!

both the congress and senate passed resolutions allowing the current and former president bush to use military force against saddam's regime. while this falls short of the congress actually declaring war, the authority to use force was approved and placed in the hands of the president. the only other relevant organization that didn't "approve" the war with iraq was the UN. however, considering the corruption in the international community with respect to iraq, i think the americans made the right move ousting saddam without asking the UN for a permission slip.

you don't need a tank to take over paris sinner.

It's good to have at least one, me thinks.... :ND:


WAR NEWS

Re: bah you guys are full of carp..
 

Jesus, what is your problem you child? Why bring me into your little gay fest? Who is this "we" you speak of? Are you the mouth piece for the liberal left on this board? Say it ain't so, you will make it to darn easy for us. What is annoying is a post using words like dumb canadian......fucking......you suck.....cock......fuck.....pricks......dweebs.......asshole .......etc......wow sure makes you look smart using such words.

Do yourself a favor and stay out of this forum, keep to the underground.

thank you for your maturity in debating points you don't agree with gutrguy. you didn't resort to name-calling or insults. for that, your score is a+.


first intelligent thing i've seen you post. nader has no chance. the only good purpose he'll serve is to take away votes from kerry.

thanks...i like a good debate as opposed to a flamefest / insult thread.

That was a good show Gutrguy, if you'd like to have a go at the rest of that little document or just get the real flavor of some of its more questionable horn tooting which scoob left out, you can find it in it's entirety here.

edit: Oops, I forgot to post this. (It's late and all and I forgot I was in the wartime thread, all the political threads kind of look the same.)

Technically, no war is new. It's all a continuation...

The history of wartime presidents is a mixed bag but it seems the more unpopular the war, the less chance of reelection. True, the war with Iraq was quite popular for about the ten minutes it took to write 153 country songs about it, but I think most people have matured into an ambivalence about it if not a realization that we went in over heads on several levels. One thing is pretty much for certain, even though deposing Hussein was super peachy, most intelligent supporters of the war now know they were talking out of their asses pretending it was a magic bullet to "fix" Iraq (or protect anyone but Iraq and its immediate neighbors from terrorism--which is at best still an untested statement at this point), and if Georgey Porgey is reelected, four more years will never probably see this goal. They keep officially pushing back the time for the proposed elections in Iraq, but it's my opinion that either they know better and aren't admitting it or they're in abject denial. (Its got to be a grim situation for a president when you've said you want to give power to the people but the people hate you and aren't as easily led around by the nose as the average American.)

So far we've only served to destabilize the situation. I get tired of listening to Americans argue about whether this is good or bad, it's like arguing about the score of the dice before they've come to rest. We wanted to play doctor, but so far all we've done is pick a few scabs. The patient itself still complains more than ever. And its "contagious diseases" are not one iota closer to being contained.

I'm an optimist, I like to think it's obvious to just about everyone except for about five rabid guys on this board that US foriegn policy is about freeing markets, not people. This may well be an unavoidbale and omnipresent aspect of americanism but what has made the Bush administration particularly intolerable has been their dishonesty about it--and that this dishonesty has been so infuriatingly effective.

While all Kerry's (and all other contenders) talk-talk about the war (or whatever you'd like to call the situation we are creating) is pretty much indecipherable campaign claptrap at this point, I think the word "occupation" still looms large with many Iraqis and I think a new administration would be capable of making more appropriate gestures--to Iraqis as well as the world at large.

lol, too true. Sometimes I think if we gave Hussein a bath and a haircut, a good Christianized, hardass, liberal-bashing-masquerading-as-conservatism-spiel and ran him on the republican ticket a lot of them would probably go for it.

why not insult you morons..you can dish it out but you cant take it ..eh?

i dont start until one of you self righteous pricks do..


the we i speak of are people like me that have heard enough of this holier than thou patheticness that you crew of repetitive conservatives like to impose on everyone..

go on keep moaning you are looking good...
(dont forget to make me the one that is whinging..tho..rofl)

lol that's funny considering the liberal leftists are the ones crying that he's no longer in power.

Your seemingly magical ability to hear what you imagine people are saying instead of what people are saying is old and transparent. Get a new trick.

i posted the defense & foreign policy section because the subject at hand was bush's ability as a war-time president. i'm glad that you posted his entire record of successes though, and i hope you actually read the whole thing. it's something that's not reported by the media.

but, why ask gutrguy to have a go at (in your opinion, bush's horn-tooting)? as a person who excels in tooting your own horn, you should be chomping at the bit to do it yourself.

then again, we could leave him looking exactly as he does, give him an "i hate bush" sign, run him on the democratic ticket, and most of them would go for it.

Same thing happened in 2000, A lot of dem changed camp and voted for Nader, in fact Nader had a record of votes that year thus leading to the downfall of Al Gore, if it wasn't for Nader, You'd have Gore as president and not that simian looking puppet.

News flash

Canada recently voted no on Bush Missile Defense System :BL:

clear examples why democracy really doent work...
its just an extenstion of the feudal system..where only the rich have power..

one day some future generations will look back from their close to uninhabitable planet and say...wtf was the point in voting at all...

at least this kerry has some comment on the abysmal way the current government handles things to with the envionment...somehow i doubt he wil be that much more effective..but you can always hope..

:J:

this ought to excite all you kerry lovers....but it should show you how dangerous he really is. :uu:


Kerry would abandon terror war


By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

"The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

more....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=37371

he won't be effective at all. the guy is a creep and a liar. during the 2000 election campaign at least with bush you knew where he stood. kerry keeps changing his stories and policies all the time.

where he stood? he's been lying since the campaign. hell, bush's been lying at least as far back as the 70's.

- js.

a lying politiician!!?! no way!!

i know, i know lol. it kills me too.

- js.