Montgomery Burns

What are you saying? Is it against international law to enforce international law? Or is there some World Body that control US policy by overruling elected US representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives, i.e., Congress? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who appointed the USA as sole international police force??? When you can answer that, your argument will hold water. International law should be passed, interpreted, and enforced by an international body. The fact that Bush and company used UN resolutions as an excuse to start a war, which was NOT approved by that selfsame international body is the height of hypocrisy. And, according to INTERNATIONAL law, illegal. Congress can pass domestic law within the USA's borders. She cannot pass and/or enforce international law. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well then, who is the sole international police force? The UN? The World Body that passed 16 Chapter VII (binding) reolutions against Iraq - with all of them being ignored or broken. The 17th UN Resolution warned of serious consequences. Even Hans Blix wrote in his book that that was diplospeak for war. Do you think that it is fair that Russia, France and China (the 3 countries that sold Iraq 82% of its arms--and were owed billions by Saddam), should refuse to enforce the 16 UN resolutions for purely greed purposes? You brought up UN resolutions against Iraq (I'm surprised you didn't bring up the 150,000 resolutions against Israel ). Do you think it is reasonable for the UN to give a platform to dictators, to in effect, legitamize them, to spew their venom against a beacon of democracy--the USA? Zimbwabe's Robert Mugabe gave a speech to a group of UN delegates about a week ago--where he likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and said they were both the biggest terrorists in the world. Many of the UN Assembly clapped. Do you agree with that?

Maybe you should give a good argument against it, then, rather than just dismissing it. Fleabag is right, of course, the Bush girls would be walking targets, and their "noble sacrifice" would be all but assured. I don't wish them harm, despite what you might think from my posts, but I also don't see their lives as more valuable than my nephew, or any of the other barely adults who are sent over there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since your nephew is an adult, I think he has the ultimate say. Yes or no. It is a volunteer army.

Journalist Who Filmed Burning Taliban Bodies Suggests Media Got it All Wrong A pic of another media darling getting the star treatment. Kinda reminds me of this infamous pic.

Obviously you haven't heard of Abu Ghraib where Iraqi detainees (including women and boys) were raped by U.S. guards, placed in stress postures, beaten, bitten by dogs etc. etc. And then there's the practice of shipping detainees off to countries where the practices you describe are used. So while I am familiar with your loathing of Muslims, please don't let that interfere with your ability to gather some basic background information on the subject. You know, you might have a point were it not for the dozens of Iraqis with broomsticks and chemical lights stuck up their ass. No some 37 detainee deaths in custody, including at least eight classified as "unresolved homicides", these are just accidents, I'm sure. Then again, no one is displaying the same rah-rah attitude towards "mindless butchery" that you display towards abuse and defilement. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like you've been reading the gross exaggerations of Seymour Hersh and the NAMBLA-supporting ACLU. Plus, the few soldiers who did wrong were cahrged and convicted. Don't forget that it was the military who started investigating allegations of some abuse at Abu Ghraib back in January 2004 - months before the liberal media had a month-long frenzy when they saw those pictures. Thanks again to the liberal MSM, the Jihadists get more free propaganda. :angry: And you accuse Argus of loathing Muslims, but if you had it your way, those 25 million Iraqis would still be under Saddam's (and his two spawns of Satan) boot and the mass graves would be filling up again with innocents. You are strongly against the Iraq war. If anyone appears to loathe the Iraqis, it is you.

A classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your estimate, how many more years will the US have troops in Iraq? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your estimate, now many more years will the US have troops in Bosnia? Clinton said one year. 1996 seems so long ago.

A classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your estimate, how many more years will the US have troops in Iraq? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From what the military advisors say and other anylists, they figure at this rate at least 5 more years.... And this is looking more like a quagmire. Japan was not a quagmire after WWII, they surendered and then the reform began. Same with Germany. You hade sizable forces on each side of the coin during WWII, that is why they called it WWII, for a good deal of the worlds contries were fighting one side or the other. In Iraq, you have the US, Britian and the so called Coalition of the Willing but cannot contribute anything (military or money) to the invasion of Iraq. It is a quagmire. Spain pulled out, as well with a few other contries that only had a couple hundred (or less) troops helping out. I do hope Iraq will be free and I hope this will all be worth it, but I am kind of a pessimist, for when you are crawling through the tunnel, and you see the light, but it is faint, then the tunnel collapses in front of you. Could be a long time before any see that light at the end of the tunnel. Mission Accomplished : On board an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego (I think) He was not in the gulf when that stunt was pulled. There would not have been enough security in the Gulf to ensure that political stunt would go according to plan. Let's say they DO get a working government in the next year. One that is recognized by the international community. Then what. Could it all fall apart after the troops withdraw? Who will take care of their security? The Iraqi forces are just not ready nor properly equipped to handle the job once the US leaves. Unless the US sells them alot of weapons to maintain the order... wait a minute. Could be part of the plan, invade, FSU (fuck shit up) train, withdraw and leave, then you have a perfect staging ground for the invasion of Iran, Syria, Isreal ect. I did not have faith in their words when they went in. 'It will be all over in 2 years maximum." now the rhetoric is ... " could be 10+ years." This in itself is admitting to the quagmire. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fact of the matter is you can't win a war if you don't win the peace. In this war, there was no plan to win the peace. The Bush administration anticipated that Iraqis would be 100% supportive of removing Saddam and welcoming the Americans. The fact is, it is very difficult to democratically win the peace in a country that is as religiously diverse as Iraq. Right now, the Sunnis are unhappy. Soon, someone else will be unhappy. How you explain things democratically here? This is a war that was a logisitcal failure on all ends. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Win the peace"? You sound like John Kerry. Bush has a plan to win the peace--it's called victory. How anyone could complain that an easy military victory, welcomed by the Iraqis, few US/Coalition and civilian casualties, and in 2-1/2 years have free elections and a free vote on a Constitution they wrote themselves--guaranteeing freedom of speech, the press and religion - is a failure is incredible.

That's the opinion of the liberal Canadian Press. However, the US took in $70 billion more thatn they expected from the 2004 tax year. The Bush tax cuts; more jobs; more people paying tax, CPP and EI; staying out of trouble; staying off EI and especially welfare; companies expanding, making more money because of the good economy and also paying more tax. It's just common sense. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a $1 billion drop in revenue per percentage point. When Martin announced this, I felt that his corrupt-to-the-core govt was trying to bribe me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your links didn't work, but I think I know what incident you are talking about. Get back to me when US soldiers start beheading and Associated Press: Halliburton Contractor Burned Alive by Terrorists..

Thelionusfleabag: That's not true. There was a ceasefire and Saddam's Iraq agreed to it. And why the casual dismissal of the 16 broken resolutions? What are you saying? Is it against international law to enforce international law? Or is there some World Body that control US policy by overruling elected US representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives, i.e., Congress? Melanie: I'm so tired of the chickenhawk VS the liberal chickensh*ts argument.

The left plans "2000 deaths" parties.

Right on cue the San Francisco Chronicle opines: U.S. death toll in Iraq nears 2,000 / Some expect momentum to grow for withdrawal of U.S. troops. The liberal MSM is the enemy...

Maybe the Taliban will listen to the US, when they tell them to take care of the inevitable result of going toe-to-toe with US forces.

A classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)...

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF) ...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right? There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending. It's not a conservative principle. The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt. Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent. Compassionate Conservatism. Pfft.

Melanie: Warmongers? Enforcing a broken ceasefire and 16 broken Chapter VII (binding) UN reolutions is now defined as "warmongering"? To the far left, this is incompetence: In a mere two-and-a-half years, Iraq has went from being run by a sadistic massmurdering, American-hating dictator, to a free society voting in elections and writing constitutions--constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, speech and press. All while the dictator sits in jail and is now on trial and will be executed by the Iraqis. What did you think the end result would be? 12 of the 23 clauses in the Joint Authorization To Use Force Against Iraq (passed by Congress) talk about the broken ceasefire and broken UN resolutions. Therefore, their original pretext for the invasion still remains valid. I haven't seen any war supporters protesting in front of military hospitals with fake coffins draped in the American flag and taunting injured soldiers entering or exiting the military hospital. Disgusting! :angry: So he is an adult. Oh please. That's a lame argument. Hell, 80% of the military is Republicans.

Ralph Peters in the NY Post: American left and media sympathizers responsible for US combat losses Apparently, Ralph Peters disagrees with much of the left, and believes that freeing 25 million people and allowing them the opportunity of self-determination is one of the most noble things for which one can fight. Then Peters ends the oped with a bang: Just like the Al Qaeda letters said! They have to continue to use the liberal MSM to their advantage.

Apparently he has beaten his painkillers habit. Why do you think it is appropriate to mock him? It's so Howard Dean.

Same page also includes this quote..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> CommonDreams got that story from The Free Press. I went to their site--this is what it says on the entrance page: Speaking Truth to Power: Progressive news and commentary from the web and print journal. Bob Fitrakis (the author of the article you cited) has some other "interesting" articles on The Free Press home page: 1) Did Bush administration attack peace movement with military grade biological bacteria? by Bob Fitrakis 2) Why can't the left face the Stolen Elections of 2004 & 2008? by Bob Fitrakis And The Free Press tops off their home page with an oped from Molly Ivins. You're right. I think your source is weak.

Yep, he's a regular "love your enemies" kind of guy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess he feels there aren't enough people to love, 'cause he sure seems bent on making as many enemies as possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, the Lebanese, Afganis and Iraqis hate him.

He doesn't have a drug habit. That's a cheapshot on your part.

Government slugs ??? Your description tells us something about you. You'd call them "slugs" just because they had a good job.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point, he should've called them leeches instead since they feed off their taxpaying hosts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. They're grossly overcompensated for what they do in the LBS. They threw 1954 people out of a job, less variety and selection in govt-run stores. Typical greedy socialists leeching off the hard-working public.

Uh, you make it sound as if this mess was over. Well it's still a quagmire until the U.S. and other forces exit. And according to U.S. sources, that could be quite a while. So much for Bush's 2002 election promise of a clear and concise exit strategy should they ever go to war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Until US forces exit... So Germany, Japan, south Korea, and other countries that have US troops are quagmires? QuagmireMania is Runnin' Wild!

The Canadians fighting with the terrorists are not defending Canada--they are not "defending their own country". They are foreigners following Al Qaeda's call to go to Iraq. A lot of people who were born in Iraq will always think of it as home.... Similarly, if I were to move to England and get a dual citizenship, I would probably always consider Canada to be "home"....Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the US invasion. Some of them could very well be Iraqis who didn't like their country being invaded. Or how about letting Exxon and Haliburton pay for it... The war was executed by George Bush's administration for their past and future employers... Exxon and Haliburton.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1) The article says nothing about the Canadians being born in Iraq. Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the liberation began. 2) Perhaps Chretien can use some of that blood money he got from Saddam to pay for paralyzed terrorists who are trying to kill the people fighting for freedom and democracy. Or maybe Paul Martin can use that $1 million that Saddam invested in one PMPM's companies. The Canadian govt wanted Saddam to continue to thumb his nose at international law, at the broken ceasefire he signed, and to continue slaughtering his own people (1.5 million), for the simple reason is that the Canadian govt wanted more of Saddam's blood money. Chretien and Martin should be ashamed of themselves. They have embarrassed Canadians and now I have to put stickers of the American flag on my luggage when I travel abroad because I don't want people to think that I am a greedy moneymonger who despises moral values.

He likely "talks" to God--he's a born-again Christian, but he is definitely not on a "mission from God". It's just nonsense.

If the US shoots and paralyzes one of these Canadian terror supporters, will the Canadian taxpayer, again, be forced to pay for this terrorist's medical bills and therapy for the rest of his life? Let Osama pay his bills. I think that when someone is defending their own country, it is not correct to call them "terrorists". For instance, if the USA were to invade Canada (because of Carolyn Parrish, certainly not for our oil), and we fought back, would we be counted as terrorsits ????? PS. Osama didn't invade Iraq... The USA did.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Canadians fighting with the terrorists are not defending Canada--they are not "defending their own country". They are foreigners following Al Qaeda's call to go to Iraq. I do not want to pay for any more Canadian terrorists who are paralyzed by US gunfire. Let Osama pay the bills of Canadian terrorists.