Flashermac Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Them Dems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 The line Hillary is taking on that is 'we gave him authority to invade but we didn't expect him to do it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreigner Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 the actual vote was not to invade: >> to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ >> there were no weapons the inspectors were not allowed to inspect intel re weapons was fabricated the dims were tricked (all of us) & perhaps 1,000,000 will be dead because of amoral special interest un american neocons (most top ranking neocons are hardest core zionist = feith, pearle,wofawitz, cheney, abrams) feith (who is in the news lately for being the source of 99% of the bad intel) actually represents lukid in the us .. his partner zell mans the tel aviv office. be proud of your neocon stance & advanced intellectual development. you are obviously a fair man obviously an honest man obviously a man who supports truth & ariel sharon is obviously a man of peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 The line Hillary is taking on that is 'we gave him authority to invade but we didn't expect him to do it'. 555555555555555555555555 Actually,I tend to think that most members of the U.S. Congress voted to authorize invasion based upon faulty information. The resulting situation spiraled out of control to an extent few probably expected...turning the whole country into chaos. In VN, there was basically ONE entity that the U.S. could sit down and talk with. In Iraq, there are many different groups and they have no intention of trying to work things out diplomatically. Since the U.S./coalition was ultimately responsible for this "fire, I believe it has an obligation to do everything it can to put it out. To "cut and run" without doing everything it can to get things right, would not be right. The civilians in the cross-fire of opposing gangs deserve our best effort and if it takes a new approach and getting the Iraqi's to assume a more assertive and forceful role, I say we have to give it a try. Then, if the Iraqi's don't have the interest in saving their country from those who would be intent on destroying it, I'd ask why should we? (Of course, the answer to that would open up an entirely new discussion.) This resolution opposing the increase of troop numbers is all political posturing. It seems to me that the Demoncrat leadership wants it both ways: if the latest initiative works, they don't want to be on record as opposing the war entirely...otherwise, they'd be voting for cutting off funding. (BTW, if I had my way, political parties in the U.S. would be outlawed...banished. They only exist to taunt and obstruct any initiative the other proposes. They take the "opposition" label to the extreme meaning of the term; "obstructionist" would be a more suitable term. I find it totally unbelieveable that, without parties, there would not be more effective and efficient government.) HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 the actual vote was not to invade:>> to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ >> there were no weapons the inspectors were not allowed to inspect intel re weapons was fabricated Saddam was being asked/told to prove a negative. You can never prove you don't have something. It's a logical impossibility. An old trick, and no way Congress was going to stick up for him anyway. I'm still waiting to see how they get the attack on Iran going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm still waiting to see how they get the attack on Iran going. Who is "they"? That's the problem with some of you guys...just sit around and "wait". Fuck all...for once, just once, lead the charge ! Just kidding above. But if there is any "attack", I see a good chance of it coming from inside in one form or another against the current regime. Lots of unhappy Iranians, if u believe what the news says. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm still waiting to see how they get the attack on Iran going. But if there is any "attack"' date=' I see it coming from inside against the current regime. Lots of unhappy Iranians, if u believe what the news says. HH [/quote'] Time they wuz liberated with a few tactical nukes I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Well, we could have the Ruskies build em some Chernobyl-style nuclear plants :grin: HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2007/02/06/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Oliphant! Great cartoonist ... an Ozzie who went to the States to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.