We should not attack Iraq

[Yanny]

However, even before WWI, the Canadians and Americans were important trade partners.

[Guest]

@Mr:

F_alk, its all good.

…

Nice quote you brought up there, especially the first part reflects my criticism on the US nicely.

For the not working links… sorry for that, looks like that news have been take out of the archive there.

[GeZe]

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

[yourbuttocks]

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

[DeviantScripter]

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

(Laughing my ass off) :lol: :lol:

[Guest]

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

[DeviantScripter]

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

[GeZe]

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

they had when I posted this

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

[dIfrenT]

George W. B. is more of a responder. Consider it on a way WAY smaller scale.

You have a family. There’s an arsonist wreaking havock two states away. Are you concerned? Not really. Sure you feel sorry for those who it’s happening to, and you might want to do something for them. The arsonist torches your home. Suddenly it’s personal and you need to react.

That’s where I see George W. B. The time for diplomacy is nearly gone. The true antagonists are not responding. They need to know that we’re not going to be played with. The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

As for Al Gore. That would need a completely different topic. He doesn’t disgust me as much as Clinton did (and still does for that matter), but he’s not too far behind.

[DeviantScripter]

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

I would choose unprovoked and unjust. It was a complete back-track for their cause. There’s other ways to get your point across… :evil:

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

[Yanny]

I dont know, but if I was a terrorist leader, I’d want Bush in office. His worthless attacks would give me more ammunition to gather support.

On the other hand, Clinton doing nothing, well that works to decrease popular support to terrorists.

Al Gore, the major difference between him and Bush is Gore has a brain. Their both just slimy politicians.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

a couple of months can be enough time to light any fire…

The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

I would choose unprovoked and unjust. It was a complete back-track for their cause. There’s other ways to get your point across… :evil:

unjust… yes
unprovoked?? no
but you are right with your later sentences

[cystic crypt]

once again i’m agreeing w/ F_alk.
Wow, this may be a trend as long as we do not discuss religion.

[yourbuttocks]

@GeZe:

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

they had when I posted this

Except no.

They said they were studying it, and considering their response.

All the Arab states said that they were sure Sadam would accept it

[yourbuttocks]

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

Just like most of the corporate scandals happened under Clinton’s watch,
and as many Democrats were involved as Republicans, Bush is blamed by the Media (and Leftists). However, when you take poll you find the people blame Clinton a lot more than bush.

Much of the foundation for the terrorist attacks was layed by Clinton. For example, not taking Osama when Sudan offered him.

Besides, the only ass Clinton could get on is one of his interns.

[DeviantScripter]

@Yanny:

On the other hand, Clinton doing nothing, well that works to decrease popular support to terrorists.

…? That’s about as tough as Democrats get on terrorism… :roll:

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

@1.) Actually, NUMEROUS terrorist acts occured under Clinton’s watch, and many Americans died becuase of it. They didn’t get a lot of attention since the Clinton administration didn’t feel that terrorism was an important enough issue. With Clinton, the motto seemed to be more like “…just get throught the term…”, than acting with any actual real presidential duties.

Remember: the official title of the President is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His official (and most important!) duties are to protect the safety of Americans and this country. Gay’s in the military SHOULD NOT have been at the top of his list of priorities! :roll:

@2.) Lobbing some cruise missiles is not combating terrorism. The biggest thing he hit was an Aspirin (sp?) factory.

Out of all three presidential candidates running at the time, how can you honestly say that Bush is not the best one to fight terrorism? The proof is completely stacked against you.

I will never trust the safety of this country to the hands of a liberal.

Except no.
They said they were studying it, and considering their response.
All the Arab states said that they were sure Sadam would accept it

You’re right.

a couple of months can be enough time to light any fire…

Hmm…
8 years…
or…
a couple months…

…which president do you think had more impact leading up the events of 9/11?

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

@Yanny:

On the other hand, Clinton doing nothing, well that works to decrease popular support to terrorists.

…? That’s about as tough as Democrats get on terrorism… :roll:

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

@1.) Actually, NUMEROUS terrorist acts occured under Clinton’s watch, and many Americans died becuase of it. They didn’t get a lot of attention since the Clinton administration didn’t feel that terrorism was an important enough issue. With Clinton, the motto seemed to be more like “…just get throught the term…”, than acting with any actual real presidential duties.

Remember: the official title of the President is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His official (and most important!) duties are to protect the safety of Americans and this country. Gay’s in the military SHOULD NOT have been at the top of his list of priorities! :roll:

@2.) Lobbing some cruise missiles is not combating terrorism. The biggest thing he hit was an Aspirin (sp?) factory.

Out of all three presidential candidates running at the time, how can you honestly say that Bush is not the best one to fight terrorism? The proof is completely stacked against you.

I will never trust the safety of this country to the hands of a liberal.

ironically enough, a liberal government should in theory do fewer stupid things to piss off other nations and go war-mongering about, pissing everyone else off, thereby less likely to require increased safety in the country. Like if i’m at the park, am i going to want to pick on the kid minding his own business, playing quietly with his sister, or am i going to want to pick on the one that’s tearing up all hell, poking at me with a stick, abusing his sister and the other kids? (am i the only non-American who sees it like this?)
Then again, i’m of the school that “the American president is far too important a position to be decided on by Americans”.

[DeviantScripter]

ironically enough, a liberal government should in theory do fewer stupid things to piss off other nations and go war-mongering about, pissing everyone else off, thereby less likely to require increased safety in the country. Like if i’m at the park, am i going to want to pick on the kid minding his own business, playing quietly with his sister, or am i going to want to pick on the one that’s tearing up all hell, poking at me with a stick, abusing his sister and the other kids? (am i the only non-American who sees it like this?)
Then again, i’m of the school that “the American president is far too important a position to be decided on by Americans”.

First of all, we can do little to piss off terrorists or we can do a lot to piss off terrorists. It makes little difference. They are mad at our way of life. They are mad at the amneties that we have. They are mad at the opportunities that we are provided. Unless you’re going to change the entire American way of life, you’re NEVER going to stop the hatred of our country.
The middle eastern countries that breed the most terrorism are a lot more screwed up than simply “blaming” the United States for thier troubles. Why are children being brought and taught to hate Americans in their schools? Why are teenagers being armed with weapons in the streets to fight each other? These people need to take responsibility for themselves, and change their problems from within. It’s simply too easy to blame the United States for their hatred of us.

Well, I’d take exception to your “situation” that you put forth. Would you seriously pick on the kid in the park with the weapon, knowing full well that he will retaliate with that weapon?

There’s more than just waging war that demonstrates whether you’re serious about national security. For example, it was the liberals who demanded a nuclear “freeze” during the Cold War. They thought that if we just stopped arming ourself, and trusted that Russia wouldn’t attack, then we’d come out alive. Hmmm… :roll: