@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Govt. Response to Katrina
-
Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.
president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?
if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.
Instead of going into details, I’ll just post the War Powers Act of 1973 below:
The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLESECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “War Powers Resolution”.PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. ©
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced–(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
©
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. ©
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
SEC. 5. (a)
Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 5. ©
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a)
Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. ©
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a)
Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. ©
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
SEC 8. ©
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term “introduction of United States Armed Forces” includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution–(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled “Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President”, returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it wasResolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.
Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled “Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President”, returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it wasResolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.
Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.
You can find this via google in as much time as it took Mary to be completely wrong that Congress didn’t declare war / authorize military force on/to Iraq.
Also, you’ll note some of the bold type sections I highlighted. Most notable is that the President must confer with the Congress prior to ANY military action, regardless of merit or need and only in time of emergency may he deploy forces to protect the nation from present and immenant danger until such time he can confer with the Congress or a maximum of 60 days has expired. That means that if Canada invades with it’s entire army and all it’s royal mounted police then the President can deploy the Army to repell the invaders for 60 days maximum, if the Congress doesn’t approve or cannot be briefed during that time he must - by law - remove all armed forces from combat as soon as possible and await Congressional approval.
Thus, anything done in Iraq is with Congressional authority and approval. The Congress is briefed daily by the military intelligence, CIA and their own advisors. If at any time they wanted to cease the war in Iraq all they would have to do is produce a joint resolution (simple majority) informing the President that military actions in Iraq are to be terminated and they would be terminated. It would still take time to extract our forces, but no new forces would be deployed and the President would have to supply, and follow, an extraction plan.
Thus, all activities in Iraq are sanctioned by the Congress and if you dislike the war, then you should inform your Congressmen and Senators. However, bear in mind, you are in the vast minority and it won’t really matter. Even your congressmen and senators are getting rich off the kickbacks on this one - why do you think your democrat oil farm giants signed off on this?
-
Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.
The problem is simply who are we to decide who is a bad guy or not? The little man in N. Korea is pretty bad, but I don’t see us invading them. I have always had my doubts about those silly people in Iceland, should we remove their leader as well? To invade a country under false pretense is bad enough but your justification is that of a country hell bent on world domination.
Although I am glad that Saddam was never presented the ability to fire a nuclear missle thanks to the Israelies, what if the Russians in the 60’s decided to bomb a few of our nuclear plants? Why is it just in your eyes for a country to be removed of it’s nuclear capability that is not the US? We are not judge and jury for the rest of the world and cannot think like that. I worry everyday that WWIII will be forced upon us due to trying to remove another countries ability to wield a nuclear weapon.
And the war resolution you pasted is sort of funny if you read it…it talks about all the violations of the UN Security Council, but did the UN authorize the war? The rest of the reasons we went to war were based off of the evidence of WMD, which we all know never turned up. And then there is the “harboring terrorists” clause…shouldn’t we go invade Saudi, Lebanon and most of N. Africa? If you are going to gloat about something at least do it on something with more merit then the trumped up reasons to go to war.
-
Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.
The problem is simply who are we to decide who is a bad guy or not? The little man in N. Korea is pretty bad, but I don’t see us invading them. I have always had my doubts about those silly people in Iceland, should we remove their leader as well? To invade a country under false pretense is bad enough but your justification is that of a country hell bent on world domination.
In the case of Saddam, it was general world consensus that he was an evil tyrant. For a while he was OUR evil tyrant, but he was still an evil tyrant. If Iran had never taken our citizens hostage in the 70’s then we probably would have never supported Saddam’s militias.
However, since he WAS a tyrant and we DID put him in power, then it was our moral and ethical responsibility to the world to right the wrongs we did and remove him from power and allow the people to create a democratic regime where no one sect held power over the other two based only on religion.
We arn’t advocating invading some African nation and killing some no name dictator who takes pleasure in raping 8 year old girls. We can let the UN handle that since we didn’t put him in charge. We did put Saddam in charge and it was our duty to remove him. It’s like when you spill milk on the kitchen floor. Is it your mommy’s job to clean it up, or is it yours? Well, who spilled the milk, you or your mommy? You right? Well then it’s YOUR job to clean it up. (I have this arguement alot with my husband, it’s his job to lower the seat on the toilet, he lifted it, he can lower it.) Okay, that’s a simplification obviously, but the principle is the same.
-
Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.
The problem is simply who are we to decide who is a bad guy or not? The little man in N. Korea is pretty bad, but I don’t see us invading them. I have always had my doubts about those silly people in Iceland, should we remove their leader as well? To invade a country under false pretense is bad enough but your justification is that of a country hell bent on world domination.
In the case of Saddam, it was general world consensus that he was an evil tyrant. For a while he was OUR evil tyrant, but he was still an evil tyrant. If Iran had never taken our citizens hostage in the 70’s then we probably would have never supported Saddam’s militias.
However, since he WAS a tyrant and we DID put him in power, then it was our moral and ethical responsibility to the world to right the wrongs we did and remove him from power and allow the people to create a democratic regime where no one sect held power over the other two based only on religion.
We arn’t advocating invading some African nation and killing some no name dictator who takes pleasure in raping 8 year old girls. We can let the UN handle that since we didn’t put him in charge. We did put Saddam in charge and it was our duty to remove him. It’s like when you spill milk on the kitchen floor. Is it your mommy’s job to clean it up, or is it yours? Well, who spilled the milk, you or your mommy? You right? Well then it’s YOUR job to clean it up. (I have this arguement alot with my husband, it’s his job to lower the seat on the toilet, he lifted it, he can lower it.) Okay, that’s a simplification obviously, but the principle is the same.
Well laid out response AND you refrained from telling me I have no education…why can’t this Jen come out and play more often?
I see where you are going with the Saddam thing and if that was the reason given to the US I bet their wouldn’t be as much hostility toward the war based off the supposed proof of WMD ya know?
-
WMDs were just the most prevalent cause. However, there was a whole host of reasons stated in the joint resolution of Congress, and while WMDs were included in that list, they were not the entirety of the list.
And for the record, we do have proof of Yellow Cake sales to Iraq (that would be nuclear fissionable material from Africa, capable of being turned into rudimentary nuclear bombs) as well as nerve gas and rocket delivery systems that far exceeded the distance permitted by the UN resolutions and on top of htat our pilots being fired upon and one being held captive illegally and then there’s the torture camps and sanctioned rapes of Iraqs and the mass murder of hundreds or even thousands of innocents by Saddam’s hands.
By no means was this ever just about WMDs. The libs are trying to turn it into just that because its the only section that is somewhat weak and it was played up more then the rest, but in the resolution all items listed were of equal importance.
-
The only other things on that list were:
al Qaeda and UN SC violations, but 90% of that was about WMD. If you don’t believe me read it yourself, Darth posted it…
-
:lol:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "
I just noticed your sig. :lol:
So it was a good thing we invaded Iraq.
Or is your sig a joke???
-
It says to stand up against evil, doesn’t say anything about being judge and jury as the US see’s fit ;)
-
I see where you are going with the Saddam thing and if that was the reason given to the US I bet their wouldn’t be as much hostility toward the war based off the supposed proof of WMD ya know?
well, i’m not sure about this.
I mean - yeah, i’m kind of upset that this dumba$$ lied to our country about WMD’s and links to AQ about SH in order to try to enlist us to go in and kill a bunch of Iraqi’s.
The thing is that his idiotship also said that they wanted to take out SH, and we didn’t really care about that either.So you have to think - the “coalition of the willing” went into Iraq because they actually believed Bush’s lies about WMD’s and links to AQ, and to dethrone SH. I wonder how many of these would have gone along if they thought they were just going to overthrow SH. My thinking is that there might be a lot fewer, and there would be a stronger case against Bush’s little declaration.
Anyway - i’m not so consumed by the “why” for invasion as i was pretty convinced that it was bunk well before the invasion. I am upset about the cost for this in the form of:
between 25-100 000 Iraqi civilian lives
untold Iraqi defenders killed during an unwarranted invasion
the theiving of multi-millions of dollars of Iraqi resources to “rebuild” its infrastructure (dumped into US companies, naturally)
midnight arrests and torture of citizens thought to be against the occupation by the occupiers
the destruction of 1800 US solders (in addition to allied) lives (nevermind the wounded etc.)
increased friction between the west and the middle east
an increase in terrorism in the worldnow this is not my worry, couldn’t the >$85 B that you guys dumped into Iraq be spent in better ways? Maybe in reinforced levees around a couple of cattle fields/cities? Again - not my problem.
-
So, did you ever find where Congress declared war on Iraq? No? Better keep looking! Probably in that library you always go to ;) And who decided if, when, where, and how to invade? Congress? Could it have been the White House? The worst you can say about Congress is that they shouldn’t have given a loaded gun to a moron, but the moron’s party ALSO happened to control Congress. When Condoleeza started talking about smoking guns turning into mushroom clouds, it was clear Bush was going to get the power he wanted.
I don’t know why you and Darth have such a hard time grasping this. LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get a resolution passed in Congress. Bush lied about WMD’s, Al Queda, and nuclear weapons to get HIS resoultion passed. Know who gets blamed for Vietnam? Do you think anyone even remembers congressmen from the 60’s? But I guarantee you people have heard of LBJ and McNamara. Do you think they’re going to look back at the 2000 Congress for the mess in Iraq? Lol! Good or bad, Iraq is Bush’s legacy.
Besides, Bush wanted an Iraq war. He was a popular Republican at the time and there’s no way the party was going to go against him. There was one Republican who voted NOT to give Bush authorization out of the entire Congress. Republicans controlled the White House and Congress and they got their little war and now must live with the consequences.
Oh, and I think I heard Rush talking about Hybrid M.P.G. averaging somewhere around 2 nowadays ;)
-
Mary, did you miss that entire Congressional Declaration of War? The details on how to fight the war are up to the President, but he still waited for the DOW.
I just coulnd’t let this pass, cause it’s, ya know, Jen.
Yes, we all missed the “entire Congressional Declaration of War”. Most likely because it doesn’t exist.
I’m about posted out on declarations of war now.
-
@cystic:
I wonder how many of these would have gone along if they thought they were just going to overthrow SH. My thinking is that there might be a lot fewer, and there would be a stronger case against Bush’s little declaration.
Maybe a few less, but I think a majority of the willing went to help us, not because they believed in the cause themselves. If one friend going to fight at the flagpole after school, most other of his friends would attend to ensure it was a fair fight and to lend support. I think this is how most of the coalition is.
@cystic:
between 25-100 000 Iraqi civilian lives
I havn’t seen any documentation to support this number, but let’s assume it’s true. How many civilians died in WWI, WWII, US Civil War, War of 1812, Mexican/American War, American and Indian War, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc? I’d assume, as I’d have to without pulling hard figures, that the number is far in excess of the few thousand civilians that have died in Iraq. (And I’m assuming pure, innocent civilians, like cattle farmers, or goat herders or other innocents just going about their normal daily events, not theives, murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.)
@cystic:
untold Iraqi defenders killed during an unwarranted invasion
It was warranted. At the very least it was warranted because the Iraqi militia fired on US Forces repeatedly over 10 years. Also, I thought most of their “army” scattered into the hills after the initial engagements. They might be included in your civilian count.
@cystic:
the theiving of multi-millions of dollars of Iraqi resources to “rebuild” its infrastructure (dumped into US companies, naturally)
Proof? Sounds like heresay and rumor to me. After all, the US Taxpayer is paying to rebuild Iraq, not Iraq. And btw, most of those US companies over there are small businesses. In fact, Halliburton only hires small businesses to do the work they agree to manage. Halliburton is nothing but a project management firm.
So, I guess you are against the small business and against the working stiff. Which is REALLY weird since most doctors, at least here, are self-employed and you say you are a doctor…does this mean you’re full of self-hatred?
@cystic:
midnight arrests and torture of citizens thought to be against the occupation by the occupiers
Oh we have been SO over this. Puppies in your cells, the smell of bacon frying, minor discomfort in temperature (32-90 degrees), a few sleepless nights and standing naked is NOT torture! Having your fingernails pulled out with pliers is torture, having your toes cut off iwth guitar string is torture, having your eyes popped with white hot pokers is torture.
@cystic:
the destruction of 1800 US solders (in addition to allied) lives (nevermind the wounded etc.)
We’ve gone from killed to destruction….Bear in mind that Chicago had more die then died in Iraq, in BOTH wars. Bear in mind that New Orleans lost more in a day then died in Iraq. Bear in mind that Vietnam lost more in a day then in Iraq. And keep in mind some of those casualties listed are from natural causes or equipment malfunctions.
@cystic:
increased friction between the west and the middle east
Yea, because we always got a warm embrace when any westerner went over there right? I mean, that’s why the state department issed that whole statement from the 70s to the present about how US citizens travelling to the middle east are on their own, they weren’t going to go save you from terrorists. Or how Israel and America were always held in high regard by the fanatics that come to power over there. Right, we were all lovey-dovey until we toppled Saddam….of course, I think we’re a lot more lovey dovey NOW that Saddam is gone. There’s two regimes that like us, the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis, Iran’s comming around and starting to follow the world laws, Arabia’s less fidgity now, etc.
@cystic:
an increase in terrorism in the world
Not an increase. A decrease. They’re just in the spotlight more so it seems like an increase. However, most of the terrorist leaders and a lot of cells are being broken and captured each day. And many of what’s left are rag tag groups working without central leadership trying to annoy us in Iraq. Better there then here anyway. At least there we can focus on one small area, if they were here we’d have to focus there and here and in France and in Germany and in Poland and in Italy……
@cystic:
now this is not my worry, couldn’t the >$85 B that you guys dumped into Iraq be spent in better ways? Maybe in reinforced levees around a couple of cattle fields/cities? Again - not my problem.
Oh, you mean like the 43 billion they had from special taxes in New Orleans to fund evacuation and reinforce the levvies that disapeared? Gotcha.
Why don’t you ever learn that Federal Money can’t be used for the state and state money can’t be used for the feds without a whole
edit - gettin’ tired of this
of public announcements, public approvals, over sight committees, Congressional approval, Executive Approval on both state and federal levels, and, in some cases, judicial approval. This is why New Orleans and all of LA had special taxes built in to collect money over a long period of time so they could afford evacuation in emergency and rebuild their levvies properly. It’s unfortunate that no one can find any of the money…they can find the deposit slips, but not the money…wonder where it all went…
-
Why don’t you ever learn that Federal Money can’t be used for the state
FEMA appropriated that money for the explict intent of levee repair and it got diverted by HLS. It doesn’t get any more Federal then that.
-
New Orleans had plenty of money to rebuilt the levvies properly, they didn’t need FEMA’s cash, they never did…well, if their government wouldnt have embezzelled it all they wouldn’t have.
-
New Orleans had plenty of money to rebuilt the levvies properly, they didn’t need FEMA’s cash, they never did…well, if their government wouldnt have embezzelled it all they wouldn’t have.
And where did you find out that they had this magical money all along, Jen? I am begging you, Jen.
BTW, I read in a very important journal that the Chicago area has the worst reaction time for any emergency. Hmmm…
-
BTW, I read in a very important journal that the Chicago area has the worst reaction time for any emergency. Hmmm…
That wouldn’t surprise me, since the Daley Machine has been in control of Chicago forever. The curroption in Chicago is rampent. I believe even Blagovich is having trouble now.
-
@cystic:
I wonder how many of these would have gone along if they thought they were just going to overthrow SH. My thinking is that there might be a lot fewer, and there would be a stronger case against Bush’s little declaration.
Maybe a few less, but I think a majority of the willing went to help us, not because they believed in the cause themselves. If one friend going to fight at the flagpole after school, most other of his friends would attend to ensure it was a fair fight and to lend support. I think this is how most of the coalition is.
I think that if you want to use the schoolyard analogy, consider that the so-called “friends in attendance” are there to make sure that their “friend” does not beat them up afterwards for their lunch money.
@cystic:
between 25-100 000 Iraqi civilian lives
I havn’t seen any documentation to support this number, but let’s assume it’s true.
this is because you’ve been ignoring the US and UK data which have loudly trumpetted these numbers over the last year, but ok.
How many civilians died in WWI, WWII, US Civil War, War of 1812, Mexican/American War, American and Indian War, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc? I’d assume, as I’d have to without pulling hard figures, that the number is far in excess of the few thousand civilians that have died in Iraq. (And I’m assuming pure, innocent civilians, like cattle farmers, or goat herders or other innocents just going about their normal daily events, not theives, murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.)
with this reasoning, i suppose that 9/11 wasn’t a big deal at all. Afterall - only a few thousand people got iced there. And Hurricane Katrina - a mere duststorm. I mean - did even 10K people get killed there? That’s nothing!! I guess that there was no reason to get our noses all bent out of shape over AQ.
@cystic:
untold Iraqi defenders killed during an unwarranted invasion
It was warranted. At the very least it was warranted because the Iraqi militia fired on US Forces repeatedly over 10 years. Also, I thought most of their “army” scattered into the hills after the initial engagements. They might be included in your civilian count.
friggen US militia flies over my country and bombs it, and we’ll see how long my pacifist views temper my rifle-purchasing and plane-shootin’ desires . . .
So, I guess you are against the small business and against the working stiff. Which is REALLY weird since most doctors, at least here, are self-employed and you say you are a doctor…does this mean you’re full of self-hatred?
this is reason number one . . .
@cystic:
midnight arrests and torture of citizens thought to be against the occupation by the occupiers
Oh we have been SO over this. Puppies in your cells, the smell of bacon frying, minor discomfort in temperature (32-90 degrees), a few sleepless nights and standing naked is NOT torture! Having your fingernails pulled out with pliers is torture, having your toes cut off iwth guitar string is torture, having your eyes popped with white hot pokers is torture.
and this is reason number two that i am returning to my attempted habit of boycotting any discussion with you. You are a terrible discussion partner.
I had previously posted scientific (peer reviewed) literature in a forum that YOU participated in that not only described a large number of people who were beaten to death in US custody, but also that American officials attempted to cover this up with fudged autopsy reports. I may be just a doctor, but getting beaten to death comes pretty close to torture in many people’s minds.@cystic:
the destruction of 1800 US solders (in addition to allied) lives (nevermind the wounded etc.)
We’ve gone from killed to destruction….Bear in mind that Chicago had more die then died in Iraq, in BOTH wars. Bear in mind that New Orleans lost more in a day then died in Iraq. Bear in mind that Vietnam lost more in a day then in Iraq. And keep in mind some of those casualties listed are from natural causes or equipment malfunctions.
again a terrible analogy.
So the fact that only a few US solders died relative to other stupid wars justifies the invasion? I suppose these people would have died in the US if they were not killing Iraqis . . . in Chicago?? Really - you are so all over the map with your non-sequitors and fried logic.@cystic:
increased friction between the west and the middle east
Yea, because we always got a warm embrace when any westerner went over there right? I mean, that’s why the state department issed that whole statement from the 70s to the present about how US citizens travelling to the middle east are on their own, they weren’t going to go save you from terrorists. Or how Israel and America were always held in high regard by the fanatics that come to power over there. Right, we were all lovey-dovey until we toppled Saddam….of course, I think we’re a lot more lovey dovey NOW that Saddam is gone. There’s two regimes that like us, the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis, Iran’s comming around and starting to follow the world laws, Arabia’s less fidgity now, etc.
You had very close friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait until Iraq.
Hmmmm . . . Saudi Arabia . . . didn’t many of those 9/11 bombers come from there? I guess since so few US citizens got killed then that’s why you didn’t bother invading Saudi Arabia . . . .@cystic:
an increase in terrorism in the world
Not an increase. A decrease. They’re just in the spotlight more so it seems like an increase. However, most of the terrorist leaders and a lot of cells are being broken and captured each day. And many of what’s left are rag tag groups working without central leadership trying to annoy us in Iraq. Better there then here anyway. At least there we can focus on one small area, if they were here we’d have to focus there and here and in France and in Germany and in Poland and in Italy……
reason number 3. Now you’re just making stuff up.
@cystic:
now this is not my worry, couldn’t the >$85 B that you guys dumped into Iraq be spent in better ways? Maybe in reinforced levees around a couple of cattle fields/cities? Again - not my problem.
Oh, you mean like the 43 billion they had from special taxes in New Orleans to fund evacuation and reinforce the levvies that disapeared? Gotcha.
yeah - good timing. That was lucky that you got it in there AFTER the flooding.
-
BTW, I read in a very important journal that the Chicago area has the worst reaction time for any emergency. Hmmm…
That wouldn’t surprise me, since the Daley Machine has been in control of Chicago forever. The curroption in Chicago is rampent. I believe even Blagovich is having trouble now.
Its from the tollway revenues. The revenues have already paid off the bonds issued for them. The original intent was to keep the tollways up until the original bonds were paid off. Well the polititions who promised it will eventially go away have been replaced by new ones greedy to be paid by tollway money. Its become a political dragon and the gov’t on municipal and state levels have no more valient knights to fight it. The tollways are evil. The are and will stay a continuous lie until they go away like the original promise.
Remember the big campaign to get the transponders? Non-users are now charged double? Transponder violators are allowed 20 before massive late payment penalties escalate the fine into the thousands of dollars per driver. All for about $10 of unpaid tolls over time. Pure evil.
-
@stuka:
New Orleans had plenty of money to rebuilt the levvies properly, they didn’t need FEMA’s cash, they never did…well, if their government wouldnt have embezzelled it all they wouldn’t have.
And where did you find out that they had this magical money all along, Jen? I am begging you, Jen.
BTW, I read in a very important journal that the Chicago area has the worst reaction time for any emergency. Hmmm…
I found out from Neil Schmidt who was a resident of New Orleans and had been paying that tax for well over 12 years by the time the hurricane hit. Based on what he paid percentage wise and then applying that to the total population at the average income for the area, you can figure out easily that they had millions if not billions “set aside” to fix the levvies up proper and evacuate the city.
-
BTW, I read in a very important journal that the Chicago area has the worst reaction time for any emergency. Hmmm…
That wouldn’t surprise me, since the Daley Machine has been in control of Chicago forever. The curroption in Chicago is rampent. I believe even Blagovich is having trouble now.
It wouldnt surprise me at all. Chicago has some of the worst traffic in the world and to make matters worse, all the expressways in our beloved city are always under construction further screwing up the traffic situation.
I don’t think it’s Daley’s fault, in that even he can’t keep this city working properly.
Suggested Topics
