RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company?

RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 7:52:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fastcars1 I beleive that we are at war with terrorism, and I beleive that success is Iraq is vital to defeating the people that carry out this terrorism in the name their god. Only CONGRESS has the authority or duty to declare war. You BELIEVE whatever you want to, but like belief in Jesus or Muhammad or Santa Claus, it's no basis to make policy.

beautyImurDaddy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:08:02 AM)
Maybe this needs to be in a new thread, but i was just curious as i skimmed along some of the comments here. Let's assume for a moment that certain countries, i.e. Iran, Iraq etc, maintain radical Islamic/Muslim leaders... whether friendly to us now or otherwise.... how would it impact our relationships (what little we have) with these countries IF Hilary Clinton were to come into office? Do you think it would have any impact at all? Would they go against most of their own basic principals and treat her as an equal? or would they slip even further against the U.S. because of religious beliefs in regards to women? Just some food for thought and random idiocies i was thinking about and would be curious as to others thoughts on this.

fastcars1 -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:08:35 AM)
You're right, but Congress voted on the war.

fastcars1 -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:11:54 AM)
That's a good point in light of her gender, and the way they treat their women. Another point to add is that they hated us long before we entered Iraq.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:23:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fastcars1 You're right, but Congress voted on the war. Why do you lie? Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq for the limited purpose of Well, lets just use the LAW to illustrate. 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. Which is NOT a declaration of war, which is supported by Attorney General ALBERTO GONZOLES. * "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force." – U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, Februrary 6, 2006

fastcars1 -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:33:12 AM)
I don't mind trading ideas with you Farglebargle, but please be civil. Calling someone a liar is an insult. The Congress did vote on the use of force against Iraq, and it passed. It was a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

caitlyn -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:36:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you read the thread dcmike1 asked why was it that the US had to fight the terrorists alone. The US has every right to spend money where it wants and on what friends it wants but don't complain when other countries don't help out in a war on terrorism US policy created. And how exactly did we create this terrorism ... because we are unwilling to give our money, to those that hate us? Don't you think some of the blame might be on the people that have their hand out, and insist that if we don't fill it up with money, they will blow things up? We call that extortion here in the States. what do you call it over there? Honestly, your point is almost laughable, even to me, that doesn't support the American adventure in Iraq.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:37:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn You dodge this question every time I ask it ... Doesn't the United States have the right to spend it's money, however it wants? Don't we have the right to have the friends that we want? The problem with your arguments, is that you treat what belongs to us, as if it belongs to the world. You present option a). a) United States gives money to small country, and they become a friend. ... while we see option B). b) small country becomes a friend of the United States, and then gets our money. ... now, option A) may be the way you want to go. That's fine, go there with your own money! Actually your argument would be helped if the US didn't interfer so much in other countries and tell them what they can and can't do.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:39:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fastcars1 I don't mind trading ideas with you Farglebargle, but please be civil. Calling someone a liar is an insult. The Congress did vote on the use of force against Iraq, and it passed. It was a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. You said AND I QUOTE: "You're right, but Congress voted on the war." Also in the past you've attempted to misrepresent MY statements. That's a PATTERN OF DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR. NOW, when presented with clear evidence of your dishonesty, you flip flop, and waffle, and expect people to believe your feelings are hurt? Boo fucking Hoo.

caitlyn -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:42:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Actually your argument would be helped if the US didn't interfer so much in other countries and tell them what they can and can't do. But, other countries can tell us what we can do ... right? Like it or not, we are a superpower ... that just is, what it is. Maybe you would have preferred to have the Soviets or Communist Chinese as masters, instead of us as your friends? You know, you did manage to stand up against us with protests, without having tanks roll through your streets. I think that unlikely, had you stood up to either the Soviets, or Communist Chinese ... or at least that is the lesson history teaches.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:45:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you read the thread dcmike1 asked why was it that the US had to fight the terrorists alone. The US has every right to spend money where it wants and on what friends it wants but don't complain when other countries don't help out in a war on terrorism US policy created. And how exactly did we create this terrorism ... because we are unwilling to give our money, to those that hate us? Don't you think some of the blame might be on the people that have their hand out, and insist that if we don't fill it up with money, they will blow things up? We call that extortion here in the States. what do you call it over there? Honestly, your point is almost laughable, even to me, that doesn't support the American adventure in Iraq. I think the US (not alone) put the Shah of Iran into power and since his overthrow has been unable to come to terms with the fact it was kicked out of Iran and Iranians see the US at one with the Shah in the oppression of Iranians. The US (again not alone) is seen by the many Arabs as giving material support to dictatorships that oppress them because they want Arab resources ie. oil. Many Arabs see Israel as a US client state which the US uncritically supports and gives material support for its own strategic reasons, ie. the pursuit of Arab oil. Many Arabs see the Iraq invasion as an imperial conquest and grab for Arab resources. Imperialism as we Brits know, creates terrorists and that is how the US has created terrorists.

caitlyn -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:53:12 AM)
What types of government do the people in the Middle east put in power, when the west is not involved? Do you think there is any possibility, that rough-and-tumble governments are par for the course in the Middle East?

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:54:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn What types of government do the people in the Middle east put in power, when the west is not involved? Do you think there is any possibility, that rough-and-tumble governments are par for the course in the Middle East? Yes. Hussein was a mellow leader for that neck of the woods, and HE had to slaughter his own citizens by the hundreds to maintain order.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn What types of government do the people in the Middle east put in power, when the west is not involved? Do you think there is any possibility, that rough-and-tumble governments are par for the course in the Middle East? Yes. Hussein was a mellow leader for that neck of the woods, and HE had to slaughter his own citizens by the hundreds to maintain order. Why was there so much unrest in Jordan at the time? The Palestinian conflict which the US exacerbates by uncritical support for its client state so the US has a military foothold in the area.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 8:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn What types of government do the people in the Middle east put in power, when the west is not involved? Do you think there is any possibility, that rough-and-tumble governments are par for the course in the Middle East? It is irrelevent what governments the Arabs would have without US interference, the point is that the dictatorships in the area are US puppets.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 9:00:47 AM)
The Israeli government doesn't need any help from the US exacerbating the situation... Get the Governments out of the picture, and people just wanna have a pot-luck dinner and make sure their kids get on the school bus.

caitlyn -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 9:01:19 AM)
Exactly. Blaming the west because there are ruthless leaders in the Middle East, is a little like blaming the weather person, because it's raining. Mother Theresa couldn't hold the purple cushion for very long in a Middle Eastern country.

caitlyn -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 9:04:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver It is irrelevent what governments the Arabs would have without US interference, the point is that the dictatorships in the area are US puppets. Did you really just say that?

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 9:05:22 AM)
Don't get me started on Mother Theresa!

caitlyn -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (2/6/2007 9:08:50 AM)
Yes, she had a third cousin that was American, which makes her responsible for terrorism. [;)]

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125