Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 01-25-2009, 05:34 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Besides, the Iraq war is no justification for torture. Nothing is. Invading a country is not a justification for war crimes committed in the act, soldiers everywhere on earth have a code of conduct, the simple fact that the enemy does not comply to the rules of war is no justification for breaking this rule according to the Geneva Convention, members need to respect those rules or get out of the deal and join countries that are on the terrorist list.

These are facts of life, take it or leave it. You can't have both, you can't demand others to obey the rules while breaking them yourself, that's an ancient universal law and no American president will ever have the power to change that, humanity doesn't buy that and humanity has history to prove it.

Check out this list, a little view on reality;
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiat...di/_non_flash/

Maybe the USA could try and move a few places up that list instead of waging wars everywhere and re-introducing barbaric war methods.
That might give them some respect back.

 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 01-25-2009, 05:34 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,558
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Does Amsterdam, Netherlands even have a military?

Don't hink I have ever heard or it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-25-2009, 05:55 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
Israel hasn't attacked the US. But if your country feels Israel did something to them, and you feel froggy, by all means JUMP! Go git those Israel bastards. ROTFLMAO

I have a suspicion that they could handle the "Amsterdam assault". It might even make the local evening news.

When did Iraq attack the US?


Oh, I remember, at 9/11.

http://zfacts.com/p/450.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

As I am reminded myself on occasion, for showing contempt towards people who keep using un-truths for arguments (some would call that dishonest), here are the forum rules;

http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/6...uidelines.html

Quote:
2. Stating Facts - If you are stating something as fact, take the time to research the topic, and include credible references to back up your statement.
Please refrain from dishonest debate techniques, I do have contempt for deliberate ignorance, which brings us back to the first rule;

Quote:
1. Enter at Your Own Risk - Controversial topics can become heated very quickly. If you want to participate in the political forums, there will be times that you are going to need thick skin.
That means that you should not be surprised and start crying when you are called out and ridiculed for your numerous logical fallacies and dishonesty.
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-25-2009, 08:15 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post
He probably should thrown few nucelar bombs on Afghanistan to make sure that Taliban has no place to call or to go home and get hated by all the World for that instead of taking on Iraq and to become hated for stupidity starting loosing War and to ruin the Economy.



What do you call over 4,000 dead and not to mention 30,000 wounded Americans?

Are they alive?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

Quote:
Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing and presumed dead.[3][4] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 90 different countries. In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.[5]
In the initial attacks (which I was talking about) almost 3,000 people died. After that Bush could have led the US into World War III, but he didn't! There would have been way more deaths than just 30,000 wounded if that would have happened. And those deaths would have included not only Americans, but people from other parts of the world as well who would have been eventually pulled into WWIII or possibly End of Days.

So I am very happy that Bush didn't do something that could have led into the end of the world -yes. That's why I said have some respect for the man, you're not perfect yourself. Plus, you've never had the weight of the world baring down on you holding the high office of President of the United States to judge his actions.

No, you're just safe and sound (like the rest of us not in Presidential Office) in our own little fantasy realms making judgments about others without any pressure. Jolly, jolly. There are always casualties in war, but the main goal for any commander is to end the war with the least amount of possibly casualties. But of course, you already knew that -didn't you?
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-25-2009, 09:00 PM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
So I am very happy that Bush didn't do something that could have led into the end of the world -yes.
It reminds me story about 2 guys who hate each other’s guts so one day they went to fight. One guy said to other: if you touch even one of my hair, I will go to that lady over there and slap her face.

Bush had fight with Osama... what Iraq has to do with 9/11?

 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-25-2009, 09:04 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
No, I certainly do not agree. The had just got elected and then we were attacked by the suicide plane bombings. But instead of just dropping nuke all over the place, he was able to keep a handle on things just newly being elected into office. Everyone likes to make something out of nothing, give the guy break he did the best he could in the situation he was placed in.

