All of it, or just the parts you don't like? Would you prefer they were less muslim?
Mmmm....Yes!
I would prefer that all false religions go away and leave us alone. Or, failing that, at least come up with better gods who have more sensible plans of salvation than the ones they are currently unsuccessfully pursuing. I find plans of salvation that get billions frog-marched off to hell and eternal torture, to be somewhat lacking in both execution and ethical standards.
Even Bush, in his clumsy liberaton efforts, didn't cause billions to be lost and eternally tortured.
That's some messed-up salvation Allah and Jehovah are pushing. So it can rightly be said that the very mortal and fallible Bush, in liberating Iraq, out-performed both Allah and Jehovah, who have as yet been unable to establish their kingdoms on earth, and who have created multitudes of sinners and unbelievers who they inexplicably feel compelled to condemn to eternal torture.
Please reread what you wrote. You'll find it is carte blanche permission for congress and the president to decide wars. Instead of defending the reason for war, all they have to say is...
Welcome to USA, planet Earth. Where the president and congress do have the sole power to make war. Whether the people agree or not. The people, for their part, can throw the bums out of office come election time. That's the peoples' check.
Without disclosure, you have removed the primary check that is in place that ensures this is a republic democracy.
No. The people's votes are the primary check. With their votes, the people can make or break any politiker or any political party, temporarily or permanently. When the people kick them out, they have to go quietly, or else the armed forces are sworn by oath to defend the constitution.
You didn't know any of this?
Of course the president is going to explain, as much as he can without giving away too much to the enemy, why he thinks war is necessary or preferable to the alternative. But that does not mean he's going to blurt out all his plans, thoughts, and everything he knows on national TV.
WMD was used as a primary reason for the war. It was found to be faulty. This GREATLY reduces my confidence in congress and the president to effectively decide when and if war is needed.
So? What do you want from me? I'm very sorry they were wrong about the presence of WMD. But it's not nearly as bad as you think. Contrary to your disinformed belief, it was never all about the momentary presence or absence of WMD. Numerous attempts have been made by myself and others to point out the numerous other factors involved in the decision. All to no avail.
Perhaps you'll be happier when Jesus comes back to rule the earth. He doesn'make mistakes, you know. But, uh...actually...isn't it a mistake that he hasn't already come? What seems to be the holdup? He said he was coming back 2 millenia ago. What happened to "Behold, I come quickly."?
This GREATLY reduces my confidence in Jesus to effectively decide when and if to burn someone in hell eternally.
You have been rather insulting and abusive in your posts and you have started making statements which make absolutely no sense.
So why do you keep coming back for more? My advice would be to stop digging.
If you don't like me now, you really wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
For instance, this one. I have absolutely no clue what you are referring to.
I suppose you're not familiar with the lyrics to "Dirty Laundry" by the Eagles. Which is wierd. Everybody should know the lyrics to "Dirty Laundry". And the chords.
What. I'm not allowed to have any fun at all while I'm hosting your "coldly logical leftist" fantasy? I quoted some of the lyrics because it was my sense that your were fishing for something you could use. So I gave you something you could use. Just to show you how little I care about these silly-ass little leftist gotcha games.
"I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something - something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry..."
it is for comments like this and other non sequitur statements which makes me think you are actually responding to someone else. If only I was privy to the entire conversation, then perhaps I would understand why you are so negative and rambling.
Don't tell me your troubles. I've got troubles of my own. My suggested course of action:
First, get a life. Then get a sense of humor. Then get over yourself. Then stop obsessing because no WMD was found. Unless you want to obsess about what happened to it, because we really don't know what happened to all of it. We have only Saddam's word on that. For all we know, it could be sitting in an underground facility outside Damascus.
The policy was to help the iraqi people obtain it from within. I don't know how a invasion achieves that.
By obtaining it from without, of course. Since it was nowhere near being obtained from within. That was a major pipe dream. You need to disabuse yourself of that notion. Just like his mentor Stalin, Saddam was going to die in bed, at a ripe old age, if not forcibly overthrown by a real army.
You even talk about messing with the Husseins from within, you better be ready to have your tongue extracted.
Haven't you ever seen that tape in which Saddam taped himself seizing absolute power from the parliament? If so, didn't you see the numbing fear in their eyes, as Saddam called out names, and people were seized and taken out one by one, while Saddam smiled and smoked his cigar?
You mess with that man, you're going bye-bye, but you're going slowly and excruciatingly painfully. And maybe you get to watch your family go first.
It took a real army to mess with Saddam. And the day he dropped through should have been a day of worldwide celebration. But I didn't see many celebrations around monkeyworld, except in Iraq. And that's just one of many reasons why monkeyworld can kiss my fuzzy white ass.
Well, "those people" was only the first indication. All of your posts since then have confirmed your position.
Yes, you seem to be arguing from the position of a bigot. I don't agree with your position.
"Wul, Ah sho is sorry, mistah word-po-lice officah, Ah sho won't say dat no mo. Pleeze don't gimme no ticket. Ah cain't afford no ticket. Ah sho didn't mean nuthin by it. Ah don't have nuthin agin nobody of any colah if dey ack like they got a lick a sense an don't mean me no harm. Ah don't even membah when Ah said dat or whut Ah wuz talkin about when Ah said it. But you done brought dat up two-three times. If Ida knowed sayin "those people" wuz dat bad, I sho wouldna said it. Cawze Ah sho cain't afford no word ticket."
Like hell I wouldn't. If anybody tries to control my speech, they're just going to get ridiculed.
Know what's really bigoted? What's really bigoted is when you assume I'm a bigot because I used two very common, non-perjorative words in conjunction. That is a bigoted assumption.
Seems like you just can't keep from shooting yourself in the foot.
I'm having an extremely hard time understanding your point.
That's because you're indulging in your usual habit of ignoring what I was responding to.
You basically said regime change is a failure because people wont like it. I'm sure many of them won't. However, by that reasoning, the nazis shouldn't have been overthrown, because they wouldn't like being overthrown, and many Germans wouldn't like it either.
That's why I called your statement ludicrous.
nazis were eliminated because they invaded other nations and were committing genocide.
Both of those reasons were why we went to war in Iraq 1. But for Iraq 2, we went to war because of the failure to comply with the un resolution, which was premised upon the existence of WMD.
Wrong. The resolution did not accuse Saddam of having WMD, other than alluding to weapons he was known to have had under development in violation of the nonproliferation requirements. The resolution was premised on the fact that they did not know what happened to the WMD they knew Saddam had before he evicted the inspectors. And because they did not know what Saddam had been doing during the years after the inspectors were evicted.
As for the US, Britain, and other members of the coalition, the momentary presence or absence of WMD was a matter of only secondary importance to them. If he had it, they'd get rid of it. If he didn't have it, they would insure that he never would have it. And the US also had the standing national policy goal of changing the entire game in Iraq, and ultimately to transform the region by proving that Arab democracy is possible and desirable.
The immediate goal was to insure that Saddam would never use WMD again, or start another war, or cause any more trouble whatsoever. Not merely to insure that he didn't have WMD at the moment. Why is this very simple and sensible concept so difficult for you to accept?
I'll tell you why. Because it means your position is fallacious. But not to worry. You can fix that. Just change your position.
