Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

NOVA said:
Not a good move, foghorn...if their anything like you, they could shoot their eyes out looking down the barrel wanting to see the bullet to come out...find another way...
they could register as Republicans so you could die of shame...that would be cool.

that reminds me of a very good friend, big union man, blue blood democrat....his oldest kid went to Georgetown University and become the president of the Young Republicans..
God, that was great....it still beings a smile to my face....
Click to expand...

fuck you landlubber sand crab wog coward.
 
Belieber said:
Comparing the ACA to war is of course not accurate at all.

As to war, I have to disagree. We limited the president certain military powers with the War Powers Act and if we actually held the president to the time line in the act, then we would not end up with Iraq or Vietnam. This open ended "war", which is not a legal or technical war under our laws, is ridiculous. Get rid of the act because it does nothing.

After 60 days and the time to bring out troops home, shut it down or declare war.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your contention of a requirement of a formal declaration of war; there never has been a Constitutional requirement that one must have a "formal declaration of war" in lieu of Congressional authorization and the War Powers Act provides much leeway in that regard; particularly for these types of UN conflicts. Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress MUST declare war before the CIC can commit troops?

In the case of Iraq; in lieu of a formal declaration of war, there was a Joint Resolution; the same authority that provided for the Afghan commitment. Congress does not have to formally “declare” a war. It can “authorize” such with just as much legal clout. The key here is that the President cannot act alone; but must have Congressional authority beyond a certain time; I believe it is 60 days.

If Congress gives their approval to fund it; then it is a go. It is very dumb idea to assume one can place a time definite on any military enterprise. I would ask that you think about why for a while and get back to me if you still think it makes sense.

I am not saying YOU are dumb; but the idea of a timeline when sending the military in is.

The ONLY timeline for ending any fighting is when total victory is secured and the nations we have liberated, which is what we do, can stand on their own without outside threats or undue influence.

I am amused by the current dialogue from the leftist media that we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan long enough. I don't remember seeing such complaints after the Korean conflict or post WWII where we still to this day have troops there.
 
maineman said:
why am I not surprised that you would gravitate to truth deflector. You said that Saddam needed to go, and cited pre-9/11 rhetoric from the Clinton's as proof that democrats felt that way. As I said, I was furious with elected members of my party that seemed to care more about the next election than the lives of servicemen and women they were allowing to be sent into the breach. And again.... saber rattling about Saddam pre-9/11 was always good for the Jewish vote, but he really was a tinhorn dictator without the ability to do too much harm to us. After 9/11, it became clear to many of us that our real enemies were Islamic extremists and NOT secular pan arab ba'athists. I guess for others of you, that lesson was a little slower in the learning. From a realpolitik perspective, Saddam was an asshole, but he served our purposes much better in power than out of it. With him in Iraq, sunnis and shi'ites were not slaughtering one another... the radical Islamic extremists were kept from having free rein in Iraq, Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check, and we would have had 40 thousand more able bodied men and women to fight the real enemy and a trillion dollars more to fight them with.
Click to expand...

I didn't cite pre 9/11 rhetoric. You must be a liar like Evince. Everything I said was true, but you said it was bullshit.

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped in your smarmy face.
 
maineman said:
why am I not surprised that you would gravitate to truth deflector. You said that Saddam needed to go, and cited pre-9/11 rhetoric from the Clinton's as proof that democrats felt that way. As I said, I was furious with elected members of my party that seemed to care more about the next election than the lives of servicemen and women they were allowing to be sent into the breach. And again.... saber rattling about Saddam pre-9/11 was always good for the Jewish vote, but he really was a tinhorn dictator without the ability to do too much harm to us. After 9/11, it became clear to many of us that our real enemies were Islamic extremists and NOT secular pan arab ba'athists. I guess for others of you, that lesson was a little slower in the learning. From a realpolitik perspective, Saddam was an asshole, but he served our purposes much better in power than out of it. With him in Iraq, sunnis and shi'ites were not slaughtering one another... the radical Islamic extremists were kept from having free rein in Iraq, Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check, and we would have had 40 thousand more able bodied men and women to fight the real enemy and a trillion dollars more to fight them with.
Click to expand...

Why do Liberal dunces seem to always believe that the world should spin around their uninformed highly inflated opinions?

Dunce.
 
maineman said:
your beloved president summarized it so nicely:

"Our mission [note the singular use of mission, not missions] is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” Dubya, 3/6/03
Click to expand...

And that is precisely what he did. But you're still too dumb to figure that out.

:facepalm:
 
Belieber said:
I didn't cite pre 9/11 rhetoric. You must be a liar like Evince. Everything I said was true, but you said it was bullshit.

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped in your smarmy face.
Click to expand...

do you have a quote from Bill Clinton from POST 9/11 that talks about the need to invade Iraq and depose Saddam?
 
maineman said:
you're dumber than a sack of hair, I swear.

Do you think that Iran has made more of a ruckus over the past decade than when Saddam was in power? yes or no?

the real enemy is Islamic extremism, not secular pan arab ba'athism. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, the 40K casualties we have suffered in Iraq would be available to fight the real enemy. Who said fuck all about Iran being our enemy, you lummox?
Click to expand...

Dear moron; Saddam invaded two sovereign nations without provocation and gassed his own Kurdish minorities. Of course in the books of morons, this is not extreme is it?
 
maineman said:
A good read, but there may be some big words in there so you should probably have your dictionary close by before attempting to read it.

http://www.iar-gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/Saudi Arabia and Iran.pdf

a cogent quote from the article:

"The most significant impact of US action in the Gulf region was the elimination of “Iraq as an effective regional buffer vis-à-vis Iran, whose influence over its neighbor immediately increased.”
Click to expand...

I am amused by the buffoonish argument that having a megalomaniacal despot that invades peaceful nations in lieu of a Democratic regime is a better "buffer" for Iranian extremism.

It really is comic; but then, you are an armchair expert at saying really stupid things.
 
QUOTE=Truth Detector;1459]I disagree with your contention of a requirement of a formal declaration of war; there never has been a Constitutional requirement that one must have a "formal declaration of war" in lieu of Congressional authorization and the War Powers Act provides much leeway in that regard; particularly for these types of UN conflicts. Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress MUST declare war before the CIC can commit troops?
Click to expand...

Careful now my homeyslice. The asshole from Maine declared that I was gravitating towards you. You don't want to prove him wrong because he gets very insecure and surly. While the constitution does not use the word "must" declare war, it expressly states the power to declare war lies with Congress.



In the case of Iraq; in lieu of a formal declaration of war, there was a Joint Resolution; the same authority that provided for the Afghan commitment. Congress does not have to formally “declare” a war. It can “authorize” such with just as much legal clout. The key here is that the President cannot act alone; but must have Congressional authority beyond a certain time; I believe it is 60 days.

If Congress gives their approval to fund it; then it is a go. It is very dumb idea to assume one can place a time definite on any military enterprise. I would ask that you think about why for a while and get back to me if you still think it makes sense.

I am not saying YOU are dumb; but the idea of a timeline when sending the military in is.

The ONLY timeline for ending any fighting is when total victory is secured and the nations we have liberated, which is what we do, can stand on their own without outside threats or undue influence.

I am amused by the current dialogue from the leftist media that we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan long enough. I don't remember seeing such complaints after the Korean conflict or post WWII where we still to this day have troops there
Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly about Iraq vs. Afghanistan. The loopy liberals don't realize that Bush declared "war" on both countries in a similar fashion, in fact, one could argue, he had more congressional authority for Iraq. That said, the ultimate decision to go to war or "war" is the President's. While Congress can declare war, the CIC is in control of our military.

If Congress funds the "war" then it is a go? Perhaps, because without the funding, the President could not engage in military conflicts with US funding or legality after 60 days.
 
maineman said:
do you have a quote from Bill Clinton from POST 9/11 that talks about the need to invade Iraq and depose Saddam?
Click to expand...

Why would I provide a liar and an asshole a quote after he said no democrat supported removing Saddam after 9/11?

I don't piss in the wind and I don't throw pearls to swine.

Kindly fuck off.
 
maineman said:
do you have a quote from Bill Clinton from POST 9/11 that talks about the need to invade Iraq and depose Saddam?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that makes your idiotic case? The fact that Bill didn't invade means that he didn't believe Saddam was a threat to the region and needed to be disarmed.

Hell, he didn't have time to do anything meaningful; he was too busy campaigning and getting BJs in the oval office dontchyaknow.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

One way or another; and when all the other ways turn into 10 years of obfuscation, deceit and lies, then the ways become limited.

36 other nations believed the SAME thing.
 
Belieber said:
Why would I provide a liar and an asshole a quote after he said no democrat supported removing Saddam after 9/11?

I don't piss in the wind and I don't throw pearls to swine.

Kindly fuck off.
Click to expand...

do you have a quote from me where I ever said that NO democrat supporting removing Saddam after 9/11?

I'll wait....
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by maineman

do you have a quote from Bill Clinton from POST 9/11 that talks about the need to invade Iraq and depose Saddam?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone have quote from Bill Clinton, post 9/11?.....No one gave a shit about him or what he said or thought after he left office....

He lied under oath, why pay attention to anything he might say when not under oath ?

The only time someone mentioned "Clinton" was when they were referring to Hillary....
 
maineman said:
do you have a quote from me where I ever said that NO democrat supporting removing Saddam after 9/11?

I'll wait....
Click to expand...

Your word:

"bullshit"

In contrast to my claim about democrats.

I won't wait, I don't wait for losers like you. I have a life. Keep waiting loser.

I gave you a chance and you just dumped on me. I bet you call yourself a Christian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top