Bush planned Iraq war BEFORE 9/11

you argued that the iraq war was wrong, because the constitution does not allow for wars without formal declaration. i explained to you the fallacy in your logic. i provided logical counterexamples supported by facts.

your opinion is as simplistic as "for any action x, we can define whether that action is wrong or right based on the constitution".

i explained to you how that is foolish, you just changed the subject.

your party is simplistic and short-sighted. this is why you will never have mass appeal and probably will never elect a candidate to any real office of import. you cannot always define right and wrong by a document. the war is justified and a good decision, and if bush went before congress and convinced them to make a formal declaration of war, the war would be no more of a right or prudent decision than it was before.

signatures on a document do not justify war. its far more complicated. if before ww2 congress had been peaceniks and refused to declare war, the war would have been no less justified.

 

CB666 is your real name James Carville. You rant and rave just like that idiot Democrat. Democrats are great and Republicans are crap.

Well you prove by your posts that you have no true ideals and are swayed simply by your corrupted views.

Where was your moral standard when Clinton was President. If you want to get in to a moral debate between Clinton and Bush Ill take Bush anytime over that sleezebag Clinton.

Why dont you crawl back into that rat infested hole you belong in CB666 and gnaw on your bread like a good little rat and leave the serious discussion to intelligent people.

Geaux Tigers

 

martin,
You base your arguments on the fallacy that if you don't like a law, ignore it. Especially if it serves a higher purpose.
What if your neighbor decided that he didn't really like you breathing all of his air?
I think that Jessie Jackson is about the biggest pimple on mankind, should it be ok if I made him assume room temperature? Surely we would be better off without ol' Jessie.
Should the guy that wasted Jeffery Dahmer have gotten off without punishment?
Your arguments have no basis in sound reasoning. Your logic is faulty.

 

no, my argument is that law isnt the end-all and cannot be used to justify right and wrong. murder isnt wrong because of laws, its just wrong. i am making this point only because you dont want to justify your opposition of the war in any way except to claim the constitutional requirements havent been met. like if i claimed murder is only wrong because it is illegal, when in the law has nothing to do with whether muder is wrong.

what i am saying is you need more than just "we havent declared war via constitutional rules, therefore war is wrong" to make a point that the war is in fact wrong.

right and wrong is based on rationality, not laws.

even if it was legal to kill jesse jackson, it still wouldnt be right understand?

are you capable of separating right and wrong from law?

 

Ahh......you see, I never said that I opposed the war. I am all for killing as many of those sob's as we can.
I am against the way it was done. One man has been given power to take almost 300 million people (America) to war. That is what our way of government is supposed to prevent. To make it worse.......he went with hat in hand to the u.n.
Are you going to say that we should do what the un says?

 

Liberals are ruining this country.

I'm glad some of these "great" thinkers aren't driving this bus.
You people with real sense take a look at some of these posts.
I'm not going to name any names it's obvious
These are the same people who, although in the minority, criticized Harry Truman for bombing Japan.

Was it necessary? Should we be involved?

History will record it happened whether these bleeding hearts wanted it to or not. Not all things during that time were pretty. We incarcerated American Japanese wrongly and accused them of being spies. That was unfortunate and wrong, hind site is 20/20, men that govern make mistakes. Did we loose WW2?
No. Did we do what was right in most instances? yes. Was the BASIC principals of the constitution upheld. YES. although some bad things were done, we secured the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Sadaam may not have been a threat, but he certainly didn't seem to want to put any cards on the table.
He was a ruthless dictator, no one argues this. That's reason enough.

My brother in law & cousin are over there and they report back that this guy was REALLY bad news.

Here is another clue for you outspoken Liberals that are always thumping and crowing ( crying ) to the liberal media.

The president that you say is so wrong and soooo awful,
he will win again and win big.

so basically whether you support him or not, you loose.

Why? because there is a silent majority of the people that YOU call right wing extremists. You make right wing sound sooo awful LOL

why do they call it Right if it's so wrong?
Here is a quick question for you, where did the term liberal come from? Here is a good example, are most liberals for abortion or agaisnt? Well they are for it. BUT they don't call it abortion, no that's not politically correct, it's Pro choice. Sounds less like murder that way. After all grown men and women can do what they want right? Are most Democrats for abortion? yeah they are pro choice.
BUT , now here is the kicker, Pres Bush and 90% of the Republicans ( right wing crazies for your liberals ) are agaisnt abortion, ( pro life for you advanced politically correct advocates )
No just what does this have to do with Iraq? You answer that, who do you want driving the bus? some one with ZERo morals or someone that will stick by you and promote the genral welfare of this nation?


Here is an off the wall question, what's wrong with having good moral people with education running the Government? Even good moral people make mistakes, but at least they are Closer to the high road, when they do screw up.


I guess it's no suprise that while coming from a VERY young age group 90% of all military personel support American foreign policy.

I would also surmise that it is no suprise that the media and Hollywood, in general, support anything liberal. Why? well because they want to push their agenda. this is just like lobbying, they want less censorship and no ratings, that way they can do whatever they want.

I'm all for free press, but I'm sort of agaisnt free porn for kids because it is the publishers right to spin it anyway he wants.
Liberals want that.

Rich you say? thats funny, lets see with Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, the Disney family, 90% of Hollywood as supporters, I would say the money is pretty good for liberals.
Why would Bill Gates support Democrats? he is big business isnt he?
yeah he is, Ever hear of trade laws? Bingo loosen up some trade agreements and we have Big business supporting the liberals. Democrats and sadly some Republicans too.

Study history, isolationism is what Woodrow Wilson practiced and it was definately a problem and the wrong policy. he tried his best to "ignore" the world, but WW1 came along from this policy. Read history.
FDR yes the great one, practiced it also until pearl harbor. He was very reluctant to help England until Pearl.
He ALMOST let England be taken by Germany.

Face one thing, along with great military Power, and world presence, comes great responisbility. EVEN Clinton Knew that! Where were all these people when we went in to Cosavo? I didn't hear any liberals objecting. NO? Why? it's OK as long as it's a Democrat. GEEZ get a freakin life, there are some bad leaders in BOTH parties. Welcome to the human race. It's like that bad apples everywhere you go.

Take the lovely singer Sheryl Crow for example. is she a political science major BTW? didnt think so. she is REALLy anti Bush, totally wrong for us to go into Iraq. VERY outspoken about it, BUT she supported Clinton's invasion of the Balkans. Oh where were the weapons of Mass destruction in Cosavo? it's OK though Clinton was saving them and he was a democrat after all.
Miss Crow even took the message to the military supporting her commander in cheif. AND I APPLaud her efforts, but don't be a hypocrite, if we had ANY business in the Balkans, then we have double that in Iraq.


Given the information Mr. Bush had I do not know whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq or not. Would YOU like to make that decision? your qualified right? OMG I bet you think you are.

Do you EVEN know what level of education Pres. Bush and his Cabinent have? I bet it is somewhat more experienced than you people and all of holly wood combined. I'm not going to EVEN list the doctorate degrees on his staf, it would take another forum.

Cheney holds degrees in Political science. Dr Rice graduated early with a doctorate degree. there's more.
What did Sean Penn graduate with? well he didn't graduate at all, not high school.

Rich yes, educated no. Agenda yes, good not necessarily.


I'm glad Bush is driving this BUS, even if it takes a wrong turn, not that it has.

We could always elect Hillary or Sen ted Kennedy, MAN ridiculous how are these people still in office? Some reallll people of value there. LOL

it would be nice to just sit back and let the world develop whatever direction it wanted to go. is this realistic? not very.

Was Iraq in violation of the UN mandate? ummm yeah.
that alone was reason enough. if your going to have an organization like the UN that is supposed to help police the world, it can't be a weak do nothing organization like it is.
The Un is a joke.

I am just THANKFUL yes thankful for all the liberals, no matter how devoid of moral fiber they may become god bless them.
WHY? because we live in the United States and we are allowed to disagree.

I dont oppose a war or condone it, rather I agree we need to do what is necessary to keep these 50 states free, because our fore fathers set forth in a document many years ago these truths.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Roy , no proof only opinion has been offered on the theory of a war for oil. that's an old arguament and it made it's headlines then died. It would still be a headline if some evidence could be produced. You talk about truth but you can't present any evidence any of what you say is true.

 

apparently, you havent read either one. the very articles themselves make you think. same for the bible. Our country was founded on judeo -christian values. Read the consitution again. Look on a dollar bill.

How can Reading two of the greatest, most read, literary documents the world has ever known, promote ignorance?

You have it backwards, reading promotes thinking. People who read the bible make an educated choice on what they believe, it's the ones who DONT read it and follow some cult leader claiming divine insight that are ignorant.

As far as the constituion goes, you don't have a choice, it's the law. No one has to "blindly" follow the constitution, you can support an amendment through your congressional leaders to sponsor a bill and by 2/3rds of the states vote, you can amend the article. It was written with this failsafe in place so that it could not be changed easily, but our fore fathers saw that change can occur and realized that provisions must be made in a government governed by the people for the people for this document to be ever changing if need be.

 

you misunderstand me. i love the constitution, its fantastic. i have read and studied it plenty, as i majored in political theory.

my only point is that i am ok with the war even though there has not been a formal declaration of war through congress, which the constitution says you need before fighting. i am opposed to blind strict constructionism of the constitution. for example if they re-activated the 18th amendment (or repealed the 21st), i would drink beer anyways, even if it was illegal . get it?

i only had to mention these things to make a point to our patriot party friend who posts here and cares only about the constitution.

 

I understand your views, I don't necessarily agree with it but I understand them. I see your point about beer. the same could be said about drugs though. would this be right? or is this moral legislation too? We as a society have to draw the line somewhere. I guess the question is where is this line, what is legal? what is illegal? booze? drug abuse? sex? man if they ever pass a law agaisnt SEX i'm officially on the Wrong side of the law, go ahead and lock me up. LOL