2 Faced Mutha Fuckas

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Chongo Blanco, May 10, 2004.

  1. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    Well, to be fair the congressional authorization for war stated that war would be used as a last option to enforce U.N. regulations, and If i remeber correctly came about very early on, before Iraq replaced Afghanistan in the headlines.
    And I think Kerry summed it up best when he said: "I voted for it, yes, because I believed I was doing what was right for my country. I had no idea bush would fuck it up as bad as he did, I don't think anyone did."*
    Now, I really resent the opinion that saddam was connected to 9-11, which you imply. The basic connection (as i understand it correct me if I am wrong) is that 9-11 taught us that we should not wait for the terrorists to strike us before we strike them. Problem here being that there were almost no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, now they are the biggest import.
     
  2. "Well, to be fair the congressional authorization for war stated that war would be used as a last option to enforce U.N. regulations, and If i remeber correctly came about very early on, before Iraq replaced Afghanistan in the headlines."

    Actually the headlines were about the President addressing the UN. Wrong, it said, Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)(CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

    The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

    Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

    The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

    Days later the UN President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly September 12, 2002

    Days later the United Nations [Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002] The Security Council, Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

    13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

    14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


    Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)(CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

    "And I think Kerry summed it up best when he said: "I voted for it, yes, because I believed I was doing what was right for my country. I had no idea bush would fuck it up as bad as he did, I don't think anyone did."

    Pure rhetoric, an excuse for voting as he did without showing any kind of leadership..

    Now, I really resent the opinion that saddam was connected to 9-11
    Strike three, look at the last paragraph of my last post which reads Changetofacism, can you tell us what the al qaida attack on 9/11 has to do with invading Iraq?
    ”No, I can’t! I didn’t say to go to war with Iraq the representatives of the civilized world and the majority of the US congress said to go to war with Iraq. I know many people seemed to think there was a connection, I never did.”

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Neo-con is a translation for "enough debate" knock it off or get your ass kicked.

    So let me get this clear when you said that -

    It had nothing to do with the neo-cons?

    It had nothing to do with neo-con meaning (a translation for) "enough debate"?

    It had nothing to do with getting a kicked ass if you didn’t knock off debating.

    Well I suppose that gets you out of being a fascist but it doesn’t exactly enhance your reputation as a debater, I mean when do we now you are writing gibberish and when you’re not?

    Putting that aside.

    I’m not quiet sure what your argument is? Yes some people’s representatives voted for war, the British Parliament did also, the thing is why did they vote? Well over here many did because they didn’t believe the government would be so economical with the truth. If someone sold you a house and then you found out it didn’t exist you would be rightly pissed off. In this people were sold a reason for war and it didn’t exist, what is worse is that many people warned that it wasn’t true but the government swore they were wrong.

    In the UN most nations believed that a second resolution was needed to go to war. Only when the Bush admin realised they wouldn’t get one did they go to war without one.

    Putting that aside

    The war was based on lies but we are there now. What I would say is that from the moment we went in the neo-cons running the show have fucked up time after time, their policies and ideas have been show not to work so they should be replaced.



     
  4. Do a Goggle search on the UN and bring up the actual 1441 resolution, it’s public record. I copied part of it along with events leading up to the Iraq war just before your post. Read the whole thing, it doesn’t leave the need to go back as long as Sadam keeps one hand closed. Other countries along with Sadam may have thought that, but not seriously. Bush had already blown the whistle like the swimming pool lifeguard, either he opens his hands completely or it would be war. After 1441 and the preceding speech given to the UN by Bush to do so would be to make the UN irrelevant. That is what I meant by knock off the debating. The US, GB and Spain all spoke with the same voice and there was no doubt at the UN or by Sadam what was the next step. The pondering was just the same as the preceding 12 years.

    It may very well be true that Sadam had destroyed most of his WMD. In fact today on the news the Iraqi leader from the North who provided a lot of the intelligence of exact locations of WMD lost his $350,000 dollar a month paycheck when the sites were empty. But why did Sadam defy the UN? Why not avoid war and retain power? It is totally illogical! He knew Bush wasn’t bluffing and he knew France, Russia and Germany were not going to help him to fight America and allies. What was he thinking and why did he choose war? The British or the American’s would not let soldiers be committed to war if he had followed the directions exactly as stated in 1441.

    We are there now! I think we would have been there now had Al and Joe won also. Because it was the congress in overwhelming support said it was a good idea to go to war. Had Al been publicly confronted with the fact Sadam could give his WMD to terrorist he would be put in the same situation as John Kerry who voted to go to war. After 9-11 the country was jumpy about things like WMD when they saw what could happen without terrorist having them. It was a “your enemy is my enemy” concept that would have destroyed the Gore administration had he not went to war also.

    Changeyourlatitude
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice