Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 16, 2005, 09:12:31 PM

Title: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 16, 2005, 09:12:31 PM
well...iraq has a constitution and a fledgling democracy crawls from the sand; it stretches and begins...

Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: The Overman on October 17, 2005, 10:07:30 PM
Too bad Iraq will never have a real democracy.  At least not as long as the US has an interest in the country.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: hilljack on October 17, 2005, 10:32:05 PM
Too bad Iraq will never have a real democracy.  At least not as long as the US has an interest in the country.

Is this pessimism rooted in history?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 18, 2005, 05:27:02 AM
clearly, everything be ok now.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: verbal213 on October 19, 2005, 04:40:57 PM
clearly, everything be ok now.

No one said that, dumbass.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 19, 2005, 05:13:34 PM
beat you to it, not julie?  putz.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: verbal213 on October 19, 2005, 06:35:32 PM
beat you to it, not julie?  putz.

Right that's it.   ::)
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: hilljack on October 19, 2005, 07:01:16 PM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 20, 2005, 05:04:15 AM
beat you to it, not julie?  putz.

Right that's it. ::)

glad to see you figuring it out.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 20, 2005, 05:05:17 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: _BP_ on October 20, 2005, 07:09:18 AM
Check out this evil looking picture of Condi on USATODAY.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-19-rice-congress_x.htm
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 20, 2005, 09:12:00 AM
very republican.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: verbal213 on October 20, 2005, 09:12:59 AM
Whoa - that's a funny pic.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 20, 2005, 07:49:43 PM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: verbal213 on October 20, 2005, 07:53:08 PM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

Seconded...Democracy is the worst for of government, except for all the others that have been tried. paraphrase of Churchill.

verb
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 21, 2005, 06:10:32 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 21, 2005, 06:12:55 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

Seconded...Democracy is the worst for of government, except for all the others that have been tried. paraphrase of Churchill.

verb

yes, now they have crooked foreigners calling shots--only to extent they can, of course.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: hilljack on October 21, 2005, 11:53:12 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?

Yeah, you 'support the troops' too, right?  Self-righteous moron.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 21, 2005, 08:27:17 PM
julie support troops so much she want them to come home.

julie's patriotism bigger than your patriotism, forrest.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: _BP_ on October 22, 2005, 08:00:42 AM
I am so tired of hearing that canned "support the troops" b.s.  What the hell does that mean?
 
Bullshitting them into a bullsh*t war and then sending them off without body and vehicle armor?
 
Cutting the troops free healthcare when they return home from what used to be a lifetime benefit to two years?

Proposing to roll back imminent danger pay increases, thus cutting the pay of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Fighting the proposed doubling of the $6,000 payment to families whose love one dies in combat?

Voting for pay raise for all Federal employees EXCEPT the military?

Does any of that look like support?  Shoot, if this is support, please dont' support me on anything I do.  That "Support the Troops and the President" bull isn't going to work anymore, especially when people recognize the real lack of support from the people that sent them over there!

Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 22, 2005, 08:25:19 AM
it mean "shut up unless you war mongerer."  it lunatic fringe thing.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: hilljack on October 23, 2005, 09:31:58 PM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?

Correct me if I am wrong.  It just sounded like you were accusing American forces of torture.  Or does accusing them of torture pass for ‘support’ nowadays.  And good job jumping to the conclusion that I even support the war.  All I'll say is they are better off now than with Saddam, I didn’t comment on the merit of the war.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 24, 2005, 06:23:36 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?

Correct me if I am wrong. It just sounded like you were accusing American forces of torture. Or does accusing them of torture pass for ‘support’ nowadays. And good job jumping to the conclusion that I even support the war. All I'll say is they are better off now than with Saddam, I didn’t comment on the merit of the war.

you read it right, forrest.  julie not support torture, so she not "support" those particular troops--although she much more interested in addressing officers who hide behind them while encouraging torture.

but good try at parroting idiocies of bush 0 administration.  by way, why you not complain about other evil regimes?   hmmmmmmm?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: _BP_ on October 24, 2005, 08:34:26 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?

Correct me if I am wrong.  It just sounded like you were accusing American forces of torture.  Or does accusing them of torture pass for ‘support’ nowadays.  And good job jumping to the conclusion that I even support the war.  All I'll say is they are better off now than with Saddam, I didn’t comment on the merit of the war.

Way to straddle Hilljack..haha
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: _BP_ on October 24, 2005, 08:44:30 AM
Congressman Jerrold Nadler called for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include a criminal investigation to examine whether the President, the Vice President, and members of the White House Iraq Group conspired to deliberately deceive Congress into authorizing the war in Iraq.

Actual Letter:



October 20, 2005



Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
Room 4111
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530



Dear Deputy Attorney General McCallum:



I urge you to use the powers granted to you, under the regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice in June of 1999, to expand the framework of the investigation currently being conducted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.



It is now clear that the key reason cited by the Bush Administration – the imminent acquisition by Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction – to persuade Congress and the American people of the necessity of invading Iraq was not true. There is new and mounting and evidence, stemming in part from the current investigation, that members of the Bush Administration may have deliberately, and, therefore, illegally, misled Congress. Since Special Counsel Fitzgerald is already investigating the CIA leak, it seems appropriate that he be empowered to expand his investigation to examine whether the leak itself was part of a broader conspiracy knowingly to mislead Congress into authorizing a war.



As a member of the Judiciary Committee who opposed the extension of the independent counsel law, I do not take this matter lightly. I believe these types of investigations should be reserved for only the most serious of alleged crimes, but I have to believe that lying to Congress in order to obtain its support for a war meets that test.



Some of the evidence that members of the Bush Administration may have deliberately, and, therefore, illegally, misled Congress is as follows:



1) We now know that during the summer of 2002, at a time when the White House maintains that no decision had been made about going to war, the Bush Administration created the “White House Iraq Group” whose sole purpose appears to have been to market and sell a decision to go to war to Congress. It appears that this group specifically sought to deceive Congress about the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. (New York Daily News, Oct. 19, 2005.)



2) We now know from the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” that it appeared to senior members of the British Government who had conferred with senior Administration officials, that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” (Emphasis added.)



3) We now know that President Bush included in his State of the Union Address in January of 2003 an already discredited reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger.



4) We now know from Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s investigation itself that there was an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who attempted to tell the truth about some of the faulty “evidence” used by the White House to make its case for war. Although Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation has yet to determine whether a crime was committed by any Administration official(s) in leaking the identity of Wilson’s wife as a covert CIA operative, it is abundantly clear that the White House Iraq Group was engaged in an effort to discredit revelations of the falsity of the Administration’s justifications for the war, and to intimidate and punish those who would reveal the truth. According to sources quoted by the New York Daily News, this group of White House officials was “so determined . . . to win its argument that it morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims.” (New York Daily News, October 19, 2005.)



5) We now know that top Administration officials, including Vice President Cheney’s



Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, misrepresented to the media the scope and nature of what the U.S. intelligence community knew and didn’t know about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before the war. (Newsweek.com, Oct. 19, 2005.) Manufacturing of media complicity, if achieved through a deliberate plan to provide false information, would have played a key role in misleading Congress. And indeed, we need to know more about the relationship between Administration officials and certain media outlets in view of details emerging from this investigation regarding the special access to Administration officials and, perhaps, to potentially classified information afforded to Judith Miller of The New York Times, which led to clearly erroneous stories supporting the Administration’s false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.



With this growing body of evidence that the White House may have deliberately misled Congress into authorizing war, a broader independent investigation is clearly necessary.



Special Counsel Fitzgerald has done a great service to the nation thus far by investigating the CIA leak, but real questions remain. Was the CIA leak incident an effort to enforce discipline as part of a much broader criminal conspiracy by members of the Bush Administration to deceive Congress about a matter of war and peace? Who was involved? Were any of their actions criminal?



These questions go to the core of the functioning of democratic self-government in the United States. Honest, if mistaken, reliance on faulty intelligence to convince Congress to authorize a war is bad enough. But, if, as mounting evidence is tending to show, Administration officials deliberately deceived Congress and the American people, this would constitute a criminal conspiracy against the entire country.



It is self-evident that the Administration cannot investigate itself in this matter. I therefore urge you to expand the Special Counsel’s investigation to include these matters crucial to our national security and national integrity.



I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,



Jerrold Nadler
Member of Congress

Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 08:47:48 AM
Conspiracy.. that's just a technicality ::)
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 24, 2005, 11:06:19 AM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?

We torture our citizens, you expect them not to?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 24, 2005, 02:51:00 PM
Some people ramble or scream when they are wrong, and some ask for a recount.

that right.  never let crooked election stand in way of progress.

yeah...better to have a murdering crooked dictator and his murdering crooked sons calling the shots...

mr. fern...you are so naive...

you mean so naive as to expect that iraq's "liberators" not torture its citizens?  or desecrate bodies of muslims?

We torture our citizens, you expect them not to?

you might want to explain self on this one.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 24, 2005, 02:53:53 PM
Most new governments torture more than established governments.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 24, 2005, 05:14:39 PM
so what is it when u.s. do it?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 25, 2005, 10:35:32 AM
so what is it when u.s. do it?

 ???
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 10:51:31 AM
torture.  what else we dioscussing?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 25, 2005, 10:52:01 AM
torture.  what else we dioscussing?

exactly
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 10:54:17 AM
maybe you need nap.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 25, 2005, 10:55:13 AM
I suppose my cognitive functions are malfunctioning...I think  ???
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 10:55:55 AM
suppose away.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 25, 2005, 11:23:16 AM
Congressman Jerrold Nadler called for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include a criminal investigation to examine whether the President, the Vice President, and members of the White House Iraq Group conspired to deliberately deceive Congress into authorizing the war in Iraq.

Actual Letter:



October 20, 2005



Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
Room 4111
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530



Dear Deputy Attorney General McCallum:



I urge you to use the powers granted to you, under the regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice in June of 1999, to expand the framework of the investigation currently being conducted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.



It is now clear that the key reason cited by the Bush Administration – the imminent acquisition by Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction – to persuade Congress and the American people of the necessity of invading Iraq was not true. There is new and mounting and evidence, stemming in part from the current investigation, that members of the Bush Administration may have deliberately, and, therefore, illegally, misled Congress. Since Special Counsel Fitzgerald is already investigating the CIA leak, it seems appropriate that he be empowered to expand his investigation to examine whether the leak itself was part of a broader conspiracy knowingly to mislead Congress into authorizing a war.



As a member of the Judiciary Committee who opposed the extension of the independent counsel law, I do not take this matter lightly. I believe these types of investigations should be reserved for only the most serious of alleged crimes, but I have to believe that lying to Congress in order to obtain its support for a war meets that test.



Some of the evidence that members of the Bush Administration may have deliberately, and, therefore, illegally, misled Congress is as follows:



1) We now know that during the summer of 2002, at a time when the White House maintains that no decision had been made about going to war, the Bush Administration created the “White House Iraq Group” whose sole purpose appears to have been to market and sell a decision to go to war to Congress. It appears that this group specifically sought to deceive Congress about the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. (New York Daily News, Oct. 19, 2005.)



2) We now know from the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” that it appeared to senior members of the British Government who had conferred with senior Administration officials, that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” (Emphasis added.)



3) We now know that President Bush included in his State of the Union Address in January of 2003 an already discredited reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger.



4) We now know from Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s investigation itself that there was an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who attempted to tell the truth about some of the faulty “evidence” used by the White House to make its case for war. Although Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation has yet to determine whether a crime was committed by any Administration official(s) in leaking the identity of Wilson’s wife as a covert CIA operative, it is abundantly clear that the White House Iraq Group was engaged in an effort to discredit revelations of the falsity of the Administration’s justifications for the war, and to intimidate and punish those who would reveal the truth. According to sources quoted by the New York Daily News, this group of White House officials was “so determined . . . to win its argument that it morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims.” (New York Daily News, October 19, 2005.)



5) We now know that top Administration officials, including Vice President Cheney’s



Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, misrepresented to the media the scope and nature of what the U.S. intelligence community knew and didn’t know about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before the war. (Newsweek.com, Oct. 19, 2005.) Manufacturing of media complicity, if achieved through a deliberate plan to provide false information, would have played a key role in misleading Congress. And indeed, we need to know more about the relationship between Administration officials and certain media outlets in view of details emerging from this investigation regarding the special access to Administration officials and, perhaps, to potentially classified information afforded to Judith Miller of The New York Times, which led to clearly erroneous stories supporting the Administration’s false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.



With this growing body of evidence that the White House may have deliberately misled Congress into authorizing war, a broader independent investigation is clearly necessary.



Special Counsel Fitzgerald has done a great service to the nation thus far by investigating the CIA leak, but real questions remain. Was the CIA leak incident an effort to enforce discipline as part of a much broader criminal conspiracy by members of the Bush Administration to deceive Congress about a matter of war and peace? Who was involved? Were any of their actions criminal?



These questions go to the core of the functioning of democratic self-government in the United States. Honest, if mistaken, reliance on faulty intelligence to convince Congress to authorize a war is bad enough. But, if, as mounting evidence is tending to show, Administration officials deliberately deceived Congress and the American people, this would constitute a criminal conspiracy against the entire country.



It is self-evident that the Administration cannot investigate itself in this matter. I therefore urge you to expand the Special Counsel’s investigation to include these matters crucial to our national security and national integrity.



I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,



Jerrold Nadler
Member of Congress



wow? are we to believe that congress was duped into a war by the administration?

and if so? which administration?

because some people believed we would have to deal with iraq's former dictator or his sons sooner or later.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 25, 2005, 11:32:03 AM
well, this administration led us into war so who else?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 11:34:02 AM
must've been clinton's blowjobs.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 25, 2005, 01:11:56 PM
well, this administration led us into war so who else?

if you follow a small time-line:

hussein was in charge of iraq since the sixties...

he invaded quwait...8/2/90...about 100,000 iraqi soldiers flanked by more than a couple hundred armed vehicles strolled into quwait in the early hours of the morning.

now...britain had carved kuwait off of the region of iraq years before this...hussein wanted it back...

behind hussein...iraqi forces fixed a..."ha ha" "provisional government"...he say, quwait city gonna look like a "graveyard" if any other country fronts to "take-over by force".

usa winter...2002...quwait scoffed at hussein's "qualified apology" for 1990 invasion of its borders and  "lets be realistic"...the "third largest oil reserve documented".

quwaits' Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah, said the message was "an unveiled attempt to create a rift in the united ranks of the quwaiti people and leadership".

so this "hussein" fellow has reigned as huge problem for a long time...and he got heirs.

this administration pressed congress to go!

congress said GO...{quite a few administrations before this one have dealt with hussein}.

this congress thought that it is better to deal with kurds, shiites and sunnis...and not a dictator...and certainly not his heirs.


but do you honestly buy that the congress was "duped"?
none of them thought about this? come on?

as for "selling the war"...some people buy the car because it is red; some people buy the car because it aids in travel...aye guess it comes down to what one believes.


...smokescreen...see?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 01:16:51 PM
julie agrees congress got down on knees for bush 0 on this one.  however, he offered lies so he has higher degree of fault.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 25, 2005, 01:49:11 PM
the congress does have fault, but this war with Iraq was Bush's idea in the first place and he pushed it with deception and lies (yellow cake and aluminim tubes, for example) so he has a much higher level of culpability
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 05:12:57 PM
you fine american.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 25, 2005, 05:41:16 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 25, 2005, 05:47:42 PM
good thing u.s. not have problem now, eh?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 25, 2005, 05:52:49 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 25, 2005, 06:02:49 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war

A. In Rawanda or Iraq?
B. Are you a liberal or not?
C. I agree
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 25, 2005, 06:27:40 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war

a. clinton's administration orchestrated an attack on iraq...necessarily so...so, realistically...since hussein moved into kuwait...it has been ON.
b. agreed...but allied countries protect its allies.
c. why was it in our national interest for clinton to order an attack on iraq?
d. what would you call clinton's order to attack iraq?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 25, 2005, 08:16:02 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war

A. In Rawanda or Iraq?
B. Are you a liberal or not?
C. I agree
A. Iraq
B. Domestic Policy - Liberal; Foreign Policy - Realist with some liberal leanings
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 25, 2005, 08:20:09 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war

a. clinton's administration orchestrated an attack on iraq...necessarily so...so, realistically...since hussein moved into kuwait...it has been ON.
b. agreed...but allied countries protect its allies.
c. why was it in our national interest for clinton to order an attack on iraq?
d. what would you call clinton's order to attack iraq?
A. But Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq
B. The US is not alloed with the Kurds, the Kurds are not a country/nation-state, and there were no allies calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not even Israel
C. Clintons air strike was in our interest because there was something to gain and nothing to lose; continued deterence at the price of a few missles
D. Clinton's order to attack was a justified response of proportional force to Iraqi shots at planes enforcing the no fly zone.  At some point Saddam was going to realize that shooting at our planes was not in his interest but at that point he was just testing the waters.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 25, 2005, 08:29:10 PM
To be honest, I agree Clinton handled it better. Even though I'm a conservative. I think Clinton should've taken more military risks (that's why I mentioned Rwanda), but Bush went to far. But now that we're in Iraq, we should stay until Iraq is as stable as Japan. I'm infuriated with people who say we should pull out any time soon.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 25, 2005, 08:53:59 PM
To be honest, I agree Clinton handled it better. Even though I'm a conservative. I think Clinton should've taken more military risks (that's why I mentioned Rwanda), but Bush went to far. But now that we're in Iraq, we should stay until Iraq is as stable as Japan. I'm infuriated with people who say we should pull out any time soon.
See, i think pulling out now is a bad idea, but I also am infuriated that we entered into a trillion dollar endeavor that will cost many lives and has only marginal value.  We would have been better off investing that money in so many other ways than sending our troops to get attacked with roadside bombs for a country that doesnt apprecate us.

Have you seen the poll that was taken by the Brits which said the Iraqis support the attacks on coalition forces?  Prolly not since it has gotten NO US MEDIA coverage.  Maybe the press already has too many negative things to talk about.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 26, 2005, 05:02:34 AM
well, we spending close to $100 billion year now, not we?  (and this not include long-term costs of pensions for dead and wounded, etc.)  and we probably need more troops to have hope of winning war.  rice recently told congress she couldn't say war would be over within 10 years, so do math.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 26, 2005, 05:15:02 AM
sorry.  julie read closer next time.  you fine american.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 26, 2005, 07:24:20 AM
no study, but it seems we will be there for 20+ years
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 26, 2005, 10:53:38 AM
that why any president who takes nation into war without serious support is idiot.  compare reluctance of wilson and fdr--both rather popular presidents (at least at time, for wilson)--to lead us into world wars compared to johnson's escalation in vietnam and bush's war in iraq.

as to last of these, it extra stupid to lie about basis for war, as this only will erode support when and if lie is revealed (and upcoming indictments apparently will bring this to fore as never before).
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Freak on October 26, 2005, 03:45:33 PM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House called for a UN Security Council ministerial meeting to consider action on     Syria's alleged role in the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri.
 
US     President George W. Bush "believes it's important for the Security Council to meet at the ministerial level to talk about how to proceed, and talk about how we move forward on this resolution," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

McClellan also demanded that Syria, which has denied any role in the February slaying, cooperate with a UN investigation by German magistrate Detlev Mehlis that so far has implicated senior Syrian security officials.

"Non-cooperation cannot be tolerated. That is unacceptable," said McClellan. "There needs to be accountability for the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri."

The Security Council, which heard from Mehlis on Tuesday, is split on whether to impose sanctions to force Syrian cooperation or wait for the UN report to be completed on December 15.

A draft resolution drawn up by France and the United States calls on Damascus to detain "Syrian officials or individuals" whom the UN probe considered suspects in the car bombing "and make them fully and unconditionally available to the commission."

With the threat of UN sanctions looming large, embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has asserted that Damascus is innocent while he scrambles to assure the international community that Syria is cooperating with the probe.

"I have declared that Syria is innocent of this crime, and I am ready to follow up action to bring to trial any Syrian who could be proved by concrete evidence to have had connection with this crime," Assad said in a letter sent to Washington, London and Paris, the Washington Post reported.




It sure would be nice if the UN did something, but probably not...China and Russia won't let it.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 26, 2005, 10:32:49 PM
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war

a. clinton's administration orchestrated an attack on iraq...necessarily so...so, realistically...since hussein moved into kuwait...it has been ON.
b. agreed...but allied countries protect its allies.
c. why was it in our national interest for clinton to order an attack on iraq?
d. what would you call clinton's order to attack iraq?
A. But Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq
B. The US is not alloed with the Kurds, the Kurds are not a country/nation-state, and there were no allies calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not even Israel
C. Clintons air strike was in our interest because there was something to gain and nothing to lose; continued deterence at the price of a few missles
D. Clinton's order to attack was a justified response of proportional force to Iraqi shots at planes enforcing the no fly zone.  At some point Saddam was going to realize that shooting at our planes was not in his interest but at that point he was just testing the waters.


