Barack Obama for President 2008

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Help me understand your viewpoint.
You support the US getting involved in a European war where 116,000 US soldiers died. (WWI)
You support the US declaring war on Germany because Japan attacked us, resulting in 416,000 US soldiers dieing. (WWII)
I see you making no comment on Korea (which never ended, they are still at war) where we lost 36,000 or the US defending French plantation owners in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000.
BUT, In a post 9/11 world when a republican president declares war on a nation that is openly sponsoring terrorism and is thought by the United Nations and every nation in the world to have WMD's......... Well that is the most evil thing that could ever be done.
Is that about right?

You could put it that way, yes. Whether the president was Republican or not is a different matter and besides the point.

If the criteria for invasion is the sponsoring of terrorism then you would have found many more countries that would be suitable before you came to Iraq. Iraq was effectively under 'house arrest' after their defeat in the first gulf war. They were not the active participants in the 9/11 tragedy. Try Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Many experts, including the UN weapons inspectors, did not believe that Iraq had an active program of developing WMD, nor did they think there were secret stockpiles. The whole invasion was railroaded through the UN because the US were going to do it with or without support (and you'll find it was no-where near 'every nation in the world' supporting their invasion). It was a unilateral (actually bi-lateral as the UK was also the aggressor) invasion and many would argue was an illegal act of aggression under the UN charter.

To compare the invasion of Iraq to either of the two world wars is frankly ridiculous, unless you take the German invasion of Poland as the comparative point.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

You could put it that way, yes. Whether the president was Republican or not is a different matter and besides the point.

If the criteria for invasion is the sponsoring of terrorism then you would have found many more countries that would be suitable before you came to Iraq. Iraq was effectively under 'house arrest' after their defeat in the first gulf war. They were not the active participants in the 9/11 tragedy. Try Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Many experts, including the UN weapons inspectors, did not believe that Iraq had an active program of developing WMD, nor did they think there were secret stockpiles. The whole invasion was railroaded through the UN because the US were going to do it with or without support (and you'll find it was no-where near 'every nation in the world' supporting their invasion). It was a unilateral (actually bi-lateral as the UK was also the aggressor) invasion and many would argue was an illegal act of aggression under the UN charter.

This is the same UN that was later found to be running their Oil-for-Food scam, part of which allegedly funded Al-Qaeda, right?

Yeah, that's an unbiased, objective point of view.

I don't see parallels between WWI, WWII and Iraq either but using the UN as an authority figure in an argument here isn't your best move, Paul.

[Paul Shields]

I really don't care about any UN peccadilloes. The main point was around the justification of the Iraq invasion. One of the primary reasons for the UN's existence is to have a multilateral decision making process when it comes to things like war. This was why the US and the UK set it up in the first place. In the case of the invasion of Iraq the UN backing was lacking, and the US and UK essentially ignored their guidance and proceeded to invade anyway. If you only make use of the UN when they agree with you then you may as well get out of the whole system. Unfortunately, the current administration seems to think that way, which is partly why they are so distrusted around the world.

At least Obama will put that right .

[wedweb]

Iraq was under a cease fire from the first Gulf War, they broke many UN resolutions over the following decade+ and then they started firing on our planes patrolling the "no-fly-zone". Seems like a country that was spared from total take over with a cease fire would cooperate. I guess none of that matters. That is why we had WWII, Europe didn't tighten down on Germany following WWI and they were able to put together another formidable army.....Still I don't think if Barrack is elected that he will pull out. Remember that during elections politicians promise everything to everybody and then never really deliver because once they get into office and find out how tight everything is tied together it doesn't leave room for doing many of their plans.

[Paul Shields]

What you're describing is pre-emptive war. This is generally classed as illegal under international law. Although that action falls in line with the 'Bush Doctrine', it is almost universally opposed by other UN members. The fact that no WMD were found in Iraq blows away the whole Bush Doctrine. Many people have died in Iraq, both coalition and native. Current figures are approx. 100,000 Iraqis and over 4,000 coalition forces. Has this stopped terrorist activities? The simple answer is - no. The world is a much more dangerous place than before 9/11 and a large contributor to that is the invasion of Iraq.

You may justify the invasion based on the lack of Euoprean action to the rise of Facism in Germany in the 1930's, but really these things are not comparable. Germany was arming herself for future aggression. These terrorist atrocities are almost 100% a reaction to previous western violations of Muslim lands. Although their acts are totally unjustifiable, we shouldn't confuse it with major acts of aggression carried out by nation states.

[Rodeoshooter]

No, Paul. I am not saying I was opposed to those wars. What I am pointing out is that the Dumb o rats are being stupid when they keep calling the Republicans "War Mongrels". It seems the Dumb o rats are too stupid to remember history. The history I am pointing out is that in the past it was Dumb o rats who got us into 4 major wars. Two of them that we were involved in for decades (Vietnam and Korea) and as someone pointed out we are still in Korea.

I agree that WW 1 and WW 2 were justified to sum extent. My point is the Dumb o rats are to stupid to realize that it was the Dumb o rats who got us into those wars not the Republicans. Yet major Dumb o rats keep calling the Republicans War Mongrels.

Remember, the Dumb o raticly controlled Congress and Senate voted overwhelmingly to give the President permission to go to war in Iraq. The President could not have legally went to war with out the Congress and Senate voting to Declare War against Iraq. Additionally, it was Bill Clinton's appointed head of the CIA who told Bill Clinton and President Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq. Were there WMDs? Well according to the UN commission on Nuclear Weapons, Iraq did have a Nuclear weapons program. Additionally although we can't question them, we could look at the bodies of the 300,000 dead Kurds who were killed by Saddam with Mustard Gas. But then the Dumb o rats keep screaming "Bush lied about WMDs" (which we know is bullshit).

As far as justification we had ample justification provided by the repeated cease fire violations by Saddam and ignored by Bill Clinton because he was to busy getting strange pussy in the White House, instead of paying attention to his job. The terms of the cease fire allowed us to enforce the treaty. Didn't need any other justification. I would suggest you read the documents, but I know true facts are important to you. The stupid liberals only want to hear and read what they want it to be and facts are not important, especially if the facts don't fit their needs.

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

So I take it from those comments that you would have been opposed to those wars? Do you decide the legitimacy of a war based on if it were called by a Democrat or Republican administration? I would say that at least the first and second world wars were justified to some extent and would have been difficult to avoid. The invasion of Iraq was wholly avoidable, mostly because it was a bi-lateral (US & UK) aggressive act against a country which patently did not have any involvement in the apparent justification - i.e. WMD and/or 9/11. If any war over the last 50 years could be seen as the product of 'war mongrels' (though I guess you mean warmongers), it would have to be that one.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

At least Obama will put that right .

Uh, yeah.

Here's my wish...

I wish that Obama and the Democrats get the opportunity to try their vision of Utopia out. Really. I do. Because I feel it's the only way for people to truly see their effects. And I don't think that, once things are in place for a while, the effects are going to be as Utopian as they think.

I find it ironic that, on one hand, Paul, you're lambasting the US for taking a lead role in world affairs and, on the other, hoping Obama wins so that his vision becomes part of that lead role. Do you really think the US will back off the foreign policy with Obama in place? Clinton didn't and Obama seems to be using some of his policies in his platform.

[Paul Shields]

I'm not lambasting the US, I'm just lambasting falsehoods. Who knows where Obama will take the US as far as foreign policy goes, but I have a hunch that it'll be away from the Bush doctrine. Ask Palin what the Bush doctrine is if you're unsure about what that means.


Dailymotion - Mockingbird Loves Palin Bush Doctrine, a video from TECHNOLOGOS. Media, Love, maverick, mockingbird, Palin

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

I'm not lambasting the US, I'm just lambasting falsehoods. Who knows where Obama will take the US as far as foreign policy goes, but I have a hunch that it'll be away from the Bush doctrine. Ask Palin what the Bush doctrine is if you're unsure about what that means.

I'm well aware of what the Bush Doctrine is. Interestingly enough, it shares common elements of the Kennedy Doctrine, which the Democrats declared to be Good.

You might want to read up on the Obama/Biden campaign site. Here are some highlights:

"Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years, and will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material to curb the spread of nuclear weapons." - Exactly how will those materials be "secured"? Sounds like military options there. Gee, North Korea gets yet ANOTHER chance to take some of our money.

"Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation." - And this is different from Bush's current actions how?

"Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. They will help the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth. " - Great. We're in the hole for trillions of dollars and he's trying to bribe other countries into liking us. Didn't we try this one already?

"Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions. " - Uh, yeah...that's worked so far, hasn't it?

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems. " - Help me out here...this is different from what we do now? He's talking about increasing foreign aid to Israel and somehow making friends with the Arab world? These guys don't see things like that.

But look! He's going to start NEW tensions:

"In contrast to the Bush Administration's erratic policy of embracing Vladimir Putin but neglecting U.S.-Russian relations, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will address the challenge posed by an increasingly autocratic and bellicose Russia by pursuing a new, comprehensive strategy that advances American national interests without compromising our enduring principles."

You people have no clue what this guy is planning. You say he's different, with HOPE and CHANGE, but I see nothing new here. Reading his foreign policy page sounds like he's going to continue US involvement around the globe and EXPAND IT.

[Rick Waldroup]

Originally Posted by Rodeoshooter

No, Paul. I am not saying I was opposed to those wars. What I am pointing out is that the Dumb o rats are being stupid when they keep calling the Republicans "War Mongrels". It seems the Dumb o rats are too stupid to remember history. The history I am pointing out is that in the past it was Dumb o rats who got us into 4 major wars. Two of them that we were involved in for decades (Vietnam and Korea) and as someone pointed out we are still in Korea.

I agree that WW 1 and WW 2 were justified to sum extent. My point is the Dumb o rats are to stupid to realize that it was the Dumb o rats who got us into those wars not the Republicans. Yet major Dumb o rats keep calling the Republicans War Mongrels.

Remember, the Dumb o raticly controlled Congress and Senate voted overwhelmingly to give the President permission to go to war in Iraq. The President could not have legally went to war with out the Congress and Senate voting to Declare War against Iraq. Additionally, it was Bill Clinton's appointed head of the CIA who told Bill Clinton and President Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq. Were there WMDs? Well according to the UN commission on Nuclear Weapons, Iraq did have a Nuclear weapons program. Additionally although we can't question them, we could look at the bodies of the 300,000 dead Kurds who were killed by Saddam with Mustard Gas. But then the Dumb o rats keep screaming "Bush lied about WMDs" (which we know is bullllama).

As far as justification we had ample justification provided by the repeated cease fire violations by Saddam and ignored by Bill Clinton because he was to busy getting strange pussy in the White House, instead of paying attention to his job. The terms of the cease fire allowed us to enforce the treaty. Didn't need any other justification. I would suggest you read the documents, but I know true facts are important to you. The stupid liberals only want to hear and read what they want it to be and facts are not important, especially if the facts don't fit their needs.

Al, do us all a favor and just keep right on posting. There is not a damn thing I could say that could make you look any more ignorant than your own words. Keep right on going, pal. Keep right on posting.

Listen, over the years, after many embarassing moments, I am sure that someone in your family has told you how foolish or stupid you sound. You should have taken their advice to "cool it, honey" or "cool it, Dad."

But nooooooooo!!!!! Not Al......

You just keep right on going. You are the poster child for the Energizer Bunny of the Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe- all mouth, no brains, and scared of everything that ain't white and right.

[jhawk1000]

Al does seem to be infected with a bad case of the "dumb ass." Maybe a dumb ocrat in disguise. His facts are a little weak but his opinion is the truth. Or so he preaches to anyone who will listen!

Mel

[AlbertP]

Just a reminder of what GREATNESS looks like:

Video Player

[nohoneythatsnotanewlens]

I'm very sorry but my ADD does not permit me to read this thread. Too many words.

[nohoneythatsnotanewlens]

I've seen that face before. Greatness? Ask our friends off the coast what they think of their dashing young leader now.

[jhawk1000]

Originally Posted by nohoneythatsnotanewlens

I've seen that face before. Greatness? Ask our friends off the coast what they think of their dashing young leader now.

Wonderful, show a picture of Obama smoking and then find some picture of a Communist, Fidel will do, and it is once again, guilt by association. Beautiful picture. I will go see if I can find one of McCain and Keating, or how about Palin and the witch hunter minister, or how about equating McCain with the older lady who told him that Obama was Arab. At least McCain straightened that out but Obama and Fidel--that is a stretch. Hell, I once was in Topeka, Kansas when Fred Phelps, the crazy anti-gay former lawyer now minister, was there so I guess that since I am a lawyer, was in Topeka that Fred Phelps was an associate of mine. This whole campaign has been about guilt by association by one side.

Mel

[wedweb]

Wow...what a race. To think how close it is. Obama's meteoric rise to political levels, the mass media going all out for Obama and against McCain, and McCain is still so close. Imagine what a fair campaign and election would be like.Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Can't wait till Tuesday night when all the lawsuits start flying. I think this nation does need better federal level of rules for voter registration. Though I am totally against the "big brother" idea of a national ID, I don't see much other way of protecting our constitutional right to vote and have our vote count and be represented by someone who has gotten the majority of real voters.

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by wedweb

Imagine what a fair campaign and election would be like.

I guess it's fair so long as your view wins?

I think we're witnessing a generational shift in tide, away from darkness and toward light, away from hatred and toward love, away from divisiveness and toward unity, away from racism and toward inclusion, away from cynicism and toward hope, away from meanness and toward kindness, away from selfishness and toward compassion, away from fear and toward courage.

[Paul Shields]

A nice post Albert, but does this mean you'll be shifting your attitude too? Who are you going to rebel against if you have no Republican bogeymen? .

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Who are you going to rebel against if you have no Republican bogeymen? .

Stay tuned.

[gjb]

Originally Posted by Rodeoshooter

No, Paul. I am not saying I was opposed to those wars. What I am pointing out is that the Dumb o rats are being stupid when they keep calling the Republicans "War Mongrels". It seems the Dumb o rats are too stupid to remember history. The history I am pointing out is that in the past it was Dumb o rats who got us into 4 major wars. Two of them that we were involved in for decades (Vietnam and Korea) and as someone pointed out we are still in Korea.

I agree that WW 1 and WW 2 were justified to sum extent. My point is the Dumb o rats are to stupid to realize that it was the Dumb o rats who got us into those wars not the Republicans. Yet major Dumb o rats keep calling the Republicans War Mongrels.

Remember, the Dumb o raticly controlled Congress and Senate voted overwhelmingly to give the President permission to go to war in Iraq. The President could not have legally went to war with out the Congress and Senate voting to Declare War against Iraq. Additionally, it was Bill Clinton's appointed head of the CIA who told Bill Clinton and President Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq. Were there WMDs? Well according to the UN commission on Nuclear Weapons, Iraq did have a Nuclear weapons program. Additionally although we can't question them, we could look at the bodies of the 300,000 dead Kurds who were killed by Saddam with Mustard Gas. But then the Dumb o rats keep screaming "Bush lied about WMDs" (which we know is bullllama).

As far as justification we had ample justification provided by the repeated cease fire violations by Saddam and ignored by Bill Clinton because he was to busy getting strange pussy in the White House, instead of paying attention to his job. The terms of the cease fire allowed us to enforce the treaty. Didn't need any other justification. I would suggest you read the documents, but I know true facts are important to you. The stupid liberals only want to hear and read what they want it to be and facts are not important, especially if the facts don't fit their needs.

You're just a sweet talkin' Maverick, that's what you are.

Technically, you're correct that the "Democratically controlled congress" voted to give the President permission to go to war in Iraq (50D, 49R, 1In). However, you fail to mention the vote was "overwhelmingly" Republicans which enabled resolution 114 to pass. Only 58% of Senate Democrats [29] voted yea, while 98% [48] of Republicans.

You're flat wrong about the "Democratically controlled house", because by my count, there were 223R, 208D, 1Ind. 61% of Democrats (126) voted no while 97% of Republicans (215) voted yes.

Source: Image:H.J.Res. 114 Iraq Resolution Votes October 2002.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as being "to stupid" (buy another vowel, Al!) to know our history, a smidgen of research on your part might be in order before getting all "mavericky" on us.

Best,
Greg