Oh, I see....the 'newbie' defense...poor Bush was new to the job and he shouldn't be held account for neglecting to do anything despite 40+ intelligence warnings? Give him a break?.....Tell that to the widows and families that lost loved ones in the attack!.....

You're still alive aren't you? Everyone out here thought Bush was going to start WWIII or something, but that didn't happen at all. So at least we can give him credit for that. Sometimes I wonder who are all these people slandering Mr. Bush? Do they actually know him personally to say the know him so well? Or are they just coming up with ridiculous cockamamie stories just to satisfy their own egos? Have some respect for the old Commander-in-Chief.
Here's what he deserves credit for...responding to the 9/11 attacks by invading Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban...good so far...but then losing focus there way before finishing the job and refocusing on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...and no WMD....

Please explain why the facts about what he did are slandering him?...and tell me why 'knowing him personally' has anything at all to do with this discussion...what do you want to hear?..."Heckuva job, Bushie"?
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-25-2009, 09:11 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
In the initial attacks (which I was talking about) almost 3,000 people died. After that Bush could have led the US into World War III, but he didn't! There would have been way more deaths than just 30,000 wounded if that would have happened. And those deaths would have included not only Americans, but people from other parts of the world as well who would have been eventually pulled into WWIII or possibly End of Days.
Pardon me for laughing!... We are to be grateful because he didn't take us into WWIII?...

Imagine...he could have led us to the 'end of the world' but he didn't.....what a guy.....
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-25-2009, 11:02 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post
It reminds me story about 2 guys who hate each otherís guts so one day they went to fight. One guy said to other: if you touch even one of my hair, I will go to that lady over there and slap her face.

Bush had fight with Osama... what Iraq has to do with 9/11?

The reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq have already been posted here -I thought. WMDs. But I think you should direct this argument to the facts there. Or here's a link you can use for more facts if you have the time: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006...eds-wmds-iraq/

Regarding my post: http://www.v7n.com/forums/1018008-post11.html

In contrast to FocalPoint's quote of my post #11 found here: http://www.v7n.com/forums/1018501-post26.html

The way in which FocalPoint quoted my post #11 looks if I wrote the extra red colored writing -when I didn't. I wish that his quote to be struck from the record since it is a fraud and totally falsifies my original post (#11).

Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
Please explain why the facts about what he did are slandering him?...and tell me why 'knowing him personally' has anything at all to do with this discussion...what do you want to hear?..."Heckuva job, Bushie"?
No, just a serious debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
Pardon me for laughing!... We are to be grateful because he didn't take us into WWIII?...

Imagine...he could have led us to the 'end of the world' but he didn't.....what a guy.....
Grow up, things could have been much worse.
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-26-2009, 05:20 AM
Futo Futo is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-30-07
Location: UK
Posts: 392
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I can see a lucrative career in the future for bush appearing in tv commercials advertising shoes.
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-26-2009, 06:20 AM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Krahmaan, in post #28 you appear to be repeating information that has conclusively been proven false...

Point one: While acknowledging that the reason for going to war in Iraq was WMD you post an article from 2006 that makes the claim that those weapons were actually found..they were not. Misleading articles like this were common from right-wing sources in their frantic attempt to find 'something' that would justify the reason for attacking Iraq. The truth is, WMD (the kind that would make Iraq a real threat, at least to its neighbors) were never found. This fact has been confirmed by every weapons inspection team including Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, before the war, to David Kay and Charles Duelfer at George Bush's direction after it...What was found were the remains of a weapons program that had been abbandoned in the early 1990's.


Second point...you appear upset that I used red saying it "looks if I wrote the extra red colored writing -when I didn't."(sic)....
This is puzzling since the only words highlighted in red are the ones I wrote! I didn't know that highlighting one's replies in color was breaking a forum rule....


Third: ...if you want a serious debate, you will need to make it one by backing up your claims with verifiable facts...

Fourth: It is hard to imagine how George Bush might have screwed up the middle east even worse than he did....but I guess you could tell us how...
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:58 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre View Post

When did Iraq attack the US?


Oh, I remember, at 9/11.

Please refrain from dishonest debate techniques, I do have contempt for deliberate ignorance, which brings us back to the first rule;
That's called self loathing. Go back and read the reasons I posted for the war in Iraq. Then forget them, and tomorrow bleat out - what waaaas the reeeeeason? It's a vicious cycle you self loathing leftists like to engage in. You get taught something - then the next morning, like groundhog day, forget what you were taught and play dumb all over again.

And BTW - You DO know all the weak references to the so called "torture" are a joke to Arabs. People like you are the butt of jokes. There is no "torture", and what you consider "torture" makes them laugh. They self inflict much worse "torture" on themselves, in celebration. Need photos?

The prisoners at ‘Gitmo’ are a bunch of Al Qaeda Jihadis who were captured while bent on killing us - the kaffirs or ‘unbelievers.’ They laugh watching our government bend over backwards, forwards and sideways trying to appease the critics who consider a poor desert choice, or panties on the head "torture".

Last edited by pgzn; 01-26-2009 at 09:24 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:24 AM
MCSally MCSally is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-08-09
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by herman333 View Post
Why should he? I mean come one. Give the old man a break. He should just rest now and make love to his wife. LOL!
Hahaha. I agree. Give the poor old man a break.
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:57 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,558
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futo View Post
I can see a lucrative career in the future for bush appearing in tv commercials advertising shoes.
Nope. I don't think so.

Car salesman or spokes-person = yes.




Surely you would buy a car from the man.


 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-26-2009, 10:07 AM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Go back and read the reasons I posted for the war in Iraq.
There are only two reasons from the AUMF that justify invading Iraq..and the Bush Administration was clear about stating them...one was that they possessed WMD and had the intent and capability to attack us (we were in danger of imminent attack) and the second was that they were involved in the attacks on 9/11.(they were part of the 9/11 attack on the WTC)

Without those two key principle reasons....they attacked us/they intend to attack again...no other reasons hold up under international law. Neither reason was true.

Let's look at your list of 'reasons' ....


Quote:
Saddam Hussein 'systematically violated' the Agreement that ended the Gulf War.
The agreement you refer to was with the United Nations...therefore the United Nations Security is the only legal body that can decide on the consequences.

Quote:
Iraq possessed biological weapons, including Anthrax and botulinum toxin.
Iraq possessed chemical weapons, including Sarin, Mustard and VX and munitions to deliver them.
Iraq's Chemical, biological weapons programs were abandoned in the eary '90's as Scott Ritter attested to. (of course, they attacked Scott Ritter for revealing the truth)


Quote:
U2 surveillance flights as required by the UN were not granted clearance.
Again, that is for the U.N. not the U.S. to dcetermine...

Quote:
[edit] Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq
On October 16, 2002, President Bush signed the AUMF Iraq, or Iraq War Resolution authorizing force against Iraq. The Resolution gave the following reasons for regime change in Iraq:
Quote:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
.

This 'interference' occurred in 1998...and was not happening at the time we attacked Iraq.

Quote:
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Yet the ones making the 'allegations' were Bush, Cheney and the neocons.

Quote:
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
The brutallity went on for years prior especially during the Reagan era...the same time we were supporting Saddam against ther Iranians....'retroactive humanitarian crises' don't constitute just reasons for war..

Quote:
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
This, of course, was proven to be untrue and the U.N. inspectors had said as much...

Quote:
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
Again these are not 'cassus belli' to invade another nation...and it was well past the time we might have retaliated for these crimes....and the assertion that alQaeda were 'known to be in Iraq' is a lie...and there is no evidence to support it...

Quote:
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Saddam was a lot of things but he wasn't a fool...he was not involved in any way with contributing to the 9/11 attacks....based on these trumped up charges we should have attacked the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia which gave substantial support to alQaeda...

Quote:
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
This argument falls immediately by the fact that Iraq had no WMD to give..
Quote:
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
Which leaves Iraq out of the picture...
Quote:
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
All these so-called reasons to attack Iraq are peripheral....they merely support the idea that Saddam was indeed a bad man...

When Clinton used the words regime change he was not meaning he planned to invade Iraq
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-26-2009, 10:52 AM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
The reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq have already been posted here -I thought. WMDs.
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
After that Bush could have led the US into World War III, but he didn't!
And who you suppose would fight WWIII? There is only 2 players who had capabilities to go to War with US: Russia and China and lets just say if Bush leveled Afghanistan, which one of these two would respond?

Russia? I donít think so. After loosing War to Afghanistan, Putin would smile with pleasure and maybe even thrown couple of his own nukes if US missed some spots

China? There is nothing in Afghanistan that they want or need except maybe for a couple Ks of heroin.

So, please make your argument heard and tell us who would fight in WWIII?

One thing is for sure.
If crazy cowboy from Texas huked Afghanistan then the rest of the real estate in the area would take notes and I doubt if Iran, Iraq, Syria would ever open their mouth and try to pull another 9/11 knowing that they are going to be next.

 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-26-2009, 11:05 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
Yet the ones making the 'allegations' were Bush, Cheney and the neocons.
Groundhog day = new day, selective amnesia.

Lets recap what happened yeaterday shall we?

Quotes:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Not a reader? Lets just watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4m1QB_6gQg
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-26-2009, 11:32 AM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
And what is it you are trying to prove with those quotes from Democrats about Saddam's WMD capabilities? I've seen that same list a thousand times in the last several years. It only proves that some Democrats were as wrong as most Republicans about Saddam's capabilities!

But many spoke out against that view....Scott Ritter, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (to name just three) who turned out to be right on the money.......Saddam was not a threat!
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-26-2009, 11:41 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
And what is it you are trying to prove with those quotes from Democrats about Saddam's WMD capabilities? I've seen that same list a thousand times in the last several years. It only proves that some Democrats were as wrong as most Republicans about Saddam's capabilities!

But many spoke out against that view....Scott Ritter, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (to name just three) who turned out to be right on the money.......Saddam was not a threat!
Some? You mean ALL? At least All the ones that mattered, and voted for war. The same ones who now pretend to be against it, and hilariously, the same ones who continued for 5 years to vote to fund the war. The same ones that also voted for Iraq regime change laws before Bush even came to town.

Carter, being 20 years out has no authority to even form an opinion. Zero, busy voting "present" in the IL legislature had no information greater than the results of a coin to toss. Ritter was more busy checking child porn sites to be credible. Which in itself is hilarious, due to the UN's penchant for hiring child molesters and shredder operators.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-26-2009 at 11:50 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-26-2009, 05:22 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Carter, being 20 years out has no authority to even form an opinion. Zero, busy voting "present" in the IL legislature had no information greater than the results of a coin to toss. Ritter was more busy checking child porn sites to be credible. Which in itself is hilarious, due to the UN's penchant for hiring child molesters and shredder operators.
Very interesting comments....however they were right!...and so were the 23 Democratic Senators who voted against the AUMF....
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-26-2009, 05:55 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Some? You mean ALL?
No pgzn, when I said some I meant...SOME!...In case you can't find the facts, 42% of Democrats in the Senate voted against the AUMF. That is a total of 23 Democrats in the Senate. 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted with the Democrats.

In the House, 61% of Democrats voted against it! ..a total of 126 Democrats in the House. 6 Republicans and 1 Independent voted with the Democrats.

Scott Ritter was attacked because he told the truth....Saddam had no weapons program...Carter is attacked just for existing...but he was right too....we now have a president who rightfully opposed the war and has inherited the Bush economic failures....

btw....the President always takes the rap....if he's a man..."The buck stops here", Harry Truman....not "Pass the buck"...G Bush....
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
marijuana can cause psychosis. Agree? ryukenden Controversial Social Issues 161 12-17-2007 02:30 PM
I agree georgechristodoulou Marketing Forum 3 11-23-2006 03:35 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC