VICTORY in Iraq now in sight

[Canadian Blue]

gee, I try to avoid repeating the obvious and previous headline news

Thank's for the link to a radical leftist peace site. Not really an unbiased source.

To some people the "obvious" isn't really obvious to rational and logical people for a reason.

But this is old news, everybody who reads the papers should know this already -- so, the ignorance you guys display is from not reading the paper? or dedication to ignorance? or blindness to anything not spoon fed you by your fascist propagandists?

So they didn't target civilian's they were targeting insurgents, then this doesn't prove anything since it shows that their are two sides to the story.

It's not really ignorance, since we don't know the full story. The ignorant thing is coming to a conclusion without knowing the full story.

Fascist propaganists, honestly, CNN, BBC, CTV, Time, Macleans, Harpers, etc. are all fascist propagandist's. Get real.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ro...e_of_bush_s.htm

You technically gave us a propaganda link, as well it was an opinion piece so it obviously is biased. I went to the homepage and saw a picture of Hitler, however with the face of Bush. So perhap's that is why we do not see the "obvious".

[Guthrie]

indiscriminate use, means they didn't specifically target anyone, they just attacked anything that moved, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention

I would expect someone discussing such issues, in supposed earnestness, to know this - are you going to whine and cry until I provide chapter and verse?

[Canadian Blue]

indiscriminate use, means they didn't specifically target anyone, they just attacked anything that moved, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention

I never read that in the following link.

http://dtirp.dtra.mil/tic/WTR/wtr_17nov05.pdf

I would expect someone discussing such issues, in supposed earnestness, to know this - are you going to whine and cry until I provide chapter and verse?

No, the reason why I ask for link's is so I can look at what the person is referencing. This is so as to ensure they are not distorting the truth. As I can now see the comment's made earlier about Fallujah did not show the entire story, and once again their is more to it than a simple two sentence response.

I tend to try and back up what I say.

You have to provide chapter and verse, because if we don't know what your referencing, how are we going to debate the issue and find out whether you're telling the truth.

[blackascoal]

The problem I have with the right-wing is that they seem to possess no analytical or interpretive skills whatsoever. They need everything spelled out to them .. and even when it is clearly spelled out, they still don't get it.

How much more spelling out is required for them to figure out that Saddam was not involved in 9/11, did not possess WMD, had no real relationship to Al Queda, posed no threat to America or the world, and had no capability of producing "mushroom clouds" in 45 minutes or 45 months?

How much more spelling out is required for the right to figure out that Bin Laden or revenge for 9/11 was NEVER the priority? Of course, many of them will ask to see official documents for that .. as if they'd get it even then .. but few of them seem to have the capability to discern the obvious.

It appears that it never crosses their "minds" to ask why the most sophisticated military and intelligence apparatus on the planet cannot find a 6'7" guy in a stone-age land of 5'8" people ..

Or why the Bush Administration defunded and called off the search for the most wanted man on earth ..

Or why the Idiot-in-Chief would say "I don't think about Bin Laden that much", the man who supposedly masterminded the worst attack on US soil in history ...

Or why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq and 25,000 in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and revenge for 9/11 were NEVER the priority and victory is not premised on either one.

It seems as though the right believes that interpretive skills are anti-american .. and Cheney recently said as much.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem I have with the right-wing is that they seem to possess no analytical or interpretive skills whatsoever. They need everything spelled out to them .. and even when it is clearly spelled out, they still don't get it.

How much more spelling out is required for them to figure out that Saddam was not involved in 9/11, did not possess WMD, had no real relationship to Al Queda, posed no threat to America or the world, and had no capability of producing "mushroom clouds" in 45 minutes or 45 months?...

Doesn't matter....it was the stated policy (Public Law) of the United States to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein, long before 9/11 ever happened. How much more spelling out is required?

[blackascoal]

The problem I have with the right-wing is that they seem to possess no analytical or interpretive skills whatsoever. They need everything spelled out to them .. and even when it is clearly spelled out, they still don't get it.

How much more spelling out is required for them to figure out that Saddam was not involved in 9/11, did not possess WMD, had no real relationship to Al Queda, posed no threat to America or the world, and had no capability of producing "mushroom clouds" in 45 minutes or 45 months?...

Doesn't matter....it was the stated policy (Public Law) of the United States to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein, long before 9/11 ever happened. How much more spelling out is required?

Is that supposed to pass as "rationale" or intelligence.

What "public law" of the US was there to overthrow Saddam?

What in the hell is "public law? .. Aren't all laws public?

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that supposed to pass as "rationale" or intelligence.

What "public law" of the US was there to overthrow Saddam?

What in the hell is "public law? .. Aren't all laws public?

That would be the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338, 105th Congress). That's what the hell is a public law, the same one used by President Clinton to bomb and kill Iraqis at 100 sites in Operation Desert Fox (Dec 1998), ostensibly to destroy WMD, but also to decapitate Saddam's regime. All this despite language excluding direct military force in the law.

To wit:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to

remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to

promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

At the time, George W. Bush was still the governor of Texas, and not responsible for US foreign policy.

But that would soon change....

President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002)

[scribblet]

That would be the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338, 105th Congress). That's what the hell is a public law, the same one used by President Clinton to bomb and kill Iraqis at 100 sites in Operation Desert Fox (Dec 1998), ostensibly to destroy WMD, but also to decapitate Saddam's regime. All this despite language excluding direct military force in the law.

To wit:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to

remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to

promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

At the time, George W. Bush was still the governor of Texas, and not responsible for US foreign policy.

Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of that, but then, I'm not an American. It sure passes as intelligent rationale.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of that, but then, I'm not an American. It sure passes as intelligent rationale.

Here is the actual language of the law:

http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/IR/docs/IraqLib.htm

It is not debatable that the law excluded direct military force (ignored by President Clinton with Desert Fox and continued No-Fly zones)

What is important is that the official US policy for regime change in Iraq existed long before 9/11 or President George W. Bush.

[Guthrie]

...

What is important is that the official US policy for regime change in Iraq existed long before 9/11 or President George W. Bush.

More importantly, US policy on invading sovereign nations existed long before Bush violated that policy.

beyond that is the usurpation of power by illegal means - in lying to Congress to invade Iraq, Bush violated the Constitution of the United States of America

Article I, section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

his actions are not just a violation of his oath of office but constitute treason

[PolyNewbie]

That would be the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338, 105th Congress). That's what the hell is a public law, the same one used by President Clinton to bomb and kill Iraqis at 100 sites in Operation Desert Fox (Dec 1998), ostensibly to destroy WMD, but also to decapitate Saddam's regime. All this despite language excluding direct military force in the law.

To wit:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to

remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to

promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

At the time, George W. Bush was still the governor of Texas, and not responsible for US foreign policy.

The banks and defence corporations decide what foreign policy is. The president is just along for the ride.

[sharkman]

Hey Poly, why don't you tell us about a conspiracy theory in Disneyland. I just know that Mickey is up to no good.

[Guthrie]

Hey Poly, why don't you tell us about a conspiracy theory in Disneyland. I just know that Mickey is up to no good.

Do you mean a, 'conspiracy theory in Disneyland,' or a, 'conspiracy theory about Disneyland?

[Canadian Blue]

No he probably mean's a conspiracy taking place in Disney.

Don't you think Mickey Mouse is linked with the Rockefellers, and all the major banks.

It's a proven fact.

[Guthrie]

"in Disney?" -- do you mean inside the corpse of Walt or in the body of one of his descendants? or, exactly where is this, 'Disney,' which contains conspiracies?

[blackascoal]

Nowhere in the reading of the Iraq Liberation Act are the words "overthrow" of "invade" to be found. If the law required the US to overthrow or invade Iraq, why was the fraud of WMD that didn't exist used as a pretext?

Additionally ...

"This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers."

A long ass way from invasion.

"U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time."

Which clearly demonstrates that this policy was intended to change Iraq from within, not by invasion as suggested by Bush_Cheney.

This act was offered as some kind of "rationale" for these questions ...

How much more spelling out is required for them (the right-wing) to figure out that Saddam was not involved in 9/11, did not possess WMD, had no real relationship to Al Queda, posed no threat to America or the world, and had no capability of producing "mushroom clouds" in 45 minutes or 45 months?...

It appears that it never crosses their "minds" to ask why the most sophisticated military and intelligence apparatus on the planet cannot find a 6'7" guy in a stone-age land of 5'8" people ..

Or why the Bush Administration defunded and called off the search for the most wanted man on earth ..

Or why the Idiot-in-Chief would say "I don't think about Bin Laden that much", the man who supposedly masterminded the worst attack on US soil in history ...

Or why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq and 25,000 in Afghanistan.

The Iraq Liberation Act does not address any of those questions at all by any stretch of the imagination.

My point remains .. Bin Laden and justice for 9/11 was NEVER the priority .. in fact, this administration allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora in 2001 and by 2002 Bush barely mentioned him for the next 4 years.

As proved once again, the right-wing doesn't seem to possess much of any analytical or interpretive skills. Take a stab at the actual questions I actually asked.

Neat strawman though ...

[bush_cheney2004]

More importantly, US policy on invading sovereign nations existed long before Bush violated that policy.

beyond that is the usurpation of power by illegal means - in lying to Congress to invade Iraq, Bush violated the Constitution of the United States of America

Nonsense....the policy of the United States is more aptly represented by the Vietnem War (Cambodia / Laos), Haiti, Grenada, Honduras, and Panama (or any of dozens of such "invasions" over the past 100 years). The War Powers Act specifically recognizes the president's constitutional power even as it imposes limits.

his actions are not just a violation of his oath of office but constitute treason

Don't think so...perhaps treason in Canada is defined differently? We booted your kings and queens in the ass long ago....now that is what I call TREASON!

[bush_cheney2004]

Which clearly demonstrates that this policy was intended to change Iraq from within, not by invasion as suggested by Bush_Cheney.

This act was offered as some kind of "rationale" for these questions ...

Poppycock...I explicitly stated that the Iraq Liberation Act excluded military action, but that did not deter President Clinton (Desert Fox), nor did it deter special forces operations with the Kurds, or no-fly zone combat sorties. George W. Bush didn't start the Iraq War, but he may damn well finish it.

[Canadian Blue]

"in Disney?" -- do you mean inside the corpse of Walt or in the body of one of his descendants? or, exactly where is this, 'Disney,' which contains conspiracies?

Orlando, and Anaheim.

As proved once again, the right-wing doesn't seem to possess much of any analytical or interpretive skills. Take a stab at the actual questions I actually asked.

Were do you put yourself on the spectrum, are you with Lyndon Larouche?

[Catchme]

Guthrie, you also forgot to mention that finding Osama Bin Laden, should have been even easier as he requires constant kidney dialysis, and I am sure no cave has the set up he needs.

Now, we find today that Bush is actually acting as a dictator:

WASHINGTON -- Members of the House and Senate are preparing nonbinding resolutions opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops to Iraq, but President George W. Bush said it won't stop him from going ahead with it.

In an interview Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Bush said he understands that Congress could try to stop him. But he said, "I've made my decision."

Sen. Barack Obama, though, said it's a bad one. Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," the Illinois Democrat said it would be a mistake for the U.S. to try to impose a military solution to what he said has become a civil war. He said the best U.S. strategy for Iraq is a surge in diplomacy, not troops

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/10746768/detail.html

In other news John Edwards is making moves against this dictatorship move.

George Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq is wrong for Iraq and wrong for America.

That's why Senator John Edwards is calling on Congress to block funding for Bush's escalation of the war.

Please join me and thousands of others in demanding that Congress take action now to block Bush's plan:

http://johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/nofunding/

Your action can make a critical difference in how Congress responds to George Bush.

[bush_cheney2004]

Congress cannot easily "block" Bush's surge plan....that would be unconstitutional. LOL!

[Canadian Blue]

Now, we find today that Bush is actually acting as a dictator:

That's not considered a dictatorship, and to say so is an insult to people that are actually living under a dictatorship.

The funny thing is that their are tonnes of policies which Bush has implement both foriegn and domestic which should be questioned, however all we get on here is rhetoric. I wonder if people have ever done their homework.

[Guthrie]

Congress cannot easily "block" Bush's surge plan....that would be unconstitutional. LOL!

your claim is true, Congress cannot easily block Bush --- because of that fact, more lives will be wasted - will you offer that, 'LOL!' to the families of those soldiers who died in the name of Bush's Folly? Is it funny that they should die because of the lies told by the Buschistas and the incompetence of those who remained on board in the Buschista war machine when general after general quit rather than put Americans into a meat grinder??

you guys who laugh at Iraq are despicable

[bush_cheney2004]

your claim is true, Congress cannot easily block Bush --- because of that fact, more lives will be wasted - will you offer that, 'LOL!' to the families of those soldiers who died in the name of Bush's Folly? Is it funny that they should die because of the lies told by the Buschistas and the incompetence of those who remained on board in the Buschista war machine when general after general quit rather than put Americans into a meat grinder??

you guys who laugh at Iraq are despicable

Yes, but you must realize....I am not laughing at Iraq...I am laughing at your posts! Turn off your own "meatgrinder" in Afghanistan if you wish to dry those croc tears. Krikey!

[Guthrie]

your claim is true, Congress cannot easily block Bush --- because of that fact, more lives will be wasted - will you offer that, 'LOL!' to the families of those soldiers who died in the name of Bush's Folly? Is it funny that they should die because of the lies told by the Buschistas and the incompetence of those who remained on board in the Buschista war machine when general after general quit rather than put Americans into a meat grinder??

you guys who laugh at Iraq are despicable

Yes, but you must realize....I am not laughing at Iraq...I am laughing at your posts! Turn off your own "meatgrinder" in Afghanistan if you wish to dry those croc tears. Krikey!

what kind of pathetic jerk is going to lay Afghanistan on someone without knowing that someone's position

None of this is a joke, except to those people MLK referred to as the sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid.