1549 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 A few years from now the GOP will be whining when taxes have to be raised to help pay for this bus*** war. I wonder if they are gonna try to blame it on Clinton too. Actually Apu, this is Clintons fault. If he had just wasted Saddam's regime when they kicked out the inspectors in 1998, this would be overwith. Instead all that Clinton did was hit them with a few dozen cruise missles. By the way, we should have precedence over anything the UN charter says. We are the fricken spine of that whole orginization. Like it or not Apu, the US has to be the world's super power or else anarchy would rule. Without us the UN would be some fat old men trying to intimidate countries with threats. Because of the US, the UN actually has firepower to have some influence on the world. And then the UN turns its fricken back on the US. Some balls those UN diplomats have...they park where ever they want in NYC without getting fines because they are diplomats, and then they act like pricks. The U.S. is supreme Apu, and it is nice to see we are finally taking charge and showing the rest of the world what happens when you dick around with the US Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 A few years from now the GOP will be whining when taxes have to be raised to help pay for this bus*** war. I wonder if they are gonna try to blame it on Clinton too. Actually Apu, this is Clintons fault. If he had just wasted Saddam's regime when they kicked out the inspectors in 1998, this would be overwith. Instead all that Clinton did was hit them with a few dozen cruise missles. By the way, we should have precedence over anything the UN charter says. We are the fricken spine of that whole orginization. Like it or not Apu, the US has to be the world's super power or else anarchy would rule. Without us the UN would be some fat old men trying to intimidate countries with threats. Because of the US, the UN actually has firepower to have some influence on the world. And then the UN turns its fricken back on the US. Some balls those UN diplomats have...they park where ever they want in NYC without getting fines because they are diplomats, and then they act like pricks. The U.S. is supreme Apu, and it is nice to see we are finally taking charge and showing the rest of the world what happens when you dick around with the US Actually, this was something that Clinton considered in 1998. However, it would not have gotten the support it deserved from the Republican congress. It would have been wagging the dog according to them. Hell, just look at Tom DeLay's comments about our intervention in Kosovo, one now used by the current administration to justify this military action. He talks about how the President has no idea what he's doing. And that wasn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy too? Clinton couldn't have done what Bush did in 1998. He didn't have the collateral because the Republican party was hellbent on limiting Presidential power as much as possible during the last three years of his presidency. By the way, Apu, please do us all a favor and knock off the Nazi comparisons. It hurts your cause... and its patently false. Although there may be a few similarities, you can not teach history by analogy. Bush is like Hitler like Saddam Hussein is like Hitler. Which means neither are like Hitler at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moochpuppy Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Actually, this was something that Clinton considered in 1998. However, it would not have gotten the support it deserved from the Republican congress. It would have been wagging the dog according to them. Hell, just look at Tom DeLay's comments about our intervention in Kosovo, one now used by the current administration to justify this military action. He talks about how the President has no idea what he's doing. And that wasn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy too? Clinton couldn't have done what Bush did in 1998. He didn't have the collateral because the Republican party was hellbent on limiting Presidential power as much as possible during the last three years of his presidency. By the way, Apu, please do us all a favor and knock off the Nazi comparisons. It hurts your cause... and its patently false. Although there may be a few similarities, you can not teach history by analogy. Bush is like Hitler like Saddam Hussein is like Hitler. Which means neither are like Hitler at all. We have exhausted all of our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that . . . we have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. --Tom Daschle, in 1998, when President Clinton, struck Iraq This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war. --Tom Daschle, last week, when President Bush, struck Iraq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 it is not an illegal war Baggs, explain to me how we show countries that they HAVE to abide by UN resolutions when we can go out and violate the entire f***ing charter. we didnt violate the UN..1441 , which passed the security council 15-0 is all the authorization we need...you refuse to process this FACT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moochpuppy Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. --Thomas Paine (1737-1809) For everything there is a season, And a time for every matter under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to throw away stones, And a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing; A time to seek, and a time to lose; A time to keep, and a time to throw away; A time to tear, and a time to sew; A time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate, A time for war, and a time for peace. --Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8 When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. --Franklin D. Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 some fat old men trying to intimidate countries with threats Yeah, that sounds like the US alright. Baggs, I have READ 1441 and consulted with World Court lawyers and people who crafted it.....and IT DOESN'T AUTHORIZE UNILATERAL MILITARY COWBOY TACTICS like Bush would like to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 we didnt violate the UN..1441 , which passed the security council 15-0 is all the authorization we need...you refuse to process this FACT 1441 was not a trigger to war. If it was it would not have passed. John Negroponte, UN Ambassador for the US assured other Sec.Council members that it would not be a trigger for war. Indeed, all it says is that the Security Council would remain seized of the matter. It would also say that Iraq wasn't yet in breach of 1441 until the time of US attack. The Al-Samoud missiles, which did violate cease-fire terms were in the process of being destroyed and no other discoveries of assets violating the terms of the cease-fire were found. In fact, since the start of the invasion, nothing has been found to prove 1441 in violation other than the use of the munitions slated for destruction prior to the start of military action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 we didnt violate the UN..1441 , which passed the security council 15-0 is all the authorization we need...you refuse to process this FACT 1441 was not a trigger to war. If it was it would not have passed. John Negroponte, UN Ambassador for the US assured other Sec.Council members that it would not be a trigger for war. Indeed, all it says is that the Security Council would remain seized of the matter. It would also say that Iraq wasn't yet in breach of 1441 until the time of US attack. The Al-Samoud missiles, which did violate cease-fire terms were in the process of being destroyed and no other discoveries of assets violating the terms of the cease-fire were found. In fact, since the start of the invasion, nothing has been found to prove 1441 in violation other than the use of the munitions slated for destruction prior to the start of military action. 1441 said that iraq must disarm "immediately" ... or face "severe consequences" hanx blix in his last report to the UN said iraq while iraq has shown lately to be more cooperative..they were still playing games and it was still not 100% cooperation... less than 100% cooperation does not equal "immeadiately" does war equal "severe consequences"???..i think so iraq fired a sear sucker missile at kuwait....i believe that was a missile that no one knew iraq had Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 We have exhausted all of our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that . . . we have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. --Tom Daschle, in 1998, when President Clinton, struck Iraq This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war. --Tom Daschle, last week, when President Bush, struck Iraq I won't get into the double talk of Tom Daschle. Don't like him much. However, I will say that five years ago the world landscape was markedly different. Our intelligence showed that the situation in Iraq had not changed. One would argue its the right war at the wrong time. In fact in 2001, the Bush administration was seriously considering scrapping sanctions against Iraq. In 2000, before his nomination to the VP, Dick Cheney was lobbying the UN for the elimination of sanctions on behalf of Haliburton. In 2001, the Bush policy against Iraq was not one of threat and the necessity of invasion. In the last three years, the situation did not markedly change on the ground. Yet the policy, inexplicably, changed radically. Double talk is everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Double talk The official language of the Republicrat party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Stop the citations, I can sum up everything in 5 words: This is a just war...there I said it, now the truth is out. Today on TV I saw that 12 year old kid that lost his arms, his skin, and his entire family. Those are the sickening images that make me draw back momentarily from my Pro War stance. I have posted before that the war is good because it makes for great tv...well after seeing that kid it made me think of how lucky I have it to be enjoying my teenage years here in the U.S. making light of war, and making popcorn to eat while watching the bombing on tv, while this poor kid has lost it all. So I would like to apologize for my "great tv" statement...it is sickening now that I think about it. It makes me kind of wish that we could just forget all of this political garbage, win the war quickly, and restore peace...so hopefully images like this will not be seen again in the future. On a lighter note I love Apu's sig picture of Chirac and the westside affiliation, that is hilarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Stop the citations, I can sum up everything in 5 words: This is a just war...there I said it, now the truth is out. Today on TV I saw that 12 year old kid that lost his arms, his skin, and his entire family. Those are the sickening images that make me draw back momentarily from my Pro War stance. I have posted before that the war is good because it makes for great tv...well after seeing that kid it made me think of how lucky I have it to be enjoying my teenage years here in the U.S. making light of war, and making popcorn to eat while watching the bombing on tv, while this poor kid has lost it all. So I would like to apologize for my "great tv" statement...it is sickening now that I think about it. It makes me kind of wish that we could just forget all of this political garbage, win the war quickly, and restore peace...so hopefully images like this will not be seen again in the future. On a lighter note I love Apu's sig picture of Chirac and the westside affiliation, that is hilarious What is to prevent countries like Syria, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, etc. etc. etc. that all have WoMD from selling them to terrorist organizations? I just have a hard time believing that by getting rid of this one leader we are stopping the entire flow of weapons to terrorists. We've made motions that we want to go after Iraq and Syria next. Who is gonna be after that? Is this 1984-esque endless war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 APU it also looks like Bob Dole if you look at it quick. The picture of JC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.