100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: THE PEOPLE Versus GEORGE WALKER BUSH | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You know, as well as I do, the reason we went the direction we did with N.Korea is because they don't have billions in oil.
Dont forget China wouldnt let us! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yea, don't get me started on China. The way this Administration has mortgaged the future of the Nation to sustain the Empire, My great grandkids might have a piece of this pie to pay off.
It's just fiscally irresponsible. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jistme
on
Sun 04/13/08 07:18 PM
|
|
Perhaps I have stepped on your toes at some point, oh, well! Nope.. Just have observed you and how you react to people of a different thought process then yours. You have not bothered me in the slightest. u are sooooooooooooo wrong about me. You do not even know me. If I had a dime for every time I've read that from someone who is speaking from a place of insecurity. Who frequently assumes and makes claims about others as a debating method... I remember once calling that the 'I'm a victim Mantra' I take it you are not a Christian, that is fine. From a PTL fear mongering, hypocritical, money hoarding, self serving kind of way? Nope.. I am a different sort of Christian. I do not attack anyone. ......person should just shut up. Sorry, will never happen.  Nope.. I know I can't shut you up.. Any more then MM can shut up.. wether it is my will or not. I know that everything you do.. You do with a valid reason.. Everything someone does that does not agree with you..is insane, false or spoken by someone with no education... as you voice so eloquently, so frequently. I do not put on a pretentious facade, Again.. If you say so...There is nothing wrong with my behavior, other than I am not a puppet on a string and hide in the corner for fear someone might not like my opinion and position. See above.. I've already addressed this dynamic. You lack tolerance in how you communicate in these threads. That is all I'm trying to say.. and I will leave you be now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sun 04/13/08 07:24 PM
|
|
Dancing with Dubya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  We could go international!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
back to topic... wasent comerade clinton impeached? and didnt he refuse to leave office? i dont think that lil bush has done anything that warrants a trial, ect. His decisions were made based on information made available to him. theres no conspiracy here, no evil intent in my opinion. there was a long history of no cooperation, using these very weapons on his own people, ect ect. I wouldent have started this war but to play this blame game accomplishes nothing. i say finish the job we started for the first time since WW2 the big one.... but thats only my opinion. There are two steps to impeachment one is the determination of wrongdoing, in this case lying, and the second step of removal from office. Clinton was impeached by first part of process but was not removed by a lack of votes to do so. JFYI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraq's military was the fourth largest in the world? No naval capabilities to defend its water facing shore? No Air force? We could have sent the bloods and the crips into Iraq and had the same results we've got now. As far as the made in the USA label goes, we know that he was given a ton of american weapons in the 80's to go after Iran, so that doesn't even make my eyebrows twitch. You know, as well as I do, the reason we went the direction we did with N.Korea is because they don't have billions in oil. How is the media hopelessly liberal? They are owned by people who are benefitting from the constant build and rebuild system known as the Military Industrial Complex. Do you really think GE gives a crap about conservative or liberal? True |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Mon 04/14/08 08:31 AM
|
|
Iraq's military was the fourth largest in the world? No naval capabilities to defend its water facing shore? No Air force? We could have sent the bloods and the crips into Iraq and had the same results we've got now. As far as the made in the USA label goes, we know that he was given a ton of american weapons in the 80's to go after Iran, so that doesn't even make my eyebrows twitch. You know, as well as I do, the reason we went the direction we did with N.Korea is because they don't have billions in oil. How is the media hopelessly liberal? They are owned by people who are benefitting from the constant build and rebuild system known as the Military Industrial Complex. Do you really think GE gives a crap about conservative or liberal? dunnow or care what GE thinks but its common knowledge that the media is hopelessly liberal and therefore is not an accurate source for information. About the only thing we can do for factual first hand info is to quiz the returning vets, and what they are saying doesent mesh at all with what we hear on the news. There are lotsa reasons why we dont stomp on Korea, the main one one is that China is sitting on thier north border and thats a hornets nest best left alone. Also, you are right, there isnt anything there thats worth protecting. Another issue is that by going toe to toe with N Korea, we are in fact empowering thier leader, who is quite ego- oriented, and giving him a platform with which to spout his bull. If you ignore the bully he will go back home. HE IS A BIG DANGER.... to his neighbors, none of which are friends of the USA. So what if he wipes them out? Iraqs military was in fact the fourth largest military. Your own precious liberal/ communist media said so, among other sources. mostly soviet systems but others as well. They had a modern air force and a small navy, but mostly ground troops. Please do your homework before spouting liberal dogma. YOU ARE TRYING CONNECTING DOTS THAT ARE NOT THERE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
back to topic... wasent comerade clinton impeached? and didnt he refuse to leave office? i dont think that lil bush has done anything that warrants a trial, ect. His decisions were made based on information made available to him. theres no conspiracy here, no evil intent in my opinion. there was a long history of no cooperation, using these very weapons on his own people, ect ect. I wouldent have started this war but to play this blame game accomplishes nothing. i say finish the job we started for the first time since WW2 the big one.... but thats only my opinion. There are two steps to impeachment one is the determination of wrongdoing, in this case lying, and the second step of removal from office. Clinton was impeached by first part of process but was not removed by a lack of votes to do so. JFYI BUT, Clinton has been disbarred from practicing law in his home state of Arkansas. THAT does not happen if someone is innocent of breaking the law. NOT a good thing for a President of the US to have done to him. Lindyy  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUT, Clinton has been disbarred from practicing law in his home state of Arkansas. THAT does not happen if someone is innocent of breaking the law. NOT a good thing for a President of the US to have done to him. Lindyy Actually.. Clinton did not refuse to leave office. He simply refused to resign. He was also not disbarred from practicing law. The impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives were for perjury, obstruction and abuse of power. The article clearly states: "Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States." The case was then forwarded for trial before the Senate. To remove an official from office requires a two thirds vote.. They did not achieve that on any count. He was therefore acquitted. The end result? Clinton was cited for contempt of court and the settlement involved a $90,000 fine. The case was also forwarded to the Arkansas State Supreme Court. Which suspended his license for 5 years. He was suspended from the United States Supreme Court as well. From which he resigned. He settled a civil case for $850,000. He was also censured by Congress. There is a substantial difference between being disbarred and suspended. If we are going to discuss things as facts? It might be a good idea to become educated on the historical facts first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Mon 04/14/08 11:11 AM
|
|
.... and these liberals want more of this kind of scoundrel in the white house?
morals are out the window with that crew. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraq's military was the fourth largest in the world? No naval capabilities to defend its water facing shore? No Air force? We could have sent the bloods and the crips into Iraq and had the same results we've got now. As far as the made in the USA label goes, we know that he was given a ton of american weapons in the 80's to go after Iran, so that doesn't even make my eyebrows twitch. You know, as well as I do, the reason we went the direction we did with N.Korea is because they don't have billions in oil. How is the media hopelessly liberal? They are owned by people who are benefitting from the constant build and rebuild system known as the Military Industrial Complex. Do you really think GE gives a crap about conservative or liberal? dunnow or care what GE thinks but its common knowledge that the media is hopelessly liberal and therefore is not an accurate source for information. About the only thing we can do for factual first hand info is to quiz the returning vets, and what they are saying doesent mesh at all with what we hear on the news. There are lotsa reasons why we dont stomp on Korea, the main one one is that China is sitting on thier north border and thats a hornets nest best left alone. Also, you are right, there isnt anything there thats worth protecting. Another issue is that by going toe to toe with N Korea, we are in fact empowering thier leader, who is quite ego- oriented, and giving him a platform with which to spout his bull. If you ignore the bully he will go back home. HE IS A BIG DANGER.... to his neighbors, none of which are friends of the USA. So what if he wipes them out? Iraqs military was in fact the fourth largest military. Your own precious liberal/ communist media said so, among other sources. mostly soviet systems but others as well. They had a modern air force and a small navy, but mostly ground troops. Please do your homework before spouting liberal dogma. YOU ARE TRYING CONNECTING DOTS THAT ARE NOT THERE. Oh snap, you just called me a liberal. Well, lets see where I fall, I don't think abortion in it's current form of Roe V. Wade is Constitutional. I don't believe that our politicians should be spending money we don't have, let alone to bouy up Socialist programs and trust me, if anyone could take advantage of some Socialized Medicine its me. I don't believe that Preemptive war is ever an answer, because Preemptive war= War of Aggression, I instead support the Christian philosophy of the Just war theory, which is 100% defensive in nature. I don't believe in printing money out of thin air, I also am against Government intervention in the Market place, everytime they get their claws into something, costs skyrocket. I don't believe any of our agencies should be manipulating the Governments of other nations, I support a noninterventionist foriegn policy. I don't believe we should wall our nation off, like East Berlin, but I do support a intensive man and arms increase along our most violent of the 2 borders to crack down on illegals, human trafficing and illicit drug running. I don't believe any politician has the right to usurp or manipulate the Constitution. When you get right down to it, RamBill, you are far more liberal than I am. Just by supporting an unsustainable war of aggression, you have me beat if you are going by the classic markers of Conservatism Vs. Liberalism. Just by supporting George Bush, you have me beat, neoconservatism is orwellian for Not conservative. However, let me see if I can break through the brainwashing for a minute, Left/Right is a tactic used to keep people bickering about stupid crap, while the Elites run off with all the money, power and property of this nation. We've been on the wholesale market as far as our Soveriegnty goes, for far to long. As far as the media goes, they could give a damn less about political leanings, they are all about their sponsors and who owns them, that's who they are looking out for, not some propagandized Conspiracy theory about Liberals in the media. If you hire Right wing Extremists(William the Bloody Kristol), thats what your show is going to sound like, if you hire Bill Maher... well you get the point. The MSM, isn't about News, it's about creating a thought pattern, give me a break, you know... they call it "programming" for a reason. As far as the sad little line about Iraq having the 4th largest military in the world. Lets see: You have China, the USA, India and Russia- Thats 4 already. Read something and turn off fox, for crying out loud. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Mon 04/14/08 05:06 PM
|
|
uh huh. i would study that bible a bit closer for the definition of a just war... youll find that after you do everything to avoid it, and are still being pressed, then total war is the only option left. besides i dont care at this point why this war started. my concern is what do we do now,,, as ive stated before ad nauseum.
Iraq was the fourth largest Army in the world before gulf war round one. thats a historical fact that denial wont change. your right on track with your other thoughts. I dont look left or right. i look for TRUTH.... A comodity that is in short supply in the media, the corporate 501c3 churches, and the liberal.commies disguised as the Hillary and Obama show. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
warmachine
on
Mon 04/14/08 05:13 PM
|
|
"Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally preferable. It is an attempt to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces. Just War theories attempt to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice."
Just War Theory has two set of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war. We had no right to go to war with Iraq, because they didn't attack us. We most certainly haven't been having proper, honorable conduct in the war theatre. Just war is defensive. When attacked, you go after who attacked you, you eliminate that threat and you go home. You don't let the threat escape into Pakistan and go bomb their neighbors. The only time Iraq had the 4th largest military, was during the Iran-Iraq war, which I feel obligated to remind you, was because we had funded and armed Saddam and his military at that time, including, but not limited to, his favorite play toy: Chemical Weapons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Mon 04/14/08 05:16 PM
|
|
YAH COMERADE. SPILL THOSE HALF TRUTHS AND BUST OUT THE BLAME GAME. YAWN.
Now weve went from a liberal "truth" that the crips could have handled this to yah in fact they were the 4th largest. which truth ya using today? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Preventative war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower
We have "justly" participated in a Hitler concept and people actually agree with this concept????!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Mon 04/14/08 05:29 PM
|
|
hitler also created freeways, was involved in devolping the volkswagen and had a great nature preserve program. he may have been crazy and sick but he wasent stupid. whats your point? besides, ill say it yet again.... the blame game is pointless.
FYI THERE HAS BEEN preemptive warfare since there has been war. i would refer you to sun tsu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too easy... What's half truth? That's exactly what the Just War theory is about. Just War Theory has two set of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war: Jus ad bellum-Just cause The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations." Comparative justice While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. Legitimate authority Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. Today it is frequently felt that the United Nations must sanction a war before it is just. Right intention Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. Probability of success Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; Last resort Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Proportionality The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. Jus in bello-Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act: Distinction. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Proportionality. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it fights.[7] Military necessity . Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. As far as the Iraq thing, where's the half truth? We built them up, provided arms and cash, so that they'd go do the dirty work against Iran. Just like in the 70's we armed and supported the Afghan freedom fighters in their bid against the Soviets. Too bad one of their leaders was a guy named Osama bin something or another. And you're damned right I'm busting out the blame game, because everytime someone comes up with a common sense answer to the problems in the Middle east, like mind our own friggin' business, the warmongers start spouting off with stuff like " providing comfort to the terrorists" or they jump right to the name calling to change the subject. Yawn all you'd like, but know the NeoConservatives that you seem to love so much, they have an image for the future of this nation and I suggest you imagine, if you have the fortitude, the image of a military boot stomping upon a American citizens face in perpetuity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hitler also created freeways, was involved in devolping the volkswagen and had a great nature preserve program. he may have been crazy and sick but he wasent stupid. whats your point? besides, ill say it yet again.... the blame game is pointless. My point stands, regardless to your defenses. We have participated in a Hitler concept of war and people are okay with it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too easy... What's half truth? That's exactly what the Just War theory is about. Just War Theory has two set of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war: Jus ad bellum-Just cause The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations." Comparative justice While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. Legitimate authority Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. Today it is frequently felt that the United Nations must sanction a war before it is just. Right intention Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. Probability of success Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; Last resort Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Proportionality The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. Jus in bello-Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act: Distinction. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Proportionality. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it fights.[7] Military necessity . Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. As far as the Iraq thing, where's the half truth? We built them up, provided arms and cash, so that they'd go do the dirty work against Iran. Just like in the 70's we armed and supported the Afghan freedom fighters in their bid against the Soviets. Too bad one of their leaders was a guy named Osama bin something or another. And you're damned right I'm busting out the blame game, because everytime someone comes up with a common sense answer to the problems in the Middle east, like mind our own friggin' business, the warmongers start spouting off with stuff like " providing comfort to the terrorists" or they jump right to the name calling to change the subject. Yawn all you'd like, but know the NeoConservatives that you seem to love so much, they have an image for the future of this nation and I suggest you imagine, if you have the fortitude, the image of a military boot stomping upon a American citizens face in perpetuity. yawn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The comparisons between what we have now and Hilter's regime are fairly bold and easy to see. The standing point being, what our founders gave us, Liberty and Freedom protected by a bill of rights and a constitution are fairly new, in comparison with Tyranny and oppression. I cannot believe I just read someone defending Hitler... 
|
|
|
|
|
