|
|
|
|
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 12:11:35 AM |
But u r assuming that all countries want american culture and values.
No. I don't believe that condoning the honor killings of women is something that is uniquely American.
Furthermore, you've still got a lot of work ahead of you to convince me that extremists are blowing themselves up in subways and airplanes because we were mean to them. I'm curious about your opinion as to why al Qaeda (not extremists in general) attacked America. You seem to be very opinionated yet you only seem to bring a "no we didn't" approach to the debate. And then, if you will, please attempt to draw a line between Iraq and 9/11. My bet is that you will have some long post which basically says "they hate us for our freedom" because you apparently aren't aware of the realities of blow back from our covert operations in the middle east.
It's not 'no we didn't' as much as it is 'there is NO excuse for what they did to us'.
It's 3am here, I just got home from work and I definitely don't have the energy to go through the rest of that. I'll be back within a day or two and explain what you requested. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 2:04:27 AM | But u r assuming that all countries want american culture and values.
No. I don't believe that condoning the honor killings of women is something that is uniquely American.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
neither are regime changes, propping up right wing dictators, Illegal invasions of soverign nations, and turning a blind eye to israel's foibles uniquely (insert a multitide of countries)
But yes I agree with the aboove poster.
Countries are starting to trade with the Euro, looks like the current administration didnt like it. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 2:08:17 AM | Just a little something that a few of you might be interested in.Pertaining to international law.
First ,the US is not a party to the Geneva conventionwhich some consider to establish international law under the athority of the UN.
While the state department has taken the position that it is binding,Constitutionally,it is not.Here's why.
As mungojoe has pointed out.a treaty can overrule the constitution.yes,I was wrong on that.I am man enough to ad mit my mistakes.No one is perfect,and especially not me after a 65 hr week.What he failed to point out is that constitutionally,A treaty can only be signed by the president of the United States,with the advice and consent of a two thirds mojority of the senate.
This was also upheld by the supreme court in 1957,in the Reid Vs Holland decision.
The US is not constitutionally bound to UN law.Ad hopefully never will be.
And don't take my word for if.it is very easy to find on wicapedia.
Illegal war? I don't think so.
An interesting note though.With all this "its all our fault,were a bad country"talk. I still haven't had anyone point out a country with more freedom and opportunity. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 5:57:23 AM | Painfully obvious - american power wants the fuel (oil) and money (defense contracts).
I note with some satisfaction the visit by Ahmadinejad to Iraq. Both are Shiite controlled. Their previous govts may have warred with each other but their peoples get along fine. With Saddam gone, the two countries are more likely to become and remain diplomatic towards each other. This is abhorred by Bush and Cheney (and al Quaida), as it undermines their oil/power play, which is why Bush is going apoplectic over the visit.
Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad seems to think that the american people agree with Bush and Cheney. He must surely know that many of us despise Bush and Cheney, but on the other hand, america voted for Bush and Cheney so what else could such a simple man as he think. What can the slow burning minority of educated people in america do when 60% of americans do not believe in evolution, continue to buy gas guzzlers, accept ethanol rather than demand solar, and eat beef?
I am going to help a friend perform a prescribed burn today on a previously mismanaged habitat that she is trying to restore to the pre-columbian longleaf pine and wiregrass plant community. But I just had to take a parting shot at Bush today, and give my support for a united arabia that can stand up to our military- industrial- congressional complex. And to let Ahmadinejad know that not all americans are blinded by the sneer in Bush's eyes. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 8:43:11 AM | ok,it has been suggestst that you have the same freedom in Canada.If you want to put that to the test.Go to Canada,set a soap box up in the public square and start preaching.
But not just any serman,stick to the ones that condems sodomy as an abomination unto God,or maybe,try one3 that points out that there only 1 way to the father,through Jesus. See how long it takes you to get arrested.Better take bail money. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 8:55:15 AM | Do the same in America and start preaching socialism and communism, and against the American way.
see how long u last lol
A lot of Western democracies have racial vilification laws and minority laws.
splitting hairs a little. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 1:56:16 PM | Really? [ Do the same in America and start preaching socialism and communism, and against the American way.
see how long u last lol]
Where have you been,just look at Berkley CA.happens all of the time,no arrests.You may get your ass kicked if you do it in the wrong community.but you won't be arrested.
and by the way,here is another real test.Try getting a conceal and carry permit for a handgun in those democracies.
I do like the Aussie PM's view on Immigration,however.Too bad our sell out
politicians don't have the same conviction. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 3:09:50 PM | First ,the US is not a party to the Geneva conventionwhich some consider to establish international law under the athority of the UN.
While the state department has taken the position that it is binding,Constitutionally,it is not.Here's why.
Sorry, but the US has signed and RATIFIED (that means passed by congress) the most recent iteration of the Geneva Convention (that is the 4th convention) and every other one except the 1st (which was drawn up during the US Civil War and was strictly a European affair. The US wasn't even invited to participate).
Ratified, as pointed out above, means SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT AND PASSED BY CONGRESS, all that is necessary for it to become US law.
,or maybe,try one3 that points out that there only 1 way to the father,through Jesus. See how long it takes you to get arrested.Better take bail money.
It happens almost every day and at least twice on Sunday's (places called churches, of which there are millions) and no-one has been sent to jail for it yet.
But not just any serman,stick to the ones that condems sodomy as an abomination unto God
As long as you don't tell people to kill or illegally discriminate against them (as that is inciting hatred and violence) then there won't be much problem. How do you think all those protesters against same-sex marriage "got away" with protesting on THE VERY STEPS OF PARLIAMENT HILL without going to jail?
Bring bail money indeed (LOL).
A little more time reading and a little less time listening to the uninformed might just do a body good. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 4:06:10 PM |
why is America fighting in Iraq?
Because a small group of neocons in effect took control of the country's foreign policy decisions, and decided to go forward with something they'd planned to do for years.
These people, with rather direct and obvious ties to elements of the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry, (if one believes the spin) decided to stage this Big Iraq Attack for reasons having nothing at all to do with the obvious connections to profit in the industries they almost all came from . The concept that they could attack the one country in the world that had the second largest oil fields, and the weakest army defending it, seems to have never even entered their decision making process at all.
They even pulled out maps in those same early NSC meetings, of those same oil fields. Again, purely coincidence, I assure you.
Cui bono ? Who benefits ?
Trace the profits, find out who is making money. Find the connections to those in power, direct and indirect. Find the family members making money off of it. Ask yourself how many of them have lost a family member, or have had one injured ?
Those people had an almost total ignorance about the country, and where not even initially aware of the religious animosities they were about to unwittingly unleash. Many of them never even traveled outside of the USA. Many of the civilians sent to Iraq during the course of the war had never ventured outside the USA either, and had to apply for passports.
If you only have an Americacentric view of the world, you start making decisions based on how Americans would act - and not how foreigners will.
The first meeting of the NSC concerned themselves with the invasion of Iraq, and the elimination of Saddam, almost nine months BEFORE 9/11 occurred. At that time, there was no impending threat from Iraq, nor Hussein.
Although the military had war gamed such an invasion, and those same war games had indicated that even a far larger number of troops involved would have a difficult time controlling the country (with the Iraqi army intact, and "de-Baathified") , and that sectarian strife would be a looming problem - they were ignored. The number of troops requested were cut back to "politically acceptable" levels, and thus the first die was cast in this game.
No National Intelligence Estimate was even prepared nor begun, before the decision to go to war was ever made, and was only done (rushed, improperly vetted, and submitted in two versions) when a Congressman requested it. That alone is criminal, in it's implications.
The intelligence was forced in the direction of supporting the already approved war plans. What was to later follow with Plumgate shows the level of deliberate lying done to support these same claims.
International efforts were ignored, and containment was rejected as an option.
The war invasion itself was launched into a blinding sandstorm, an almost Shakespearian omen of what was to follow.
The Iraqi Army was disbanded, throwing a huge number of armed trained men out of their jobs.
With a force too small to maintain order, chaos reigned.
The American media did not do it's job in the period leading up to it, nor afterwards, very well. They pretty much signed off on everything the administration said, without question, for the most part.
These men, these "leaders" have been wrong on almost everything they've touched in the Iraq war.
- They said WMD's were there - and they were not
- They claimed ties to AQ - and there were none.
- They said the invasion would be quick - and now some talk of 100 year occupations.
- They claimed they'd be welcomed as liberators - and were seen as occupiers.
- They said it would pay for itself - and the country is one trillion dollars in debt.
- They said the insurgency was on it's last legs years ago- and it still poses a serious threat
- They claimed they were fighting foreign terrorists - when most were Iraqi nationals.
- They said it was going well - and then it wasn't.
- They said the Iraqi government would come together and rule - and they haven't.
- They said most people in Iraq were supportive of the invasion - and they weren't.
Now one can judge any leader by the number of times they get it right, versus the number of times they get it wrong - on any issue. Some error is, in fact, inevitable in such actions.
Why is the USA still in Iraq ?
For one main reason.
The people that got all these things wrong are still running the show, and can not admit how totally wrong they were, nor how badly they mismanaged this war. With Iraqi society thrown into chaos because of it, any quick pullout risks leaving behind a failed nation state. No decision made in the Beltway can ensure success, only the Iraqis can in fact make this work or not. In essence, control has been shifted to a foreign country's leadership in this matter, and removed from American hands.
Iraq was a country created in a boardroom, with three distinct groups of people suddenly all thrown together in an artificial creation of a foreign power, done over a map in a conference room, in 1932.
It's long term future probably will mean that it will dissolve into three separate countries , by negotiation - or by violence. We are seeing elements of this now, with sectarian "cleansing" of areas , until all who do not fit the majority are either dead or have moved out.
This is unacceptable to those still in power, and thus cannot be allowed nor even considered.
In my view, it's a question of hubris. Ego from the first moment of the decision , all the way through to today. This war cannot be "won" on this watch, but it also cannot be lost. If one only waits another 324 days, then let the cards fall where they may.
Someone else will have "lost" Iraq, and they can hold their heads high when asked about it in interviews for the history books. It will be somebody else's mess, perhaps ( if history gives them the chance) even a chance to brag how "the Democrats" lost it, while nothing like that happened on their watch.
Until then, both the blood and the profits will flow freely. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 4:45:27 PM | Montreal Guy gives a fine summation of the reality of Iraq. Sad but true. I hope Iraq develops into three nations before Bush leaves office so that the "Uniter" can be seen as the divider that he really is.
This is Bush's war and I hope the history books reflect how divided the country is on the necessity of this war. I wish the guy would have been impeached so that the history
books would have to reflect the true frustration America has with this dipshi.t in office.
America has failed the ideology of Democracy by not impeaching this twirp. Less than two-thirds of the country approves of the job this moron is doing yet we sit back and accept it as if the people don't have the power. Sadly enough, it seems as though America is afraid of their own leadership. | |
|
gavan
|
Joined: 2/28/2008
Msg: 287 | |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/2/2008 9:08:56 PM | | america invaded iraq illegally, without consent from congress. you must understand this is an illegal war. 911 had nothing to do with it, bush even admited that there was no conection, and the idea that we are fighting for freedom is so tired and hypocritcal, the romans used it, leaders have used it all throughout history, this is nothing new. i belive more than any thing it is for oil, for personal reasons, and money for himself and in a last ditch effort to salvage the economy, which is crashing by the way. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 12:19:45 AM | Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress
And I would agree with that statement!  | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 12:25:58 AM | ok,it has been suggestst that you have the same freedom in Canada.If you want to put that to the test.Go to Canada,set a soap box up in the public square and start preaching.
I've seen this. Freaking far right wacko types. All hellfire and brimstone. On this place called Whyte ave. hugely popular bar scene.
LOL people just ignored them for the most part, this was in my more active atheism days so I had a grand old time arguing with them.
You obviously have no idea what Canadian life is really like. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 4:23:42 AM |
While angainst the Iraq war this is incorrect Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
It could be argued that, because the authorization was passed on the basis of false and misleading information about its necessity (essentially fraudulently), it is rendered void.
Too bad Congress doesn't have the gumption to admit they were scammed and act on it. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:17:58 AM | Mmm, too much thread to wade through, so my apologies if this has been mentioned.
Where were the Americans in defending the world in it's 'War on Terror' against:
Japanese subway Chemical attacks
Tamil Tigers
ETA
German terror groups
40years of IRA/UDA trouble in N.I. (well, ok they did get involved, funding the IRA)
etc, etc
was it perhaps a case of 'not in my back yard'?
Someone attacks American soil and now 'the leader of the pack' want everyone to help their battle. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 9:47:13 AM | I'm sure this might seem like an obvious question but I have yet to see a reason why america is fighting there. So tell me why. Media tells you you are defending 911 ? No but it should be only Afghanistan right ? just curious and don't give me any UN sanctions and Bush administration jargon. Just tell me why you think your children and friends are fighting a war that shouldn't exist.
Virtually everyone knew that Bush was not taking us into Iraq as retribution to 9/11. That's why the world protested with a resounding voice and with magnitudes most of us have never before seen. We are there because Halliburton (and other oil and oil field services companies) is making 1.3 Billion dollars a month (the lion's share coming from that region), each and every month that we remain there.
Frankly, it's rather despicable that our siblings, parents, and children are over there dying every month because GW and his administration would rather give Exxon a $40M welfare check than to buy body armor for our soldiers or reinforce vehicles they ride through war zones with; and even THAT check comes at the same time as Exxon posts record-breaking profits nearly every quarter, gouges the common person at the pump, and retires its executives like this:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989
The Bush's (and their corporate friends) have long been "oil families" and our excursion into the Middle East has been merely been in furtherance of their own financial, business, and political objectives, thinly veiled under the pretext of (at first 9/11 retribution; and later, as that argument lost its cover) this amorphous notion of "national security."
Gee ... why couldn't I be a Bush family friend?!!  | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 10:27:54 AM | Off topic, but a quick observation in passing. If you respond, message me or start a new thread. Don't respond on this thread.
Frankster says:
"Aus, NZ, Canada, Several western Euro nations.
pretty much the same amount of freedom and opportunity"
No sir. I have lived for extended periods in a number of countries, including two of those you mention. I can assure you from my own observation that social mobility and opportunity is greater in California than I saw anywhere else. America is still the land of opportunity. In America, you truly can make of yourself what you will.
As to freedom, Canada has no "double jeopardy clause" as the US Constitution does. I once met Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who was prosecuted and jailed three times for the same offense. Dismayed by this atrocity in Quebec, the Canadian Federal Government was motivated to pass a Bill designed to prevent it happening again, and the new law is known appropriately as "The Morgentaler Act."
Freedom of religion is taken for granted in America. But Australians have the crosses of three Christian saints on their flag. So do New Zealand and Britain. Israel uses a "*tallit*, a prayer shawl, as religious a symbol as you can find, as its national flag, even though there are Muslim and Christian Israelis. How would you like to be compelled to recognize, as your national flag, a symbol of somebody else's religion?
In America, the use of school time to be turned over to preachers to push their religion on a captive audience of children was stopped in 1947 by a court ruling. Australia and Canada were behind in this and so far as I know may still maintain government-endorsed religious instruction classes in which sectarian proselytizing is carried out in classrooms. In England, with its official state religion, I suspect most people think teaching Christianity at taxpayers' expense is a good thing, since the Queen is not just head of state but also Supreme Governor of the Church. As for prayer, privatization was achieved in America by *Engel v. Vitale* in 1962. No longer can government authority promote one religious view over others in schools. Have Canada, England, Australia, Germany etc. made such steps in the direction of individual freedom of choice and privacy of worship? In religion, I think the US leads the world in liberty.
As to speech and expression, observe the freedom of Loompanics Inc., and Communist Bob Avakian, etc., to say and publish freely. I do not think such freedom is available much outside the USA.
Among all the world's democracies' constitutions, America's is almost alone in recognizing We the People, not Yahweh, Allah, the Koran, whatever, as the highest authority. Only India, South Africa and Japan come to mind. All others imply that we live bowed in subjection to external authority. The worst is Ireland's.
My conclusion, based on careful personal observation: America is unique, a citadel of human liberty, a secular republic with citzens (not subjects) who bow to no god and to no man. Our founders' America is worth preserving. There's nothing else as good. There's nowhere else more free.
Now DON'T RESPOND HERE, it's off topic. You can IM me or start a new thread.
. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 10:39:22 AM | The very phrase "War on Terror" is fallacious. It is misleading propaganda.
Terror is not a state or a crimnal or an enemy. Terror is an emotion. You do not fight terror with the army. The remedy for terror is a mental state such as courage. You don't go to the Pentagon to deal with terror, you see a psychiatrist.
As to "war," it makes no sense to call out the army to deal with a crime. The 9-11 attack was a crime carried out by citizens, not an act of war by any state. But a feeble president who wants to be known as a "wartime president" calls this crime an act of war. This falsehood gives him wartime powers.
So why is America fighting in Iraq? Well, first, it's not a war; it's an occupation. The American nation is not at war; its military is called out to fight a war but the people are not engaged in this campaign. Our resources are going to this "war" to gratify the ego of an ignorant fundie president who wants to hang a scalp on his belt so he needs some military activity and it doesn't matter if Iraq has no connection to the 9-11 event he uses to excuse his assault on Iraq. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 2:56:55 PM | Ahmadwelcometodinnerejhad has come to Iraq, walked freely in and out of the 'green zone', and insulted us on his way out by reassuring the world that "no one likes them [America]". He received the red carpet treatment when he arrived while our dignitaries are smuggled into Iraq in secrecy and wearing bullet proof vests.
This is a guy who is arming factions of the insurgency whose weapons have killed our young men and women while injurying a whole lot more. He also wants Israel destroyed. He contributes major money to terrorism. And this guy is getting the warmest welcome possible by the President of Iraq; kisses and all.
I know we all saw this on the news, but I just want those who feel that "progress is being made in Iraq" to be reminded of the progress that is being made in Iraq.
If you believe that Iraq is a noble battle in the "War on Terrorism", then WTF after five years and trillions of dollars is a well known funder of terrorism getting his a$$ ki$$ed by the President of Iraq today.
I don't want to hear any more stupid fu.cks talking about our progress in Iraq. Only one who's winning is Ahmadfukamericanejhad | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 5:08:48 PM | It would behoove you to look it up on wicaoedia,or baybe the brittanica,or even world book.the Us is not a partie to the Geneva convention. as the constitution states,congress alone can not ratify a treaty,It has to be signed by a US president and verified by a 2/3 vote of the senate. and like i said,look up what the supreme coutr has also said.Iwon't repeat myself,those of you who are actually interested in truth,and not trying tolamely back up political dogma.take the time to look it up.
We are in a Legal and moral war.whether you like,love,hate or dispise our current president,or our country.Even a broken clock is right twice a day. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 5:45:36 PM |
the US is not a party to the Geneva convention.
It most certainly is.
That's why Administration lawyers spent so much time and effort in manipulating words and rendering opinions on it.
Washington -- The Bush administration says it is working with the U.S. Congress to define U.S. obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in order to keep its CIA interrogation program in the War on Terror operating in a manner consistent with both U.S. law and international treaty obligations.
“We want to define it, and we want to define it with crystal clarity, and it’s not just to defend the questioners … but it also serves to protect those who are in detention as well,” White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters September 14
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/September/20060914165153esnamfuak0.7021753.html
Now one can debate the issue of those definitions, and their application.
One cannot debate that even this Administration is taking the treaty obligations the US is obliged to follow into account, in their own words and actions. | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
