Duckster, the law is the law. 51 days. the US Supreme Court isn’t in the mood to get involved in state affairs anymore after the 2k election.
Am I the only one who remembers 9-11 here? These people don’t believe in bargaining - it’s war out there, us vs them. They want us dead regardless of race, religion, political affiliation, age, sex, or whether we’re for or against war.
People can disagree all they want on the war on terrorism, but I’ll never understand why. When I see a bunch of peacenicks picketing in LA or Washington it baffles me…the sad thing is if Clinton was still in the White House the majority of them would support war to prevent future terrorist acts.
Tell them to stall for time. Make patriotic noises, introduce a bill to honor firemen, anything to slow it down. Because the people are waking up, the “war polls” are dropping. If it can be delayed until after the election, as it surely ought to, we will have a sensible, restrained approach to inspection and disarmament.
If Feckless Leader has his way, and his resolution, there will be war. Bet on it. Absent any other means, there will be an incident, an American destroyer cruising international sands of the Godforsaken Desert being maybe attacked by what very well might have been Iraqi PT camels. Or reliable evidence from Bulgarian intelligence that our missing airman is being tortured.
The little twit woke up on September 12th and discovered he was a Leader of Men. Elmer Fudd morphed into Winston Churchill.
If we do everything we can to stop him, God help us. If we do not, God forgive us.
You are correct, the law is the law. And in New Jersey, the NJ Supreme Court made their legal decision, interpreting the law as they did. You may, or may not like the decision, including the current political makep up of that Court, but as you said, the law is the law.
Just as the US Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.
As for your failure to understand why people will continue to protest against war, it is their right, just as it is your right to have a different opinion.
What was that phrase? So many months ago, drubbing my ears like a Chinese sound bite torture. I remember it was quite short, self-satisfied, but my memory isn’t what it used to be. At least, I dont think it is… Oh, wait! Now I remember!
Bob55, let’s get the facts straight.
[ul][li]All but one or two of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian.[/li][li]Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.[/li][li]Hussein’s behaviour has not changed appreciatively over the past year or two. In fact, at the moment he’s making more concessions than usual.[/li][li]Conducting a preemptive strike against Iraq is an action with little international support.[/li][li]I have heard little or nothing about what we’re going to do after Hussein is defeated.[/li][li]IMHO, starting this war will only make us less popular among the Islamic community, thus encouraging people to become terrorists. We don’t need yet another reason for people to hate America.[/li][li]Bush’s reasons for going to war have struck this American as slight at best.[/ul][/li]
We’re going after the wrong country for the wrong reasons being led by a man who avoided going to war and who appears to have no awareness of what things are like for ordinary people in this country. I’m far from a pacifist, but this is one war I’d rather we did not start.
WOW, you little twit, did you forget the Kuwait invasion? How about the fact that Saddam has disregarded every UN resolution he agreed to? Will you admit that he has used WMD’s on people in his own country? Will you admit that Saddam has killed his own family members to stay in power? If your answer to my questions is “Yes but…” then you are an idiot.
Also
Appareantly you don’t give a damn about US fighters lost in the first Iraq war. I only wish you were in their place.
Kind of funny that you’re supporting an OP braying about the supposed “trampling” of the constitution. Oh, you mean, just don’t trample the parts that you approve of? cough cough51 days cough cough Florida recount deadlines cough hack cough
Darn this cough. Jeez, Bob55, are you contagious or what?
As much as I despise Saddam and his rotten regime, I also gotta say that our decision to wage war on whoever the hell we like is going to bite us in the ass, mark my words. I’m also going to hate myself in the morning for defending Elucidator, but in this case, he has a point.
Saddam invaded Kuwait, and he had his army wiped out. He does not now have the strength to threatenhis neighbors.
As for ignoring UN resolutions, we’ve done that, Israel’s done it…BFD.
Using WMD on one’s own people? Hafez Assad of Syria also did the same thing, wiping out the city of Hamas in 1982, we didn;t declare war on him. Kim Jong Il is starving his own people, yet we don’t declare war on him. We didn’t even declare war on cannibal rulers like Idi Amin of Uganda or Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, (mind you, this was back in the 70s.) Being a murderous asshole may be cause for a nation’s people to rise up in rebellion, but it is not an excuse for an international war with potentially catastrophic consequences.
I don’t think it’s that Elucidator doesn’t care, but that he sees that the Bush regime is using this missing flier (who seems to have been forgotten by the government until recently) as a bloody shirt to angry up the troops.
If the Bush regime could show that a)Saddam is an immediate threat, or B)that he was directly implicated in 9/11, or C) that Saddma has engaged in direct aggresssion against his neighbors, THEN I’d say, “Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”
I don’t want to see US soldiers killed just to puff up Shrub’s desire to measure up to his daddy. War is a tool of politics and if you’re going to wield it, you 'd better do so with your goals in mind and a decent casus belli–Bush has provided neither. Give me a reason to go to war and and I’ll rally in support. So far, Bush hasn’t done so.
All of us “easy” guys have mornings like that. You’ll get over it. Usually, just in time to do it again. Funny how that works.
sleestak, you ignorant slut:
Well, that certainly poses the issue adroitly. Heads, you win, tails, I lose. Landing balanced on edge is a do-over. I don’t think you quite have the hang of this “debate” thing.
This statement is beneath contempt, but contempt is all I can offer it. It is more than it deserves, but I am generous. And I am comforted in that I have been slandered by a rabid little warmonger. Such honors are rare in this life, and not to be turned aside lightly.
Something that Bob55 has is contagious. It appears you’ve caught disease of making assumptions about people’s opinions on subjects that are entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. Just because I agree with the OP that we ought to write our Congresspeople to urge them to vote against the resolutions does not mean I agree with every word in the OP. And you’d have to be a loon to think it means that I hold a certain opinion on the New Jersey Senate race.
By the way, why have so many people jumped on the phrase in the OP about trampling the Constitution? It’s not at all clear what that phrase referred to. I assumed it had something to do with Congress having the power to declare war.
Your instant reaction should be to oppose an invasion, and that opinion should only be changed if you are provided with very strong reasons why there is no other way to deal with the problem. Causing death and suffering of innocent people is enough of a reason to oppose a war; the burden of proof is on the warmongers to show a compeling reason why violent means are necessary. Only a sick, violent person’s first reaction to the suggestion of waging war would be “Sure, go for it!”
Well, your views regarding to what degree the Constitution should be preserved is, shall we say, rather flexible? After all, you seem to imply that the Congress’s war making power should be defended tooth and nail, but rather more inconvenient parts of the Constitution such as the prerogatives of the states should be thrown out. So you defend the parts of the law that suit your preferences and trash the ones that don’t–and that, cough cough, fits the same pattern laid down by recent Democratic behavior in Florida and New Jersey.
Since people like to break my posts up point by point, I’ll make it easier for you:
I wholeheartedly believe in “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll die for your right to say it”. If you disagree with this war, fine. If you hate the President, fine. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of it, to see WHY people are against this war, why protestors can’t see the big picture, why people don’t understand that Iraq has broken EVERY UN sanction, why people can’t foresee a bomb in downtown Manhattan…and all the evidence points to political reasons (don’t want Republicans to regain the Senate, don’t like the President, protest just to protest like good little “enlightened” college-age liberals do) rather than people actually caring about the safety of our nation.
Any more questions for me can be answered by sleestak’s post:
WOW, you little twit, did you forget the Kuwait invasion? How about the fact that Saddam has disregarded every UN resolution he agreed to? Will you admit that he has used WMD’s on people in his own country? Will you admit that Saddam has killed his own family members to stay in power? If your answer to my questions is “Yes but…” then you are an idiot. Appareantly you don’t give a damn about US fighters lost in the first Iraq war. I only wish you were in their place.
I do think the Constitution has some flaws, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. I never mention the Constitution as a reason for my opposition to attacking Iraq. Stop pretending I said things that I did not. Apparently, your logic goes: I am against attacking Iraq, therefore I am a Democrat; all Democrats support the NJ Supreme Court decision, therefore I support the NJ Supreme Court decision. :rolleyes:
By the way, the only Constitutional issue I see is that an attack on Iraq would violate the UN Charter, which the U.S. is a party to, which is therefore the “supreme law of the land” according to the Constitution.
