Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Congress Trying To Revoke Bush's Authority In Iraq  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

I heard that in addition to the "Non-Binding" resolution, they are trying to pass a bill which would revoke the resolution which gave Bush the right to attack and occupy Iraq.

Bush said that any attempts to do this will be opposed.

To be honest I'm not sure I should be ecstatic, or worried as to what Bush will do to keep his war going and to get that war with Iran going.

This administration is one of the most corrupt yet; they are not trustworthy. In fact, they strike me as the type who will do anything to get what they want. I just hope they won't attack our fleet in the middle-east a'la the Gulf of Tonkin, and/or stage a terrorist attack within the US to blame on the Iranians, and use that to reinforce Bush's point that we need to be out there in the middle-east taking an aggressive stance.

I hope all goes well, and a timetable is set for our troops to start pulling out of that hellhole. But, I really have no trust in this administration.

Andrea K

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747hogg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

I pray bush will be hauled off in hand-cuff's and get what Saddam got after his trial. USA (me too) was suckered into this fools wake, and now we are on our knees and broke and bleeding thanks to Bush. AS a paralyzed Vietnam Vet.... let me tell you, you can never win a war when you are the outsider in a foreign culture and are the aggressors. They have no tanks, planes, SUV's, hummers, and look like everyone in town. We are like pink elephants, and are easy killing for them. we are now the most hated nation in the world. and are begging 42 year old grannies to join the army! It's a war we are not welcome at by anyone, and we will never win it, ever. Can't be done they can so easely see and hear us coming a mile away, strike, then put on womans clothing and act like nothing happened....

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

If revoking the authority is an action to start a troop withdrawl, then fine. But if it's another "we shouldn't have gone to war" thing, it's useless. Pretty much the whole country realizes that the war was a complete screwup, no need to beat that horse anymore.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Well first off, Blackbird, you need to provide a source. Unless of course, you just wanna rant, then you need to so state.

As for the thread topic:

The non-binding resolution went through the Pelosi house as expected.

It didn't even get a vote in the Senate.

And NOW, the democrats - true to the Cut and Run mentality - are trying to back peddle like ducks coming in to decoys on the authorization to go to war. Fortunately, there are enough Republicans to prevent it. It won't start a troop withdrawal, it's all about getting votes in the next election. It won't protect our troops over there, it's all about pointing a finger at the Bush Administration. It won't bring back the casualties, it's simply more partisan political crap in Washington.


What baffles me is NONE of the actions by the Pelosi House or the Reid Senate are designed to favor the troops. The actions are designed to rebuff the Bush Administration and to hell with the frackin' troops. Now, if ANYTHING is criminal it is THAT! The democrats oughta hang their heads in shame. They oughta be frackin' ashamed.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Well first off, Blackbird, you need to provide a source. Unless of course, you just wanna rant, then you need to so state.

Well let me help Blackbird out...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070223...;_ylt=Aphp6cLEx3L3.ED4b1KXBz.yFz4D

Two major problems with this idea. The couldn't get 60 votes to pass a vote to bring a non-binding resoluiton to the floor for a vote, what chance do you think this stands? In the incredible event it did make it through the Senate and the House, how fast could President Bush veto it? Would he even wait for the bill to get to the White House or take a trip down Pennsylvania Ave and just veto it right there at the Capitol? And we have not even begun to talk about two other details, overriding the veto and the dust up over the seperation of powers that the Supreme Court would ultimately have to decide.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
The democrats oughta hang their heads in shame. They oughta be frackin' ashamed.

Not gonna happen.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

That "non-binding" crap was just that. If the congress wants to call the president to the mats, they should do that. "Non-binding" reminds me of the useless garbage the UN pulls that has convinced me that organisation is next to useless.

Every congressman that votes to de-fund the troops should be dragged out in the streets and shot.

If you want to bring the troops home, vote for that.

If you pass legislation that leaves them in place and pulls from them what they need to fight, you are as good as a traitor in my book.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2040 times:

Even if they revoke his authority, he could always make a signing statement and because of his interpretation, or mis-interpretation can refuse to obey it.

User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
to get that war with Iran going.

It has already been determined from your own words in another thread that you are a believer in 9/11 conspiracies (for those in the know, she thinks BN747 makes a lot of sense). Now you make allegations that have no basis in fact.

I don't know what is going thru your head, but I suggest you take a break and relax.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
Even if they revoke his authority, he could always make a signing statement

Why would he even bother with that when A. he can be pretty sure this would be veto proof and B. an President worth his salt would see this as a direct threat to the seperation of powers and want the Supreme Court to rule on it?


User currently offlineGlydrflyr From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

If we just change a few words in the rhetoric we hear from Pelosi, Murtha and Schumer, we get something like this: We, the citizens of the United States, support our Congresspeople. After all, we voted to send these brave men and women to Washington, far away from from their homes and loved ones to face the terrible dangers in Congress. By golly, we support every last one of them, but we don't don't support their mission, we were misled about that by their campaign managers, so we're going to defund them, and stop paying our taxes. That will bring them home at last. (also, we'll have lot more money to spend as we wish for a little while, and that ain't bad.)


if ya gotta crash, hit something soft and cheap!
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5360 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

So the Democrat Party wants a mulligan. They don't have the Constitutional to end the war by withdrawing the authorization. Congress may ratify a treaty that ends a war. Congress may choose to stop funding a war. But the may not get a do-over on the initial vote to authorize action.

See if they have the stones to witdraw funds.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
Well let me help Blackbird out...

I have to say it is a surprise down here at the end of the world that a source was needed for Blackbird's thread - it has been all over the news here, and the daily papers. And I know it has not been suppressed in the US because I heard it on PBS as well.

As they say, it was in all the papers!

Most of the administration are saying that it is a different war, so while Bush supporters might want to question the concept, there certainly are logical reasons why a new authority should be sought. But that is a non partisan viewpoint.

I do not quite see how Congress wanting to check up on what has been done with an authority is forgetting separation of powers. Surely, IF the powers ARE really separate, that is exactly what they should be doing.

Lastly, this is not an attack on Blackbird as the wording would have to fit in the little slot for the title. However, can I ask what authority Bush currently has in Iraq? A lack of it is surely the crux of the problem, so discussing his authority in Iraq would seem to be no bad thing.

If a source IS needed it might be that we need a good one to refute the suggestion that a war on Iran is being prepared. Yes, I know the President has said he is not going to attack, but if so why put two carrier groups just off its coast and did he not say this about Iraq too?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1914 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
I have to say it is a surprise down here at the end of the world that a source was needed for Blackbird's thread

Rules are rules:

#8: If you have something to say, please do so; however be sure to mention your sources, perhaps with an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. We would like to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

It's been all over the news here as well. That is however, irrelevent.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
However, can I ask what authority Bush currently has in Iraq?

Authority given by Congress in 2002. Info in the link RJDxer provided. Perhaps you oughta give it a read.




Bottom line: When the going gets tough, the Democrats run. As I said earlier - pre-election, when Pelosi and Reid were running their mouths - Congress now wants to Micro-Manage the military.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
However, can I ask what authority Bush currently has in Iraq?

Authority given by Congress in 2002. Info in the link RJDxer provided. Perhaps you oughta give it a read.

He doesn't even need that. He is Commander In Chief of the military.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1897 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Bottom line: When the going gets tough, the Democrats run. As I said earlier - pre-election, when Pelosi and Reid were running their mouths - Congress now wants to Micro-Manage the military.

So WW2 (Dem Congress I believe) was an example of Dems running when the going got enormously tough?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
If you have something to say, please do so

I agree, with the following caveat: If you have something _useful_ to say, other than simply a right-wing/neo-con/GOP rant -- which seems to this member to be the staple of any political discussion in this group.

IMHO, of course.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1897 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 14):
So WW2 (Dem Congress I believe) was an example of Dems running when the going got enormously tough?

Different era, different war, different mind set in the world. But if you really wanna go all the way back to WW2 - I mean 75 years ago - I guess that's ok.

The Dems we have now are no where near the Dems we had then. Neither are the Repubs. Neither - NEITHER - party has the interest of the American population at interest. What they have at interest is their next election, their special interest funding, their freebie trips in the name of politics, and the party. Screw the American people. Comparing our gov't of 2007 to our gov't of 1940s is ridiculous.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 14):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
If you have something to say, please do so

I agree, with the following caveat: If you have something _useful_ to say, other than simply a right-wing/neo-con/GOP rant -- which seems to this member to be the staple of any political discussion in this group.

Keep in mind there Connies4Ever, all I did was quote the forum rules and answer Baroques comment.

You can find that exact text here for your reference:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/rules.main?confirm=no

And if you think this forum a bastion of Neo-Con BS, then you haven't been around long enough my friend. . . .


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 14):
other than simply a right-wing/neo-con/GOP rant -- which seems to this member to be the staple of any political discussion in this group.

If you think that political dicussion on this forum are little more than "right-wing/neo-con/GOP rant[s]" then I must ask you what you consider right wing to be. Does it start at Ted Kennedy?

Everyone should be scared of what is happening in congress right now. They are trying to pass resolutions to limit what missions the miltary may conduct. Sound familiar anyone? We are at a critical point in history right now. Last time the government thought it knew how to fight a war better than the military a tough war became an unwinable war. Congress is on the verge of doing that very same thing again.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

Quoting 747hogg (Reply 1):
we are now the most hated nation in the world

...riiiiight, which explains the steady flow of both granted and applied-for immigration rights 2004, 2005, and 2006.
We're soooooo hated/reviled beyond all other places worldwide; but thousands upon thousands try to move here, many risking/forfeiting their lives in the process, every year. Get real dude.

Quoting 747hogg (Reply 1):
and are begging 42 year old grannies to join the army!

I CHALLENGE you to corroborate this drivel.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Apologies ANC, I can now see that you needed a source as your refer to the motion already passed when it was clear that Blackbird was alluding to a forthcoming one, or at least it was clear to me.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
However, can I ask what authority Bush currently has in Iraq?

Authority given by Congress in 2002. Info in the link RJDxer provided. Perhaps you oughta give it a read.

I did not ask what authority Congress tried to give him, possibly because I knew what that was. What I asked was what authority does Bush currently have in Iraq?

You are referring more to the responsibilities that he was given. He might have had authority in Iraq for about two weeks, although if the pillaging was being done under it, he should be ashamed and not have tolerated a Sec Def declaring that democracy is messy.

The responsibilities he should exercise have now have diverged greatly from the authority he has, hence the current problems.

And yet, it is quite difficult to know what (or which) authorities he is actually trying to exert. Clearly when it comes to Iranians, he jumps clear across the sovereign Iraqi government. At other times he does not, so what authority is he really trying to have in Iraq. Exactly how much authority has been handed over to Iraqi forces as they "stand up". This following site is not a great help
http://www.iraqigovernment.org/index-EN.htm

I ask again who has what authority in Iraq?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
What I asked was what authority does Bush currently have in Iraq?

Ahh, I see. Same as beforeas far employment of troops. The Resolution passed in 2002 is still valid.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Exactly how much authority has been handed over to Iraqi forces as they "stand up". This following site is not a great help
http://www.iraqigovernment.org/index-EN.htm

I ask again who has what authority in Iraq?

I see what you're asking. Thanks.

The link is a good read.

What I think - we oughta tell the Iraqi gov't "look fellas, you really need to crap or get off the pot". Further, I think the Iraqi gov't likely in league with an outside gov't - probably Iran - since both are Sunni. And no matter what we - the US does - it's not going to change anything there.

What I'm adamantly opposed to is a micro-managing Congress. And that is, I'm afraid, what is going to come to pass. Of course, the separation of powers will come to play, and eventually it'll all go away, but to be wasting time on this when the country has more pressing issues is ridiculous.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
, he should be ashamed and not have tolerated a Sec Def declaring that democracy is messy.

Quite agree. I don't think you can find a post I've made where I thought Rumsfeld was worth a damn - ever. I believe, in all seriousness, that Rumsfeld BSd the PotUS and the PotUS could see the BS. PotUS needs to own up to that blunder and attempt to explain how and why he left such a wildly unpopular, unproductive, autocrat running the Pentagon for so long . . . all evidence pointing all the while to the fact that Rumsfeld was/is one of the worst SecDefs in history.


User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
I heard that in addition to the "Non-Binding" resolution, they are trying to pass a bill which would revoke the resolution which gave Bush the right to attack and occupy Iraq.

You don't think it's a little late for Congress to say Iraq cannot be attacked and occupied? Granted, Congress could cut off funding, but doing so would endanger our troops that are already there.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Authority given by Congress in 2002.

As well as his inherent authority under the US Constitution....

Quoting Queso (Reply 13):
He doesn't even need that. He is Commander In Chief of the military.

 checkmark 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
Different era, different war, different mind set in the world.

Also, a clearly defined enemy and a clearly defined objective...



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
The link is a good read.

I agree it is fascinating, not so sure about good. I might hold an internal debate with myself to see whether that site or the EADS financials are the better read!!

I would think it was a series of mission statements, except it has clearly been in Arabic first and translated as in:

"He confirmed the necessity to stand against that ugly picture in different ways and plans to confront terrorism between force and firmness, dialogue and reconciliation for whom wants to join the political process to build Iraq and rescue its people if he doesn't commit any crime of murder or sabotage."

It has not so much meaning as it comes out in English, but what does it mean in Arabic I have to wonder. I conclude that there is little US input into those statements

The good part is that they have something written down. What we cannot see is the orders of the Occupation forces vis a vis the stuff on on the Iraqi site. I suspect there is still an overriding rule that a US order outranks anything up to and including Maliki (there you go, I nearly wrote Alawi). The trouble might be that the Iraqis do not then obey those orders. All in all it seems a mess.

Note: I have a feeling that some links that were live about an hour ago are now not so live. An evolving situation perhaps!!


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 14):
I agree, with the following caveat: If you have something _useful_ to say, other than simply a right-wing/neo-con/GOP rant -- which seems to this member to be the staple of any political discussion in this group.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl  Now there is a quote I'm going to save. It's going to be a rough day in the dispatch department due to weather, this will keep a smile on face, thanks Connies.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 17):

I CHALLENGE you to corroborate this drivel.

Well I will corroborate it. I'm not a grandfather yet, thank goodness, but I am 47 and got a call from the Army a little over a month ago. I put up a thread about it.

Military Vets Tell Me If This Was Joke (by RJdxer Jan 10 2007 in Non Aviation)

A couple of weeks ago I had to pick up my daughters hs transcripts to send to a college and happened to run into a couple of Marine recruiters. I asked them what the oldest is now that they will accept and they said 42. I believe the Army recruiter that called me wanted me to be a trainer of some sort, not actually go into combat. I'd be an easy target now, I can see Jamel telling Abdul to pick off the old gray slow one in the rear and put him out of his misery!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
What I asked was what authority does Bush currently have in Iraq?

He is operating under the same authority granted him in 2002. There are several different avenues though. Argument still ensues as to whether the War Powers act is legitimate and would survive a hearing in front of the Supreme Court. War was never formally declared so the President's powers to invade Iraq all stem from the Congresses authorization in 2002. Congress really only has one way to deal with this and it is to restrict funds as they did with the Boland amendment in the 1980's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_amendment

The American public has repeatedly polled that they are not in favor of that so the democrats will do it at their peril. If it works and the troops come home unscathed, they are hero's. If it doesn't and the troops start taking a beating because they have to go through a checklist to see if they can actually shoot back, are they Al Queda, is this defense, are they crossing the border, etc. then I predict they will pay a heavy price in 2008. You want to be careful what you wish for when it comes to combat.


User currently offline747hogg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

"US ARMY MOVES UP AGE LIMIT TO 42" www.usarmy.com goarmy.gov army.com People want to come here in droves, yes, not to sacrifice for the new love of their lives, but Hey... Must Be The Money!! My brother in law was an M.D. in Cebu Philippines, he even trained one year back in 1999 in Cook County Hosp. in the burn unit. He now co owns a super shuttle van in Phoenix and he makes four times what he made in the Philippines. ($80.000) I see Islamic cab drivers all over the friggin country here at, excuse me...AIRPORTS with a medallion of the head of that world sunni leader (grand iotola sustani) in the sun visor, here in phoenix the city built a foot washing stand at the cab holding area so these followers of Osama can clean there feet before the five time a day prayers. I never see american flags or Bush stickers on these immigrant peoples cars, It's dog pile on the fat rich America, and suck it dry for all the benifits and freebes. Travel around like I do, to other countries.... Even in business meetings, the first topic is what in the hell is going on in the USA? how can you keep your fingers down in other nations painties, and not expect to get the shit stomped out of you?

User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 16):
If you think that political dicussion on this forum are little more than "right-wing/neo-con/GOP rant[s]" then I must ask you what you consider right wing to be. Does it start at Ted Kennedy?

My bad for not being clear about one thing: the right-wing posts I refer to tend to come from US-flagged posters. Many of the Euro/ME-flagged posters, and elsewhere, tend to have a rather more liberal or left-of-centre p.o.v., from what I can make out. Apologies to all if my earlier post was not as clear as it should have been.

That of course is only my reading of the posts, and I tend only to look at posts on this board that appear to refer to 'the global situation' (not necessarily only US issues). I'm puzzled by what I seem to see as very (for a Canadian) right-wing offerings when in the past 2 elections, from the vote counts the US is about 50-50 split Dem-GOP. I'd expect more posts promoting the Democratic position -- if there is such a thing. :^) Seems the Democrats more than the GOP are all over the map on major issues -- the war, terrorism, health care, taxes, etc. But then again they've always had a fractious party.

Ted Kennedy ? Well, he might be able to qualify for a Liberal party membership up here. As long as he doesn't drive over any bridges.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
Different era, different war, different mind set in the world. But if you really wanna go all the way back to WW2 - I mean 75 years ago - I guess that's ok.

The Dems we have now are no where near the Dems we had then. Neither are the Repubs. Neither - NEITHER - party has the interest of the American population at interest. What they have at interest is their next election, their special interest funding, their freebie trips in the name of politics, and the party. Screw the American people. Comparing our gov't of 2007 to our gov't of 1940s is ridiculous.

Maybe, but I've always thought that whatever the era, political parties always look to their own advantage first and then the national interest. Which is why so much of any country's foreign policy is driven entirely by local politics. So I'd partly agree with the above and partly disagree. Same holds true up here (or maybe down there since you're in Alaska) for our COnservatives and Liberals.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 DrDeke : Why? The President doesn't seem to have been managing the war at all. Seems like it'd be better to have Congress do it than no-one at all. DrDeke
26 Thomson735 : If america withdraws from Iraq too early, like them idoti's want then you will be and should be taken apart, if you start something like this then ple
27 ANCFlyer : Other than the above, would you like to clarify just exactly WTF the balance of your post is relevent to? A plethora of reasons, not the least of whi
28 Joni : Don't you think that pulling the troops out of Iraq would be good for them?
29 ANCFlyer : Good for the troops?! Hell, that's a silly question. Any time troops are not in the middle of a fire fight is good for them. That said, it's irreleve
30 Mir : What it is going to do is stop Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others from supporting their favorite sectarian group against all the others an
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...and fail thusfar. Raising age of eligibility and "begging 42 year old grannies" are statements bearing significant differences -- not the least of
32 SW733 : I'm really curious to see if the next administration, be it Dem. or Rep., is any less corrupt. This is American politics in the 21st century (and, re
33 Thomson735 : erm, all governments are corrupt, either way one party can not please all
34 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : If the Dems are smart, they should give Shrubya enough rope to hang himself with. He's f***ed up royally, at least when it comes to this whole Iraq th
35 RJdxer : As stated I'm 47 and they cold called me to see if I would take the hook. If that's not a form of begging then I don't know what is. I know you have
36 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ....um, you consider yourself a "granny", and yet I'm the one with a mental complex?
37 Padraighaz : Unless of course the target is a democrat (ala the Murtha resolution) - the republican sleaze version, not the original that Murtha proposed. But tha
38 Baroque : That is a very US view of the problem. A. What authority granted. B Therefore this is the authority possessed. A=B end of story. But, sorry to bear b
39 Cedars747 : Too late ! The damage is already done Alex!!!
40 Aaron747 : Understatement of the thread and you couldn't be more spot-on. They certainly don't and as the US establishment has repeatedly proven, it will sacrif
41 Post contains images ANCFlyer : No worries Baroque, I enjoy the conversation, and I definitely see your point here. I'm quite sure that there are goals and the "job is listed". What
42 Post contains images Cedars747 : Same story No comment ! Hasta la victoria siempre ! Alex!!!
43 RJdxer : I consider myself of grand-parenting age yes. Does that mean I feel old, no. I have been cold called by the Army. I am actually 5 years older than th
44 Post contains images Halls120 : The only thing that modern democrats and republicans believe in is getting reelected so that they continue to rake in the spoils of power. Can we ple
45 Padraighaz : True dat.
46 NASCARAirforce : Just as much as a traitor as one who lies to put them in harms way to begin with. So what if this person believes in 9-11 conspiracies? A lot of peop
47 AndesSMF : See example below from the thread starter. Anyone who is dumb enough to believe in 9/11 conspiracies is the person who can write the statement above,
48 Baroque : Please continue to understand I am trying to dissect reality not barracking for any part of it!! As to a tactic (or is it a strategy?) for the insurg
49 NASCARAirforce : Except how about when a Republican 10 -term Congressman believes that the U.S. might try to get involved in Iran after a staged incident? This was re
50 Post contains images OzGlobal : Well my policy has always been and remains one of 'regime change' for this state. All options should remain on the table. There's more than a little e
51 NASCARAirforce : I welcome a Regime change... however from the inside - don't want any outsiders doing it.
52 Post contains images RJdxer : You forgot Al Queda and the left over Bathists of Saddam's Regime. They would be the most likely suspects since it is their goal to make things look
53 NASCARAirforce : I don't know - I was just quoting an article. I dismissed most of the article anyway. I just posted it for people to read and wanted to stick to the
54 Blackbird : I do not have a source to back what I am now posting up... But I heard on the news earlier today that supposedly Iran is targeting NYC... Frankly this
55 Post contains links and images ANCFlyer : Oh, good, another unsourced post. Might I remind you: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/rules.main?confirm=no Read Rule 8: If you have something t
56 Post contains images Aaron747 : ^ And on top of that, according to Jim Marrs, the Iran attack on New York will be inspired by the ancient extraterrestrial hand of Sumerian gods, prom
58 Post contains links RichPhitzwell : Congress already has the power to end the war if they so choose. The did it in Vietnam, they can and always will have the same ability. All that needs
59 Post contains links Baroque : Forgot nothing, you were invited to add them to the 4D polygon. There is a limit to the complexity it is worth listing, even if the situation is inde
60 MaidensGator : The regime changes every four years... you can set your calendar by it.... Why would he sign it? And where do you get the idea that the President has
61 Post contains images RichPhitzwell : From the source that will not be spoken, paraphrased for your pleasure: The President still must ask for resources. The President may be in charge of
62 Post contains images NASCARAirforce : Maybe or maybe not...
63 Blackbird : There's also a war-powers act, which was made after Vietnam to limit the President; restricts the president to 90-days without a resolution. If they r
64 RichPhitzwell : If we interpret that pesky source to complete literal context, (I like to paraphrase) Congress is the ones who decides what conflicts to go to. The 9
65 MaidensGator : There is a good chance that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.... It's never been tested in Court and no President has yet acknowledged that he
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush To Delay Major Assaults In Iraq posted Mon Oct 11 2004 06:14:46 by Rsmith6621a
ABC's 'Nightline' To Honor US Dead In Iraq posted Thu Apr 29 2004 18:55:38 by 727LOVER
US Soldiers In Iraq Asked To Pray For Bush posted Sun Apr 11 2004 06:32:32 by Cba
800,000 Privileged Youths Enlist To Fight In Iraq posted Sat Jan 20 2007 00:41:12 by Aaron747
Throwing Tepid Support To Mr. Bush's Iraq Strategy posted Thu Jan 11 2007 04:37:36 by Falcon84
Soldier Chooses Not To Fight In Iraq posted Thu Jan 4 2007 08:52:43 by ZKSUJ
Bush Still In Denial Over Iraq posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:09:12 by Falcon84
UH60FtRucker's 10 Point Plan To Win In Iraq posted Sat Nov 11 2006 18:28:06 by UH60FtRucker
Wife And In-laws Charged With Trying To Kill Beach posted Sun Oct 29 2006 03:58:27 by Zootrix
Bush Trying To Pardon Self For War Crimes..sick posted Fri Sep 29 2006 23:56:05 by Mdsh00