RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie?

RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 5:21:41 PM)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''. [[Page 116 STAT. 1501]] SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 5:23:09 PM)
Thanks for citing the obvious ace. They gave him the go ahead. He used it. Deal with it.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 5:29:56 PM)
quote: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Since there was NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, there WERE NO RELEVANT UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS TO ENFORCE. Get it?

Sinergy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 5:38:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDave54 Not to really change the subject, why is Bush against abortion but ok killing 19 year old boys in Iraq It is not possible to baptise an aborted fetus. A 19 year old has either already been baptised or is a heretic who deserves to die. Please make a note of this. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 5:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDave54 Not to really change the subject, why is Bush against abortion but ok killing 19 year old boys in Iraq It is not possible to baptise an aborted fetus. A 19 year old has either already been baptised or is a heretic who deserves to die. Please make a note of this. Sinergy And as Mother Theresa was so fond of putting into practice, who needs proper medical care once you've accepted baptism, and will go to Heaven when you die?

Sinergy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 5:42:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDave54 Not to really change the subject, why is Bush against abortion but ok killing 19 year old boys in Iraq It is not possible to baptise an aborted fetus. A 19 year old has either already been baptised or is a heretic who deserves to die. Please make a note of this. Sinergy And as Mother Theresa was so fond of putting into practice, who needs proper medical care once you've accepted baptism, and will go to Heaven when you die? Bingo. What category do you pick for double jeopardy? Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 8:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Exactly the Texans were the terrorist rebels of 1830s. I bet caitlyn knows lol It depends who you ask. It is generally thought that the Mexican army of Santa Anna was both brutal and harsh, while the Republic of Texas army, was reasonably well mannered. Mexicans would not agree, but the point can be made that after capturing Santa Anna following San Jacinto, the Texans actually set him free ... which was a hell of a lot better treatment than anyone could expect form the Mexican army.

Vendaval -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/13/2007 10:56:35 PM)
It is often the case that lies are used to justify agressive and violent behaviors because of a desire to avoid responsiblity for those very actions.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 1:20:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval It is often the case that lies are used to justify agressive and violent behaviors because of a desire to avoid responsiblity for those very actions. I think its more the fact that what is stated as the reason for the War is NOT the true reason. See the controversy of the 2nd Iraq War. With regard to that War SirKenin quoted stats. on votes in both Houses of Congress being in favour of military action. Exactly the same thing happened in the UK but when the Muslims showed how ungrateful they were and started killing one another, many in the UK began to backslide. Why ? For political advantage. Could that be the same in the US ?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 1:56:07 AM)
Found this when looking up some things about San Jacinto and the subsequent Mexican American War. quote: Despite early popularity at home, the war was marked by the growth of a loud anti-war movement which included such noted Americans as Ralph Waldo Emerson, former president John Quincy Adams and Henry David Thoreau. The center of anti-war sentiment gravitated around New England, and was directly connected to the movement to abolish slavery. Texas became a slave state upon entry into the Union. Things dont change much, do they ? At San Jacinto Houston apparently attacked when the Mexicans were having a siesta. Thats not cricket old boy. Maybe the influx into the US of illegals from Mexico is a master plan to restore California Nevada Texas etc to Mexican control. This they will be able to do by democratic means if present trends continue. lol

