KrustyKidd

Ah, ok. So nothing being done but talk as usual. Let me know when something actually happens as the left has been known to just talk.

No. My point is that he did not act ilegally and that is a good indication why nothing is happening. The talk from the left is the same, the action the same. The reasons the same. Five years to gather dirt on Bush and make it stick and nothing. And don't give me this stuff on how it has to be here and now so he can be impeached. I'm talking any sort of action. They've been trying to dishonor, discredit and smear his administration from day one through an election to boot but nothing stuck. Why? Because there is nothing there but wishful thinking. Now, you start a thread about the latest slur against Bush from the People Who Cried Wolf and expect to be taken seriously? Sezzzz?

Yes Gerry. Got that the first time So did Monty

No wonder you are arguing on the other thread with crap for ammo. You don't even try to see what the hell is going on. I told you that Rockerfeller did everything he could to get Bush and had access to the US's most sensitive information. If you ever wish to change your ways and inform yourself, go here. Then, you will see why, if anybody did have anything, it would have been him. And, he certainly would have used it then or well before now. Then, you will see why all this talk of impeachment is hubris. Unless of course, something big has come up that eclipses Iraq. Anybody with authority charged him yet? Nope but, since they have been going on about how he lied for four years now, I would have thought he would have been brought up on charges unless of course, he didn't lie. Same as this one. And yes, you are correct, they get impeached for new stuff. So, when's I happening? Better be soon otherwise it too will be old stuff.

The opinion post you brought out here. If you are relying on a poll to make a point then you might use one which asks people actually able to correlate the information which tells them if overall the War on Terror is being won or lost. Then have them say if the US shold leave Iraq. Put forth as is, it is kind of like going onto a Ford assembly line and taking a poll on whether the people should make blue cars or red that week. Then acting on that information. Hardly based on anything knowledgeable such as stock, orders, share prices and market demands but, you would get just as qualified an opinion though. And, be just as silly to act on it. Unless of course, you didn't have any facts, then your color preference would shine through. Red right Gerry? All cars should be red?

Ok. You are wrong about Iraq going badly for the above reasons I brought forth. If you wish me to address another point, Iraq is a broader issue than you seem to be able to grasp. Another point; your sources for facts are opinion columnests so I know why your rationale is faulty. Quite the quorum to support your point, and they all have other things in common - they don't have a vote in this matter, except for the US soldiers they all want to take over Iraq under their rule, they have no knowledge of day to day stategic events in and around Iraq and the broader region, have no access to classified intelligence reports, political briefs and base everything they do on tactical action and reaction rather than strategic. Gerry, you gave an opinion piece to support your poll. Then parroted off how these guys in Humvees see all and know all in the political and military areas of countries they are not even in. Then went on about how Iran is so happy yet, they are not, instead, they are forced to deal with the hard reality that Iraq is working, otherwise, they wouldn't go close to a negotiating table. I don't. I metioned this as one of the various ways in which people are going to the political table rather than simply shooting. You seemed to be the one 'pinned' to it as you selectively gloss over the rest of the points I bring up. Then again, you have been confused on this enlarged situation right from your seventh post on this threads "The implications here have been clearly laid out. Have you read through the thread yet?" and "I'm sorry, but I can't decipher any of your post. I picked this piece out at random." Possibly to attempt to understand how wrong you really are, you might actually read some of the information put forward to you sometime rather than sit on a poll that Monty actually blew out of the water in his first post. Because of a poll and an opinion columnest? Yes indeed. Good facts.

And that's about how far it will ever go. A pipe dream. Well prior to the last election if you remember, or (even knew) Rockerfeller was using his position as Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Sub Commitee to gather dirt on Bush to use at an opportune time. He had access to every piece of information Bush had. Every piece Gerry. Did any of it come out during the election? None. Why is that do you wonder? Why would they wait another five years? Are they unprepared or could it be there isn't anything but emotional wishing? Answer is the latter. If they had something they would have used it years ago. Not really. Keeps the morons busy instead of comming up with a real issue that might actually endanger something.

Stratfor They charge about three grand a year for basic and a few hundred for each report. Why can they? Because it is as accurate as can be as those who pay for it, have lots more than agenda on the line. You on the other hand have only opinion pieces that use such biased prose as Very objective using faulty 'givens' to make further points that of course, will be erronous. No wonder you have been wrong on just about every point. Oh, to go further into your news source again I would say the Bush admin has been way ahead of this writer in that Iran is in open negotiations over Iraq with the US at this time. Hardly a 'tied hands' affair. An option that the writer never considered nor had you. It's like between the two of you, you are playing with a deck of 31. Uh oh. Things are tough, we just dismantled an entire corrupt government in a country of 25 million people in an extremely volitile region and things are not running smooth. We better pull out now. Three elections, three racially religious and culturally opposing sides involved in the political process for the first time, the entire region actively engaged in anti Jihadist efforts, Iran sitting down to talk directly and publicly. Please be more specific where the problem lies Gerry. After all, it is so clear right? Quite the quorum to support your point, and they all have other things in common - they don't have a vote in this matter, except for the US soldiers they all want to take over Iraq under their rule, they have no knowledge of day to day stategic events in and around Iraq and the broader region, have no access to classified intelligence reports, political briefs and base everything they do on tactical action and reaction rather than strategic. It has already succeeded in it's main goals. Yes, so much that they are willing to suffer embarassment to their people and deal face to face with the Great Satan rather than sit back and chorttle. Between doing an about face in front of sixty million Iranians, nuclear brinkmanship without nuclear weapons and knowing they will never have them do you get the slightest inkling that they are not as happy as you portray them to be Gerry? US to talk to Iran on Iraq Close but no cigar. Not perception but total shift in policy. Not installing dictators and supporting corrupt regimes but allowing democratic votes and pressuring corrupt regimes to change and allow human rights and such. Bottom up change rather than top down. Not saving face but being there to support those who have stuck their neck out to take action against anti civilization forces. It has a lot more equity in it than say, forcing a coup and installing another future problem in a US friendly dictator. That incidently was the brillience in disolving the Iraqi armed forces. While making the here and now more difficult, it paved the way for greater cooperation across the region. Yes, things are working, elections and a government in place, military gathering strength, Jihadists being denied operating room by Sunnis who in turn are engaging in the political process, Iran feels it is in their best interest to negotiate. Ya, time to cut and run

and; Of course there will be US troops in Iraq for years, that was part of the reason for going in the first place. To maintain a US presence in the region. Actually, the talks going on with Iran right now deal with the positioning of about forty thousand US troops in the western region of Iraq so, unless you don't pick up newspapers fail to see the newsworthyness of this.

duplicate post

Pakestan is vemenently anti Soviet and was frightened of a pro Soviet India with nukes and an Afganistan occu-ied by Soviets. Hence they sure as hell did support the Taliban. Then, since the terrorist bombings of Indian parliament and the nuclear showdown with india they have asked for US help in dealing with much more powerful India. The US 'reluctently' agreed. Provided they did two things - allow CIA to oversee the security of their nuclear sites and, they purge the ISI. Both were accomplished however, the CIA are plainclothed.

Like warlords in Afganistan, leaders of the ME will not commit to action until they see eveidence of backing from the US. Even if Iraq fails and goes into civil war it will still be worth it as the actions taken by other countries against Jihadists when they saw the resolve of the US made that complete turnaround in policy possible, Along with the quagmire the conservative Wahhabis find themselves in as they fight for relevence all across the Middle and Far East, the War on Terror is being won because of this action. Iran is dong a double waffle as they act like a speed bag wondering WTF they are gong to do to keep hold of power and worried about what is going to rule Iraq as none of it is good for them. The entire Jihadist world has been put them on the defensive. Sorry, that's if Iraq fails. If it succeeds, then you have another France. Hate America and everything it stands for and yet, will export some weird sort of none dictatorship capitalistic moderinity religious cool thing that will change other countries. So, better than Saddam?

Exactly. It's playing checkers on a three d chess board. Same with WMDs. Pure hubris and to go on with where they were or if they were there or not is to miss a good political scene played by some very good players on all sides. I think it is phenominal. Sides that cannot sit together are helping each other with under the table concessions both triablly and internationally. It is unreal to see the cooperation that is happening.

And a desparate person would also collapse under conditions of poverty and destitution. However, if there were no law enforcement, they would more than likely attempt to steal, bully, avoid paying debts or simply claim ownership of items if they were bigger than others around them. In a nuclear scenario that is very dangerous. The Soviet Union would have collapsed yes, it is after all, an inferior system. However, without effective detterence, it would have done whatever it could to avoid collapsing, WWIII included if they thought they could have made it work. Regan did good. Brought the end to them in both mind and body without killing us all. If Star Wars is part of the assertation, it just may end up being the first, last and only line of deffense if America has to go isolationist if the War on Terror operation fails. Although I doubt Regan had that in mind as I firmly believe to him it was a wish or a bluff of sorts, it is now a reality in the making. And quite possibly, a very necessary one.

Happy that the US is gong to stay there until they succeeed? Or, until the countries in the area succeed in their struggle? An Iraq in turmoil with Sunni power is not a good thing for Iran, nor is a democratic one. So, happy? Possibly frightened and wondering how the US can keep this up and still have a robust economy. 'Happy' is not an apt word as they are more scared than anything else. And, who can blame them? Their options are few and, their 'hands are tied.' Get some intelligence Gerry. Already the Sunnis have turned on the Jihadists. They use them to gain power with the US politically. When the US doesn't place enough pressure on the Shiites, the Sunnis allow more of them to come in and operate. When the US gives them concessions with the backing of the Shiites, they turn them in. Two of the three routes into the country are already closed with the third being a trickle as they see the political climate change. Stratfor Report Now, you didn't address the broader reasons for the operation in Iraq and how it affects the entire situation of the ME and Far East. Perhaps from you perch on the Humvee you could tell us how the average soldier guages all this? Wondering what kind of support in general any country committed to fighting terrorism can expect from the US if they begin to take casualties? I would assume that when the going gets tough, the US just leaves in your world so, in most of the world, where Jihadists and conservative Wahhabists hold sway with the population, the regimes in power should simply captitulate as no support can be expected. What is your solution to Saudi Arabia falling Gerry? That is an almost certainty is the US leaves Iraq? Pakestan as well, what is your slolution to further attacks on India by Jihadists? No Gerry. Bush and Rummy I am sure know soldiers are dying and are getting shot at as they mention it every press conference and speach. I am sure that soldiers are not privy to benchmarks in political achievements either. Just as you had no knowledge of how the insurgency is faltering because of same. How about, no taxes but more services? I mean, I think I should have more money and ...... more public stuff. therefore, let's get rid of whoever is in charge and mmake it so. When they don't produce, get rid of them. Heck, maybe tommorow, we will all get private intelligence reports and be able to speak with all parties of the insurgency, military from fifty countries and have our own staff to analize the information. Just like Gerry's guys in the Humvees do. Note to Gerry: The operation in Iraq is a sort of side show on the war on terror. While called 'the Front' it is really a sort of large stepping stone event sort of thing. If it fails, the show keeps on rolling. If it succeeds, the War goes easier by (just guestimating) thirty percent. You on the other hand, view it as a stand alone operation. Not connected with anything else. I doubt not how a twenty five year old soldier thinks the same as his area of operations is fairly local. Oh, is Al Queda in Saudi Arabia happy the US is 'draining their resources in Iraq?' Is that why thier presence in Iraq is completely lacking as they fight for survival in SA, a previous stronghold? See, it all is interconnected Gerry. Get out of the Humvee for a moment and start to think strategic rather than day to day, minute to minute tactical.

Hi Black Dog. I managed to get my old monker back so, no need to hide behind my real name anymore. I apppoligise for any inconveinience this may have caused. Yes, like I said To further the above , Iran, while having an educated public which is somewhat westernized, is under the rule of Clerics who hold the real power through an elected body. In order to explain life's ills, self examination is not conducted. The 'Great Satan' doll is just dragged out of thge closet whenever necessary to divert attention. Well, if the US did not exist, do you belive that somhow, the countries of the world would, for the first time in history, stop trying to bribe, push, threaten, pay, trade or otherwise get an inside track on goods they wish to secure? Of course they wouldn't, after all, the Great Powers like France, Britain, Spain, Russia and China all wrote the book on hedgemony, violence and oppression long before the US existed. They certainly would have shouldered in to support faltering and weak Shieks who promised them oil. Knowing what I know of the purges, social inequity without any sort of returns to the people whom they enslaved, I doubt that the radical intelligensia of the Wahabbist faith would lack anything other than a catilyst and a common event to bring forth their vision. Sucn an event would be China or Russia moving troops in to help a puppet government safeguard their oil supplies. Or, any War with an 'Infidel/Muslim' theme in which an expeditionary force made up of troublemaker intelligensia could be exported with a one way ticket by fearful Aposphate rulers. In any case, it isn't hard to imagine another scenario as without the USA, there would be more nations taking more advantage and more opportunity for problems. I mean, it could all boil down to western influence and resentment and then reach a head when a cartoon of Mohamed is published. Or, A French Oil worker spirtited away to France after a pulic crime of any variety- rape, seeing a woman without a veil or whatever. I mean, when the idea has reached the top, you can't keep it down.

Hi Gerry, I managed, after great difficulty to get my old moniker back on the board so hope you will accept my appoligies for the switch in transition. And, hope you will treat me, in this KK monker with the same respect you did with my real name. Thanks - Drew To continue - Addressing directly right now Gerry. The US can keep this up for years, congress just approved more. Draining is hardly a good word to use when the commitment has been reinforced by the president both political capital-wise and monetary as Bush has this week stated on more than one occasion that they're going to be there for quite a while still. Hardly the talk of a country on the verge of giving up. If Iran is happy with the way things are going, they certainly have a strange way to say they are. In order to gain a voice or a thought from the US in the negotiations between all the parties in Iraq, they have to come off like lunatics and holocost deniers as well as somebody that has a nuclear weapon when they are at least a year away from having the material to START making one with. Hardly the actions of somebody that is content with the way their world around them is shaping out to become. Yes, when Iran says they will bomb Israel when they have the capability and to move all the Jews to Alaska as the Holocost is a figment of our collective imagination, it is a voice that cries out in smug satisfaction that everything is going just the way they want it to. What is it they're after Gerry? I mean, Russia offers them fuel rods, the EU money. Israel we all know will not allow them to even come close to having a weapon so what is all the bluster about? An Iraqi Shia dominated goverment in Iraq that is kowtowing to Sunni and Kurdish minorities. All without them having a say in it. They simply want the US to consider their position. Ya, things going their way my ass. A free Iraq with nothing in it whatsoever for them but a lot of explaining to do to a disenfranchised population. The end of Islamic rule as they knew it. Very scary indeed Gerry. I suppose the only 'upside' is that they get to watch the US get political and strategic capital as they settle the country. Complete with contracts for hard bases as well to maintain a non occupational presence in the immediate region for decades to come. Wow, another winner for Iran - twsenty thousand US soldiers with enogh equipment to support another eighty. All within a couple of hundred miles of their border. Oh Joy! Ya, with the closure of the Jihadist pipeline (Jordan and Saudi Arabia with Syria off and on by the Sunnis) they seem to be comming into the political rather than the insurgentcy camp. This is alarming to the Iranians who see this as a further erroding of their influence. But, hopefully, there is enogh anti government Shiites around who don't mind listening to their Iranian 'advisors' rather than their Shiite fellow Iraqis. Now, I suppose you got all that from a guy in a Humvee right?

That is quite possible, however, once again, the only body that can rule that it is ilegal is the UN and they have not. Hence, you can get every lawyer on the planet shaking their fists but it means nothing in reality. Now, I imagine that France and Germany and all the rest of the anti US/War natins would have used this opportunity and brought forth a resolution to draw shame and angst onto the US but they did not. Why? Because even France knew it was legal, and said so before the war. Oh I see, the qualifier for good or bad is amount. Hmm. Interesting. So, the amount you put in is related to your perception of guilt. Yes, have to remember that for future arguments Black Dog.

Thanks Regan, couldn't have said it better myself. So lacking proof that it is ilegal such as a ruling by a qualified body that has determined it so, he now tries to link morality into the equation to give his argument some credibility. Morality and legality are two separate entities. I got burned for over sixty thousand dollars by a company that knew they were going bankrupt. Not a damm thing I could do. Was it morally right what they did? Course not, they stole my money right before they went under, squiring it away in execs slush funds and so on. Was it legal? Well not the slush funds but stealing my money was. The two were separate, no matter how I tried to present my case I still was behind even the unsecured creditors. Everybody knew they were wrong, yet, it was legal. Maybe I should have gone to that turbaned guy in London that Black Dog uses when he is losing na argument, you know, the guy that does the visa thng (and high brow UN law on weekends) he may have saved me a few bucks. Eureka, there is no way I will go in the water, you are thrashing around too much for my liking.

You must have written that with some poor syntax as you cannot of course mean that only the UN is permitted to hold elections so I take it to mean that only the UN can topple a ruthless dictator. If that is not the case I hope that your remedial spelling/reading institute does not include a syntax course taught by yourself. However, back to the argument; they did have their opportunity. As for Straw man argument during this legal discussion, I refered to this after you sidetracked this argument by saying that if this is not ilegal then international anarchy will prevail etc etc - basically introducing a moral justification into our legal discussion. In other words, you went first hence it was not a straw man. See, I am able to define the diference between the two. In a legal world, loopholes exist that unintentionally allow those who are morally wrong to commit moral crimes legally. That is not to say that the US was morally wrong as that is another argument entirely , one in which I obviously feel they were not. Here though, we speak of pure legalities. Gee, after all this time talking about those silly UNSC resolutions and you and I saying they meant this and that, suddenly, you say they mean nothing and switch back to this. Damm, all those peope in New York wasting money and they have no idea their determinations mean nothing because art 33 superceedes their rulings! Like even Black Dog's immigration lawyers who are the experts on internation UN law didn't know this, making their case on resolution interpretation. Damm that's funny. Jokes on them or is it watching you move the goal posts around (as you do later in the post with the introduction out of frustration of US constitution matters to sidetarack the argument?) I think you have it ass backwards here. That is correct unless a resolution counters it as is the case with Iraq. Anyhow, when the Member States are given the authority and that authority is not rescinded, they are free, unless told otherwise to go ahead and carry out that action. You, and your other insult throwing buddy have given all sorts of good arguments (much better than the last batch I might add) that add up to what was possibly INTENDED by those who wrote and ruled on them. However, given the virtually unlimited resources the UN has to print, type, rule, conference, define, meet, redefine and make these resolutions say exactly what is intended, they do not say exactly what you proport they do. Why is that? Incompetence? Maybe they were not meant to say what you think they are supposed to say? Instead, Black dog brings forth immigration lawyers to argue that the UN meant this, they meant that and basiclly read between the lines of the resolutions intent in order to make it read the way they want. Meanwhile, the US invades and nobody makes any sort of ruling citing any of these para in any of these resolutions as a basis to call it ilegal. Yes indeed Eureka, ilegal. and so on, why is there this ambiguity? Why is there this wide open window through which arguments can be made for both sides? Easy, the UN figured everybody would play by these loose rules they had going and the US caught them by surprise. While somewhat dodging between the lines they were after all charged with making sure Iraq complied with all the provisions of the ceasefire. So, still waiting for you to provide me with the resolution that we can all go to Iraq with and start arresting US soldiers with. You know, the one that at least nine of the fifteen members of the UNSC have voted on and approved that will allow us to bring GW Bush and the leaders of the sixty odd member nations of the Coalition to justice with. You have it in your possession? It's OK if you don't as the UN doesn't either. Ah, the Leftist red herring. Thought we were talking about the UN. Now, after insults you go for the throat. You wish to send in an information cascade in order to make up for a losing argument and then hoping I just give up will then sneak in the back door and declare victory after I retire out of being used as a speed bag. Sorry to disapoint you. I really am. WH lawyers: Bush can order Iraq attack BTW, those lawyers he is refering to are REAL lawyers, not off duty visa violation social workers like Black DOg likes to cite. Anyhow Eureka, here is what Congress had to say about your red herring; One Hundred Seventh Congress Gee, no wonder all you guys were trying to untie all the knots between Al Queda and Iraq. Funny, if Al Queda wasn't in Iraq at any point it would have the honor of being the only country in the Middle East that didn't enjoy their company. So, has Bush been impeached yet for declaring war without congressional approval? Stay on this breaking story too will you. As before, report back when mission complete. Nice try, good night.

Well, certainly sounds like you might want to take this argument to a world court of UN staure so they might listen and be swayed. Then, if you can get 9 members of the Security Council to go along with you, you can make it an ilegal invasion! Oh, due to the ambiguity of the whole affair, for lack of a resolution stating that it is ilegal, the default position is that it is legal until proven different by the UNSC, thus, it is a legal invasion. No, the real world takes action and makes resolutions that stick. Here, you have fantasy and opinion. Keep up the good work though, report back often. Yes, toppling a ruthless dictator and watching millions of people vote for the first time in their life is a terrible thing. So unjust, so wrong. Nice reality you have there Eureka.

Sorry, in the real world what matters is real determinations. There has been NONE to make your claim that this action was ilegal a fact. The facts are that the US invaded Iraq. Your opinion is that it is ilegal. Another fact is that when a nation ilegaly invades another country there are always lots of reslolutions going around condeming the action. Any here? Any that even hint that the action is ilegal? I would imagine that given the temperment of many of the world's leaders that they would have brought forth something of this nature if they had a leg to stand on don't you? They did not, for whatever reason wether it may have been vetoed or their case was not strong whatever. Hence, the determination that is was and is ilegal is not correct. Maybe it would have been, I doubt it though. Not one official motion was ever set forth to challenge the legality of it. Ya, it would wouldn't it. They would need to do that to make it ilegal and they didn't. Yet, when Iraq invaded Kuwait there were over a dozen of them. Funny how resolutions get passed pretty good when the action is ilegal. In this case though, there were none. Lots of opinions though. Lots and lots of officials, kangaroo courts and lesser bodies pissed off running off with the mouth but not one resolution that says it is ilegal. Hence, your argument is as strong as tissue paper in water. Oh, congrats for not lowering yourself to insults as before other than the petty little spellng snipe.

Yes. Lots of opinions. Yes. Show me the ruling. If there is not one then it is not ilegal. It's just yours and a whole lot of others opinions.

They really don't matter as Goldsmith was only in response to Black Dog giving me those second rate Immigration lawyers as his stand up legal team. Now, pony up with the world body that has determined that the action was illegal or shut down and admit you only have opinion. Show me the resolution which charges that the interpretation by the Coalition was wrong and makes this action illegal or admit that you are wrong. No big deal. Shoot, you can even call me a name like Black Dog does when he gets his emotions high like a while ago or you did when you got flustered in the last post. Heck, no shame. I would certainly expect to see a supposed ilegal action of this magnitude would be recognized by such a world body as the UNSC, yet they did not. Are they going to continue to allow this supposed illegal action to continue? For how long? Years? What? We all know that when Iraq invaded Kuwait they had one up in days. Yet here, they still don't have one after two years. Comon, where is the resolution making this illegal? It would say something like 'We, the UNSC find the US led invasion of Iraq illegal' and then go off into some conditions and stuff. You know the routine. It wouldn't be a hard ruling to miss as it would have a number beside it like ‘UNSC Resolution 2436' and say that ‘they deplore’ or whatever. Got anything like that or just some high emotions that make you wish it were illegal? Show me,

I wish to know who in the entire world, that has authority to make such a ruling, has determined that this action was illegal? Please, get off the pot and show me. You cite this and that, saying they meant this but did not mean this. Even bringing out people from the woodwork to say that it is illegal and such yet not one body that has the authority to cite this action as illegal has done so. Please, show us the ruling. Now, we all know that the only committee able to do this is the UNSC and they have not done so. Until you do, the action is legal by default. It is a leftist thing. When you know you are wrong, you insult. Cool! I finally figured you guys out!