PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: clips on December 20, 2004, 05:08:02 PM
-
i\'m on my way out from work..but i just seen this...i will comment on this wed..since i\'m off t\'morrow...s**t i didn\'t get a chance to read it...but it looks like bush is admitting this war is becoming a bit overwhelming for our troops...and now he wants to blame somebody...the iraqi army?..sorry bush you wanna play the blame game?,..look in the mirror...
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTB2MXQ5MTU3BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtaWU-/s/224307
-
lol Wow, you read a lot into that... I don\'t think for a moment that Bush has a single regret about the conflict.
-
Ethugg is a conservative pass it on.
-
didnt bush win man of the year award from time magazine for his political stance?
-
Well, for \'sticking to his guns\'. And being one of the most influential men in the world at present.
Jump- I prefer the label neo-con. I\'m not a fiscal conservative in any way. :p
-
It\'s a double-edged sword. The whole time he never said that stuff yet people said he\'s an ignorant retard... he\'ll never admit he was wrong. Then the first hint of him saying something negative about the war and the same people proclaim "He\'s admitting defeat!!!"
-
^^^People were calling him ignorant for saying how GOOD things were going in Iraq when by most accounts they were the opposite.
It is not a double edged sword. Its about criticising people for saying something bad about Iraq because it "gives the troops the wrong message" and then turning around and saying that the enemy\'s tactics are working against us. Which IMO definately sends the wrong message.
-
No shit. He\'s doing exactly what he criticized Kerry for. LOL :)
-
ok finally read it...so he wasn\'t admitting defeat...andS**t give me a break..if you read earlier i wrote.."i didn\'t read it yet" :p...anyway...how can you blame the iraqi forces?..yea tru at some point and time these iraqi\'s need to step up to the plate..but you have to look at where this all started...riiiight...this all goes back to bush....no wmd\'s...see how we all forget about that?
the iraqi\'s didn\'t asked to be "liberated"..:rolleyes:...and now he has the nerve to say "make no mistake life is better in iraq without saddam" oooookay..:p..the elections are going to be a joke, and with no real security.. those people that ARE going to line up and vote are going to be target practice for the insurgents,..you\'re not even safe in the so called "green zone"this war has gone to s**t with no light at the end of the tunnel...
-
Iraq didn\'t \'ask\' to be liberated? That\'s got to be the stupidest thing I\'ve ever read... Iraqies weren\'t allowed to ask for anything, they were too busy being killed and oppressed to e-mail America. Grow up, or better yet move to a country as oppressive as Iraq was and send me a letter telling me how much you ****ing love it there. WMD\'s were one of a dozen reasons given for going into Iraq but every Bush hater in the world seems to lack the motor functions to recall any but that one.
And I\'m sure Bush would like to apologize that the election won\'t go perfectly according to your liking. Well **** us, why bother trying to secure freedom and democracy at all? It could be dangerous! Any risk is unacceptable! :rolleyes: It\'s a good thing you aren\'t in charge of the country, or the terrorists would have control in record time. After all, if terrorist insurgents are going to exist, we should give into them, right? It\'s not like we\'re killing them and slowly giving Iraq the promise of the freedom you obviously take for granted, huh? Oh wait, we are.
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
Iraq didn\'t \'ask\' to be liberated? That\'s got to be the stupidest thing I\'ve ever read... Iraqies weren\'t allowed to ask for anything, they were too busy being killed and oppressed to e-mail America. Grow up, or better yet move to a country as oppressive as Iraq was and send me a letter telling me how much you ****ing love it there. WMD\'s were one of a dozen reasons given for going into Iraq but every Bush hater in the world seems to lack the motor functions to recall any but that one.
And I\'m sure Bush would like to apologize that the election won\'t go perfectly according to your liking. Well **** us, why bother trying to secure freedom and democracy at all? It could be dangerous! Any risk is unacceptable! :rolleyes: It\'s a good thing you aren\'t in charge of the country, or the terrorists would have control in record time. After all, if terrorist insurgents are going to exist, we should give into them, right? It\'s not like we\'re killing them and slowly giving Iraq the promise of the freedom you obviously take for granted, huh? Oh wait, we are.
i see we\'re going to get along just fine....please tell me what were the other reason\'s for invading iraq and please don\'t say "well uh they were violating the u.n sanctions :rolleyes:" the sanctions kept saddam in check regardlress of what possible scandal might have developed...wmd\'s were the main reason we invaded iraq...all those countries in africa are bein oppressed as well..and you don\'t see the u.s. goin over there do you?...so don\'t give me that s**t about how we\'re there to help or how the iraq\'s wanted our help...iraq had nothing to do with 911..yet bush and others obviously have you brainwashed otherwise...
i\'ve said it before..the war in afganastan (spel)..i was all for it...this war in iraq wasn\'t needed...and now you have all kinds of terrorists in iraq that wasn\'t there before..add on top of that over 1000 american lives lost and a prez that states he doesn\'t know when these cats are comin home?..then wants to blame the iraqi\'s for not handling the problem...how the hell you\'re gonna blame them, when our own troops *the most powerful and sophisticated troops on the planet* are having a hard time?...i also love how the war went from a war to find wmd\'s to a war of liberating the poor iraqi citizens :p,...believe that croc if you want too..i know better...
-
You\'ve blown my mind. Such undeniably logical reasoning and facts from someone who started a thread about an article they hadn\'t even read for the sole purpose of bashing Bush, can\'t spell Afghanistan, and doesn\'t even capitalize properly. Since you\'re under the impression that Saddam was under control, I won\'t even bother wasting time debating with you. You\'re an idiot. Or so the Bush Administration controlled voice in my head tells me... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
WMD\'s were one of a dozen reasons given for going into Iraq but every Bush hater in the world seems to lack the motor functions to recall any but that one.
You say this like Bush and his supporters did not harp on WMDs as the primary reason for invading Iraq before they actually did. There were no mentions of liberating the Iraqis because they know that as a whole America doesn\'t care about the Iraqis. Especially not enough to support a preemptive strike. The entire war in Iraq was predicated on the emminent threat of violence from Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and WMDs. That is the only reason Congress gave the authorization to go to war.
With all of that said are we really supposed to take someone seriously when they say that their goal was to liberate the Iraqi people when 2 years ago the Iraqis were the last people we were worrying about saving?
Give me a break.
-
Congress? War? We never declared war, to my knowledge. Nor did Bush seek Congressional approval of the military operation. Maybe you chose to ignore it, and we can both agree the average American doesn\'t really care about liberating them, but Bush, like the average American, will pretend to want to, just because it is the correct and proper thing to do. He did use it as a reason we needed to do this.
There might be no WMDs (I won\'t debate you on the probability they were moved out the moment the conflict started - its a huge ****ing desert and we would both be arguing something we will probably never really know), but Saddam\'s regime WAS an immediate threat to the US and indeed the world as it was funding al Qaeda and other groups. Was it the US\'s biggest problem? No, I\'ll admit that. But they were a problem, one that\'s needed taking care of for quite some time now. Bush took the opprotunity to fix a lot of things - both in self-interest and for the good of the world - that his father and Billy boy didn\'t by getting into this conflict. And when all is said and done, imperfect election notwithstanding, the world will be a slightly better place to live in.
I hope for and would support Bush continuing the war on terror beyond Iraq and finishing the hunt for the rest if aQ, and then moving on to Korea, and Africa. Stabalizing the rest of the world is in the self interest of every industrialized country, even if they are too blind in their own downward spiral into impotence (like most of Europe) to realize it.
-
You do know that the President can not go to war without the authorization of congress, right?
As for Saddam\'s ties to al Qaeda. This administration has said many times that Hussein had no ties to al Qaeda and no involvement with 9/11. How he was(as you claim) an immediate threat, I will never know.
BTW, If you want to get into those funding terrorists being immediate threats to our safety then the Saudi\'s must have a knife to our throats because they have MANY more ties to al qaeda and terrorism than Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
You do know that the President can not go to war without the authorization of congress, right?
Technically yes but realistically no. (http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/articles_truman_loss_bush_gain.shtml) Gulf War, Korean War, & Vietnam War were without the formal approval of Congress. Probably won\'t get approval from Congress for the next war either.
Saddam supported terrorism by paying the families of dead terrorists thousands of dollars. And don\'t forget about the $10B he stole from the Iraqi people in the Oil-for-Food scandal, which was supposed to be watched & executed by the highly efficient UN. :rolleyes:
-
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
October 2, 2002
Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq)
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was a resolution passed in October 2002 by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
-
Hmm both links have some great insite, thanks. And just for some trivia here\'s another quote:
The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor more than a half-century ago.
-
Thanks THX. :) Black, you\'re entitled to your opinion, but nothing you are going to say is going to change my mind. I have taken a bit of a break post-election, but I follow politics and the news pretty closely and it\'ll take a lot to shake the opinions I\'ve formed from everything I\'ve read and seen about this war.
Just a note, since you don\'t seem to quite understand, Bush requested certain powers, not an official declaration of war. We are not at war with Iraq, we are at war with \'terror\'.
-
^^^I\'m not trying to change your mind. Nothing that I posted was opinion. If you choose to look at the facts as presented to you and disregard them then more power to you.
Originally posted by EThuggV3
Just a note, since you don\'t seem to quite understand, Bush requested certain powers, not an official declaration of war. We are not at war with Iraq, we are at war with \'terror\'.
BTW, Since YOU don\'t seem to understand. The president can not use our military without the approval of congress (At least he should not be able to). The authorization to use force has been the US equivalent of a declaration of war for many years now. The last time the US officially declared war was in WW2.
Back in 2001, Congress gave Bush the authorization to use force on those tied to 9/11. As already stated Bush was then given authorization to use force in Iraq. It is not possible to have a "war with terror". Symbolically it works; but for you to state it like it is equivalent to a "war with Iraq" is absolutely ridiculous. You CAN go to war with a sovereign nation or a political entity. You can NOT go to war with a tactic.
-
You can go to war against a movement or ideology - it is much better to say that this is a War on Terror than a War on Fundamentalist Islam. Wouldn\'t you agree? You are arguing semantics. Radical Islam\'s chief "tactic" is terror, so in saying we are at War with Terror would also be accurate.
-
You can have a war against a movement but not an ideology. You can not have a war against something intangible. Like I said it makes sense symbolically but factually it does not hold water. That is why you can not compare a tangible "War in Iraq" with a broad intangible "War on Terror".
It may be semantics but I think its arguable. I\'m just trying to dispute EThugg\'s idea that we are at war with terror and not at war with Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
You can have a war against a movement but not an ideology. You can not have a war against something intangible. Like I said it makes sense symbolically but factually it does not hold water. That is why you can not compare a tangible "War in Iraq" with a broad intangible "War on Terror".
It may be semantics but I think its arguable. I\'m just trying to dispute EThugg\'s idea that we are at war with terror and not at war with Iraq.
What do you call the Second World War? That was a war against ideologies. Japanese Imperialism and National Socialism. The Vietnam War was a war against an ideology as well - Communism.
-
Symbolically, they were wars against ideologies. They weren\'t called the War on Nazism or the War on Commies. I am not arguing the symbolic aspect of a war. Adding symbolism to a cause is how you get the people to support. What I am arguing is the idea that WW2 was a war against National Socialism and NOT against Germany et al. That is what EThugg is contending; That you can have a war against a symbolic enemy without having a war against a tangible enemy.
-
I\'m not disregarding any facts kiddo, you are misrepresenting them. You\'ve read completely the opposite of what I said. I did not say we are/can be at war with an ideology, I said we aren\'t in a real war. Try actually reading what is posted. I only called it the war on terror because, amazingly, that\'s what its called. Its just a phrase, like the war on poverty or the war on drugs. YOU are the one insisting we are at war. We aren\'t and I never argued we were.
-
So now we aren\'t even at war?
-
We haven\'t been. It\'s a conflict/military operation, yes, but not a war. We are killing terrorists, not the Iraqi military. There is no Iraqi military. We are not fighting a recognized government or an entire nation. We are killing terrorists and helping a country facilitate the creation of a legitamite government that represents the citizens of Iraq. If you want to expand the word war to include such military/government operations, then you must expand it to include ideological wars as well, which you don\'t seem to want to, so... *shrugs*
-
So what recognized government/nation are we fighting in the war on terror?
-
thats why its not a war..and its impossible to fight.
Even if it was verse a military, presidents cant call for war so they just label it as an operation and what-not to avoid having congress declare war.
-
Oh please people. Was Vietnam not a war, yet Congress never declared it one?
Impossible to fight terrorism? :rolleyes:
-
yea. I\'m not pro-kerry or anything like you probably think. I just never post in here. They were talking about actual labels of what is "war" and what is not. To me any battle is a war.
And it\'s pretty damn hard to fight terrorism. It\'s similar to vietnam and that didnt turn out too well. Part of me is glad that we attacked because im for pre-emptive (sp?) strike. But its hard as hell to tell the difference between normal iraqi\'s and terrorists and even if we kill 1,000 there are still a bunch more in random places that are close to impossible to find.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Oh please people. Was Vietnam not a war, yet Congress never declared it one?
Impossible to fight terrorism? :rolleyes:
I wouldn\'t call Nam a real war, no. If I was just using the word war casually, as I would the word conflict, sure.
I wouldn\'t say it\'s impossible to fight, but more accurately, impossible to stamp it out completely. There will always be terrorism as long as there are governments and societies, I\'m pretty sure.
-
I thought the americans stopped calling the Vietnam War a war just to save face. :)
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
You\'ve blown my mind. Such undeniably logical reasoning and facts from someone who started a thread about an article they hadn\'t even read for the sole purpose of bashing Bush, can\'t spell Afghanistan, and doesn\'t even capitalize properly. Since you\'re under the impression that Saddam was under control, I won\'t even bother wasting time debating with you. You\'re an idiot. Or so the Bush Administration controlled voice in my head tells me... :rolleyes:
whoa..i take a few days off and come back to this!...wow ethugg i didn\'t know this was some sort of grammar class....please..shut the f**k up!...even when i posted this thread i stated i merely just glanced at it...*giving the hint that i could actually be wrong about the assumption*...didn\'t know i had to break it down for you,..could be you\'re a little slow on the intake...
secondly if you\'ve read any of my other posts you will see that even tho i\'am not big on bush i don\'t bash bush at every chance i get...and because i believe otherwise than saddam was under control i\'m an idiot?trust everybody has opinions in here and if you can\'t take some of them you should just stay the f**k out!...if you can\'t debate with me for the poor reason\'s you listed,..then we all know who the real idiot is....
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
I wouldn\'t call Nam a real war, no. If I was just using the word war casually, as I would the word conflict, sure.
If Vietnam was not a war and Iraq is not a war WTF has to happen for the US to be considered at war?
You aren\'t even making sense anymore. I can see how the current situation in Iraq could be considered something other than a war; but Vietnam? Come on man. Seriously.
-
clips - why you gettin all up in mah grill, yo? for real. Seriously, if you didn\'t even bother reading the article, even you must see how uninformed you must be and you shouldn\'t be starting debates on it. Grammar aside, if you tried to debate anyone serious about debating the way you started this thread, no one would debate you. It\'s not just me being unfair. When you wanna harp on someone, you need to, bare minimum, put in enough effort to read the article you\'re basing your post on.
Black- WWII was the last real war. For it to be a war, Congress must declare war. We took a side in a civil war in Nam, we weren\'t at war with the country. There is a difference. It was a conflict.
faston- I\'m pretty sure most Americans actually do call it a war still, they just do so incorrectly. ;)
-
ethugg let me just say this...from the way the article was posted it seemed like bush was admitting defeat..instead he\'s finally admitting after about a year that the insurgents are having an effect in iraq...point is that i stated i didn\'t read over the article fully and yet you say it\'s a case of bush bashing :rolleyes: yet you come out and say i\'m an idiot...trust you can take up for him and stick your nose up his ass, but the fact is i actually thought bush was the better and stronger prez this election...
i understand what you stated earlier,..but you attacked me even tho i stated i didn\'t fully read the article...now if i stated that i did read the article and still came out with "bush admitting defeat" then i can see your point..capeesh?
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
Black- WWII was the last real war. For it to be a war, Congress must declare war. We took a side in a civil war in Nam, we weren\'t at war with the country. There is a difference. It was a conflict.
The congressional authorization to use force has been the equivalent of a declaration of war SINCE WW2. For you to sit there and actually say that the only war we have fought in the last 60+ years is WW2 is ridiculous.
If one country declares war on another and we align ourselves with one side in the fight we ARE at war with the opposing country.
-
Black- Congress can still declare an actual war, and \'use of force\' was a power they had before. Just because the facts don\'t work in your favor doesn\'t mean you can creatively interpret them, the two acts are not the same thing just because Congress has not chosen to declare war at a time you feel we were at war.
We have not been in an actual war since WWII. And trust me, I\'m not saying it because I don\'t want us to be at war, if that\'s how it sounds. I like war, I support war. If I were President, I would be declaring as many actual wars as possible until I was out of office or dead.
And... how did we side with a country against another country when they are the same country?
clips- My only problem was that you hadn\'t read it before starting the thread, even if you stated it as such, the way the thread was started appeared to be aimed directly at illiciting a distinctly antiBush discussion. If that was not your intention, I apologize, but either way, disclaimer or no, I\'d suggest reading articles before posting them. But I\'m not the boss of you, and I cetainly can\'t make you.
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
We have not been in an actual war since WWII. And trust me, I\'m not saying it because I don\'t want us to be at war, if that\'s how it sounds. I like war, I support war. If I were President, I would be declaring as many actual wars as possible until I was out of office or dead.
I was with you up until this. Maybe you ment to say "if there was a threat you wouldnt hesitate to make war." It would just be retarded to go to war for the hell of it. I\'m not going to make any personal attacks (ull get plenty of this), but damn dude. Soldiers are ment to protect us, not just to be thrown into a warfield.
If there was an actual threat from Iraq then im for the war. If there wasn\'t than I\'m not for it. And i won\'t believe either or from the media or any other source. Only until i have seen papers or something with my own two eyes will i make a judgement that a war is right or wrong. All wars suck, obviously. Noone (except thuggs maybe) WANTS war. but i still find it necessary to protect from retard dictators like north korea.
Granted i will probably never be able to say whether a war is justified or not, but id rather have that than be For or Against it because of what michael moore or bush says in a speech. Not making a comparison between the two, i have more respect for bush because of his position and decisions he has to make while i hate michael moore.
-
I thrive on conflict, but I expect few to share, at least openly, this view. That however was mearly my opinion, as long as we\'re on the same page with the rest of the things, it\'s all good.
-
C\'mon?=
WMD?...That is a thing of the past. That\'s the old reason.
Now it\'s we are defending America\'s freedom! Remember, they HATE us because we are free. That is final. That is it.
The war is going pretty good in my opinion. A few deaths here and there. But so far nothing big, nothing fancy. Just plain ol\' "let\'s blow the American soldiers".
Meanwhile, the war on "terror" has shifted to the war in Iraq.
I don\'t see us fighting other terrors. All I see is our soldiers dying for a war fought with a bullshit excuse.
-
Think you missed the point of my post.
To me, theres too many missing pieces to say if a war is right or wrong. So i support the troops and not worry about politics because i A) I cant control it and B) I dont know the actual truth. Noone does. How much stuff do we not hear? tons of it, and people dont see that. People complain about 9/11 and how we let it slip by. Do they forget about the billion other threats they dont tell us about?
SO i think attacking iraq is obviously bad. attacking someone with a threat is bad because lives would be lost. but WOULD IF we dont attack, then were attacked again because we didnt. Then people would be bitching like they did at 9/11 because they let it slip by. But at the same time, would if were not doing it for the right reasons? or not a reason worth enough to fight? I have no clue so im not going to make a judgement.
Granted its probably a crappy way of thinking to you, but ill stick to it.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
C\'mon?=
WMD?...That is a thing of the past. That\'s the old reason.
Now it\'s we are defending America\'s freedom! Remember, they HATE us because we are free. That is final. That is it.
The war is going pretty good in my opinion. A few deaths here and there. But so far nothing big, nothing fancy. Just plain ol\' "let\'s blow the American soldiers".
Meanwhile, the war on "terror" has shifted to the war in Iraq.
I don\'t see us fighting other terrors. All I see is our soldiers dying for a war fought with a bullshit excuse.
I thought you left... damn. :( Guess wishes don\'t come true.
"Fighting other terrors." :laughing: You mean like giant squid, vampires and the sort?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I thought you left... damn. :( Guess wishes don\'t come true.
"Fighting other terrors." :laughing: You mean like giant squid, vampires and the sort?
No, I mean like other terrorist groups around the world...Jerk.