Vendaval -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 3:20:52 AM)
Seeks, I am speaking of justification for starting wars in a general sense and think you are speaking specifically about the current Iraq War. Are you saying that in the UK politicians changed their position because they did not expect so much turmoil in the region? And because the war has become so unpopular with the general public? quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval It is often the case that lies are used to justify agressive and violent behaviors because of a desire to avoid responsiblity for those very actions. I think its more the fact that what is stated as the reason for the War is NOT the true reason. See the controversy of the 2nd Iraq War. With regard to that War SirKenin quoted stats. on votes in both Houses of Congress being in favour of military action. Exactly the same thing happened in the UK but when the Muslims showed how ungrateful they were and started killing one another, many in the UK began to backslide. Why ? For political advantage. Could that be the same in the US ?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 3:36:53 AM)
quote: Vendaval Are you saying that in the UK politicians changed their position because they did not expect so much turmoil in the region? And because the war has become so unpopular with the general public? More or less Yes. With sly criticism and playing down there own support in the Parliamentary votes they see and get political advantage. See for instance the contoversial stat. on how many have been killed in Iraq. No mention that , as we see in the news, 50 to a 100 Muslims kill other Muslims.almost EVERY DAY, the guilt by association is allowed to fester. There was always substantial public opposition to the War, a lot from the Muslim communities.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 4:14:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave More or less Yes. With sly criticism and playing down there own support in the Parliamentary votes they see and get political advantage. See for instance the contoversial stat. on how many have been killed in Iraq. No mention that , as we see in the news, 50 to a 100 Muslims kill other Muslims.almost EVERY DAY, the guilt by association is allowed to fester. There was always substantial public opposition to the War, a lot from the Muslim communities. 2.7% of the British population is British. Substantial opposition within the muslim community (though its not a very unified community) doesn't amount to much. I'm really sickened by the politicians who voted for the war and now claim to be have been misled. It was quite obvious to everyone that the war had no justification and the reasons that were given were lies. Of course these politicians were thinking about their careers and are thinking about their careers now in distancing themselves from the war. Gutless, the lot of them. They have absolutely no integrity. I would have more time for those that said they fully supported the war and made a huge mistake. I still wouldn't vote for them though.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:01:57 AM)
Exactly. Careerist whores ! And incidently I have nothing against whores at all. I just use the expression which fits.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:19:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave More or less Yes. With sly criticism and playing down there own support in the Parliamentary votes they see and get political advantage. See for instance the contoversial stat. on how many have been killed in Iraq. No mention that , as we see in the news, 50 to a 100 Muslims kill other Muslims.almost EVERY DAY, the guilt by association is allowed to fester. There was always substantial public opposition to the War, a lot from the Muslim communities. 2.7% of the British population is British. Substantial opposition within the muslim community (though its not a very unified community) doesn't amount to much. I'm really sickened by the politicians who voted for the war and now claim to be have been misled. It was quite obvious to everyone that the war had no justification and the reasons that were given were lies. Of course these politicians were thinking about their careers and are thinking about their careers now in distancing themselves from the war. Gutless, the lot of them. They have absolutely no integrity. I would have more time for those that said they fully supported the war and made a huge mistake. I still wouldn't vote for them though. More stupidity in action.... That makes absolutely no sense at all when you spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it. For people that are so concerned about public opinion, why would they risk their careers on voting for an obvious lie? The very obvious answer is that they would not. They obviously went with what they thought was a very real threat. When the public revolted later because it was not a neatly packaged CNN war they started backpeddaling in true political fashion.

pahunkboy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:24:18 AM)
i read on i think it was the 93 gulf war- that computers ran every scenario and teh computer concluded we would win. many of the masses are very busy trying to put food on the table and a roof over head. so after endless soundbites of crowd control- manipulation; one throws in teh towel and says look- i have bills to pay,. i cant protest in th streeets. i need a roof over my head.

pahunkboy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:25:22 AM)
in general - a huge increase in teck arts and the like come of war. where is it this time?

meatcleaver -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:29:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin For people that are so concerned about public opinion, why would they risk their careers on voting for an obvious lie? The very obvious answer is that they would not. They obviously went with what they thought was a very real threat. When the public revolted later because it was not a neatly packaged CNN war they started backpeddaling in true political fashion. Because it is the political parties that decide who stands for election and it is the parties that has the power to decide whose career will progress and whose won't. It is for this reason most members of Parliament voted for the war in the face of public hostility and since both major parties believed in the war, the electrate has no choice apart from not voting. Now the political parties are thinking about the next election, the members of Parliament are reassessing their position and trying to second guess the response of the electrate. There was enough hostility to the war before the invasion and the hostility is still simmering. It has nothing to do with the public revolting later. The politicians were hoping there would be a speedy positive outcome to the invasion and that hasn't happened and that is the reason for their meally mouthed excuses that they were misled by the government. They weren't misled, they were concerned for their careers.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:51:12 AM)
More misinformed drivel George Bush was elected on the premise that he was going to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That was his chief electoral platform. (and spare me the bullshit about fixed elections. He won with the greatest majority in recent history). quote: The American popular opinion on the 2003 invasion of Iraq has varied over time. Support started out very high, though it declined later after the initiations of hostilities. Overall support in 2003 was favorable. By mid-2004, though, public dissatisfaction had grown along with some skepticism about the Iraq war justifications. Public support for the war continued to decline throughout 2005 along with U.S. president George Bush's approval rating. By 2006, a movement to impeach the president over the legality of the invasion had begun. http://www.answers.com/topic/american-popular-opinion-on-invasion-of-iraq I am sure if you did a search of anything besides YouTube you would find a lot more articles to support this position.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:56:30 AM)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/ Buried in the platform declaration is this: "A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction." I don't believe it was in any way a primary plank, but it was there. Let's examine the claims... Committed to joint action? Well, the UN didn't sanction it, but I guess the "Coalition of the Willing" would count... Iraq complied with disarmament requirements? DONE AND CERTIFIED TO THE UN BACK IN 2002. Bush didn't like what the Certification said, and then invaded. And there was NO EVIDENCE OF ANY RECONSTITUTED PROGRAMS, WAS THERE? Nope.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625