, this part of the diagram is not that clear what exactly means ..




Maybe I'm not being paranoid enough, but I don't think it means anything sinister.


So this diagram was part of some picture posted on this board?

I have no idea what that diagram means except that the administration uses 9-11 for every argument it can possible make.  Reminds me of something Orwell wrote about...
When a candidate faces the voters he does not face men of sense [but] a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion. As democracy is perfected the White House will be adorned with a moron.

head phone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Difference? (The Common Ground of Violence)
« Reply #99 on: August 19, 2008, 06:45:59 PM »



http://www.adbusters.org/media/flash/recruiters/flash.html


Indeed, dissatisfied with the results of both academic and mainstream liberalism and feminism, Lasn harks back to the situationist roots of the 1968 Paris uprisings, a moment when it seemed possible that men and women might be able to wholly recreate not only their own lives but society as well. That revolution stumbled and fell with Lasn viewing contemporary existence as one in which people have almost entirely succumbed to the cultural mandates of consumer capitalism, turning to corporations for guidance about how to look and what to desire. He considers corporations as being considered "natural persons" in the eyes of the law as nothing but a horrendous miscarriage of justice.   


equation, large corporations as juristic persons have enjoyed certain constitutional rights intended for natural humans as the result of a misinterpretation of an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Certain rights of natural persons, such as the right to political and other non-commercial free speech, are now exercised by corporations to the detriment of the American democratic process as provided under the Constitution. The recent discovery of correspondence between then Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite and court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis serves as proof of a conspiracy among the railroad corporations to intentionally create a misrepresentation of that decision for the benefit of the railroads.