A. But Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq...

no, but he set...sorry (continued) the wheels in motion for it...and did bomb the shite out of it...finally...the congress ordered the operation in iraq with the push of bush...that initially...was a strategic bombing


B. The US is not alloed with the Kurds, the Kurds are not a country/nation-state, and there were no allies calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not even Israel 


us ARE allied with the kurds...the tribes of iraq are "the people" of iraq...the kurds are part of the region and want to have a say in the affairs of their people...who are part of the tribes in iraq...kurdish people are in iraq's security force...iraq's security force IS a us ally


C. Clintons air strike was in our interest because there was something to gain and nothing to lose; continued deterence at the price of a few missles...


well that is right...but aye believe clinton knew it would be merely a determent and sooner or later hussein would have to go...or in time...hussein's sons would have to go...clinton played it right for the time...but eventually hands would be bloodied



D. Clinton's order to attack was a justified response of proportional force to Iraqi shots at planes enforcing the no fly zone.  At some point Saddam was going to realize that shooting at our planes was not in his interest but at that point he was just testing the waters.

testing the waters or not...he was seeing what the us was made of...and how far clinton was willing to go at the time...and an assault is an assault...and...it was obvious hussein was not going away.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 26, 2005, 10:40:32 PM
Saddam was not a threat.  He had no way to project force outside of his own country; hell, he couldnt even fly in his own country
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 27, 2005, 12:22:27 AM
Saddam was not a threat.  He had no way to project force outside of his own country; hell, he couldnt even fly in his own country

temporarily...hussein and his b'aath regime were an offensive threat since their army invaded quwait...it subsided in scope but not in size...the people of the country had no say in their own affairs...and were essentially under seige...

it is threatening to the future economy of the world to have a military dictator and a ruthless b'aath party regime in charge of the 2nd largest oil reserve on the planet and not the people who live on top of it.

after hussein...his sons would have taken over...in scope...a far greater threat.
the timeline began in 1968 when ahmad hassan al-bakr was in charge with hussein waiting in the wings...as hussein's sons would be today had they not been ousted...

hussein was not finished by conceding quwait...his regime was STILL there...otherwise clinton would not have found it necessary to bomb iraq...that was one stage of a war which began with the invasion of quwait and was really not finished until the usa congress and bush took out hussein, his sons, and the military b'aath factional regime.

and mass murdering ones own people is not a "threat"...it is ruthless "action".
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 27, 2005, 05:17:14 AM
by way, blue, when you post here is this "whispering activity" that count as work?  hmmm?

and when you enlisting?  hmmm?
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 27, 2005, 06:07:17 AM
yeah.  maybe blueballs can bull 'em to death.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 27, 2005, 06:25:00 AM
you very quick.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 27, 2005, 06:45:43 AM
Saddam was not a threat.  He had no way to project force outside of his own country; hell, he couldnt even fly in his own country

temporarily...hussein and his b'aath regime were an offensive threat since their army invaded quwait...it subsided in scope but not in size...the people of the country had no say in their own affairs...and were essentially under seige...

it is threatening to the future economy of the world to have a military dictator and a ruthless b'aath party regime in charge of the 2nd largest oil reserve on the planet and not the people who live on top of it.

after hussein...his sons would have taken over...in scope...a far greater threat.
the timeline began in 1968 when ahmad hassan al-bakr was in charge with hussein waiting in the wings...as hussein's sons would be today had they not been ousted...

hussein was not finished by conceding quwait...his regime was STILL there...otherwise clinton would not have found it necessary to bomb iraq...that was one stage of a war which began with the invasion of quwait and was really not finished until the usa congress and bush took out hussein, his sons, and the military b'aath factional regime.

and mass murdering ones own people is not a "threat"...it is ruthless "action".
I guess this turns on what rile you think the US should play in world politics.
You - US is the police of the world
Me - US should only use its military to fight a unilateral war and occupy that country if that country is an imminent and IMMEDIATE threat to the US.
In this case Iraq had horrible dictators, but so do a bunch of other places.
Title: Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
Post by: Julie Fern on October 27, 2005, 06:48:11 AM
you fine american.