# US prepares battlefield in Iran



## JimH52

Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran - CNN.com



> President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.



Why am I not shocked?


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not shocked?



You see no reason for concern?


----------



## jreeves

JimH52 said:


> Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not shocked?



Omg.....*congress approved *400 million for covert operations in Iran.....

But leave it to CNN to put a negative spin on it....as they do with almost anything relating to Bush...


----------



## editec

I am not especially concerned about Iran, no.

No more than I was concerned about Iraq's supposed nuclear threat. 

As to Congress giving the Bush Administration funding to screw with Iran?

That I find very troubling but not especially surprising

Those clowns should be shut up in a room until Jan 2009 to prevent them from doing anything stupid.

Instead Congress is once again enabling them.


----------



## JimH52

It is a concern but for this administration, it is no surprise.  We can just keep praying for January 2009 when he can return to Texas as a hero sit on his porch and tell his war stories.


----------



## Paulie

jreeves said:


> Omg.....*congress approved *400 million for covert operations in Iran.....
> 
> But leave it to CNN to put a negative spin on it....as they do with almost anything relating to Bush...



400 fucking million?

Those mother fucking sons of bitches better fucking FIND something.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ya, after all we shouldn't actually PAY for intel gathering, spying or information gathering UNLESS every request provides a detailed list of what it will find BEFORE it happens. And if they don't we should make the operatives pay back the money.


----------



## Swamp Fox

Nice covert operation they've got going there.  All over the NY Times, CNN, Foxnews and every media outlet from here to Tehran and back.  Yep, that'll be a secret operation for sure.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Swamp Fox said:


> Nice covert operation they've got going there.  All over the NY Times, CNN, Foxnews and every media outlet from here to Tehran and back.  Yep, that'll be a secret operation for sure.



The libs and the press don't mind one bit selling out the Country when it is a republican Administration.

And then we have EOTS and others claiming the Government pulled off the 9/11 attacks in secret.


----------



## jreeves

RetiredGySgt said:


> The libs and the press don't mind one bit selling out the Country when it is a republican Administration.
> 
> And then we have EOTS and others claiming the Government pulled off the 9/11 attacks in secret.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Omg.....*congress approved *400 million for covert operations in Iran.....
> 
> But leave it to CNN to put a negative spin on it....as they do with almost anything relating to Bush...



are you for real?  first of all, why isn't  this all over the news? 

remember the NIE said Iran stopped trying to build weapon grade nukes and bush said all that proved was that iran was trying to build one? 

as if that's enough reason to invade?  

u r a good german.  

and don't worry about the libs holding their breath when I post because no one is swallowing what you are serving.

u'r either rich or dumb.

most of my friends that are sheep are voting for obama.  they don't know if i'm a conspiracy nut or if i'm just as brainwashed as you.  all they know is the gop did a bad job.  so they know more than you.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> are you for real?  first of all, why isn't  this all over the news?
> 
> *remember bush said the NIE that said Iran stopped trying to build weapon grade nukes and bush said all that proved was that iran was trying to build one? *
> as if that's enough reason to invade?
> 
> u r a good german.
> 
> and don't worry about the libs holing thei breath when I post because no one is swallowing what you are serving.
> 
> u'r either rich or dumb.




I was wondering, but you gave me proof positive, you are dumber than you sound. The 400 million dollars that Congress allegedly approved for covert operations in Iran, is from the article that started this thread, genius. 

Omg....I was responding to the information in the article that started the thread and now I made it up. Dude step away from the peace pipe and the Kool Aid....


I know I get in a hurry and don't always speak in perfect English, but WTF does that crap in the bold mean?


----------



## Swamp Fox

sealybobo said:


> are you for real?  first of all, why isn't  this all over the news?
> 
> remember bush said the NIE that said Iran stopped trying to build weapon grade nukes and bush said all that proved was that iran was trying to build one?
> 
> as if that's enough reason to invade?
> 
> u r a good german.
> 
> and don't worry about the libs holing thei breath when I post because no one is swallowing what you are serving.
> 
> u'r either rich or dumb.



Least he can spell.  Try going back to school and learning before you come posting here.  My four year old nephew can spell better then that.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> I was wondering, but you gave me proof positive, you are dumber than you sound. The 400 million dollars that Congress allegedly approved for covert operations in Iran, is from the article that started this thread, genius.



I heard a congresman today explain "black" area of the budget where the president can sorta spend it how he wants.  I don't think pelosi and reed gave bush the go ahead to war with iran.  di they!

all I was saying is why isn't  this headline news?

cnn is talking about obama's patriotism and guns.  talk about controlling the conversation.  liberal media my ass


----------



## sealybobo

Swamp Fox said:


> Least he can spell.  Try going back to school and learning before you come posting here.  My four year old nephew can spell better then that.



you guys ever hear that if it isn't  on tv, it isn't  real?  so cnn.com and npr can talk all they want.  if tv doesn't report on it, ppl don't care.  and they need to report day after day like they did the monica story.  

luckily the gop went too far and no amount of spin wil save them.  

the dems sat quiet for 3 yrs and let the gop ruin america.

and i'm on a phone internet.  i'm typing with my thumbs.  I type better than you and work for a huge corporation.  i'm in sales and very successful.  my friends joke i'm a hypocrite because I bitch but also work for the man.  a man's gotta eat.

ps.  omg!  now cnn is questioning michelle obama's patriotism.  if the news is liberal, they are really dumb in the news stories they report.  why wouldn't they instead bash cindy mccain or talk about speculation?  talk about controlling the conversation.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering, but you gave me proof positive, you are dumber than you sound. The 400 million dollars that Congress allegedly approved for covert operations in Iran, is from the article that started this thread, genius.
> 
> *I heard a congresman today explain "black" area of the budget where the president can sorta spend it how he wants.*  I don't think pelosi and reed gave bush the go ahead to war with iran.  di they!
> 
> all I was saying is why isn't  this headline news?
> 
> *cnn is talking about obama's patriotism and guns.  talk about controlling the conversation.  liberal media my ass*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does the stuff in the bold have to with the thread being discussed? No the media didn't interupt regular programming to discuss this topic. But the topic was discussed in the news, if needs be I can post some major news organizations coverage. The reason they didn't break into regular programming is because it can't be collaberated by named sources. So the report may not even be credible.
Click to expand...


----------



## JimH52

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya, after all we shouldn't actually PAY for intel gathering, spying or information gathering UNLESS every request provides a detailed list of what it will find BEFORE it happens. And if they don't we should make the operatives pay back the money.



Quote:


> President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.



Then there is the intelligence that is rejected by the "decider" and Uncle Fester because they know better, seeing how they were war heros and all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JimH52 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Then there is the intelligence that is rejected by the "decider" and Uncle Fester because they know better, seeing how they were war heros and all.



Yup just cause you don't like them we should not conduct operations to find out.

As I recall our intel is not known for being exceptionally accurate in regards goings on in countries in that region. I would think retards like you would want to know one way or another.

Ohh and remind me how France and the rest of Europe believe Iran is not trying to make a nuke.


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup just cause you don't like them we should not conduct operations to find out.
> 
> As I recall our intel is not known for being exceptionally accurate in regards goings on in countries in that region. I would think retards like you would want to know one way or another.
> 
> Ohh and remind me how France and the rest of Europe believe Iran is not trying to make a nuke.



no, our own intelligence says iran is not developing weapons grade nukes.  do you know the differece between mccain and obama's energy plans?  mccains includes nuclear energy!  so iran can't?  us americans are brainwashed.  n koreas leader was painted as a kook.  Today he's out of the axis of evil.  he actually tested a nuke in the ocean.

anyways, how dare you call someone else a dumbass when you believe a guy that already lied us into one war.

iraq didn't have anything to do with 9 11 and bush doesn't even think about bin ladin that much.  what happened to dead or alive?  do a fox news search where a retired military guy went on and said tthey had a70 percent chance bin ladin was in that convoy and they let him get away.

could it be bush is friends with bin ladin family?  
and they love having the boogie man to scare us.  I bet bin ladin will campaign for mccain.  his tapes are hotter than pam andersons.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> no, our own intelligence says iran is not developing weapons grade nukes.  do you know the differece between mccain and obama's energy plans?  mccains includes nuclear energy!  so iran can't?  us americans are brainwashed.  n koreas leader was painted as a kook.  Today he's out of the axis of evil.  he actually tested a nuke in the ocean.
> 
> anyways, how dare you call someone else a dumbass when you believe a guy that already lied us into one war.
> 
> iraq didn't have anything to do with 9 11 and bush doesn't even think about bin ladin that much.  what happened to dead or alive?  do a fox news search where a retired military guy went on and said tthey had a70 percent chance bin ladin was in that convoy and they let him get away.
> 
> could it be bush is friends with bin ladin family?
> and they love having the boogie man to scare us.  I bet bin ladin will campaign for mccain.  his tapes are hotter than pam andersons.



This is your mantra, delusional rants that is void of reality. It's truly funny, I don't think I have seen you post one article that supports your reality free conclusions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jreeves said:


> This is your mantra, delusional rants that is void of reality. It's truly funny, I don't think I have seen you post one article that supports your reality free conclusions.



He can not. He makes it up as he types it.


----------



## Paulie

Swamp Fox said:


> Least he can spell.  Try going back to school and learning before you come posting here.  My four year old nephew can spell better then that.



With the grammatical errors you have in this post, I'm not sure you ought to be throwing that stone.


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> He can not. He makes it up as he types it.



my neo con buddies at work have 2 yrs worth of cut and paste proof.  I know like them, you don't want to read it.  you can find it yourself if you just look.

and again, i'm on a internet phone.  I am typing with thumbs. gimme a break.

and just look yourself to prove me wrong.  that's how I find the facts.  listen to air america and-or nova m radio, then compare it to the mainstream and then listen to fox and rush.

only then will it all be clear.  if you only listen to one side, you are brainwashed.

and a lot of people are indifferent.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> This is your mantra, delusional rants that is void of reality. It's truly funny, I don't think I have seen you post one article that supports your reality free conclusions.



but yet I read over my post and everything I said was spot on.  from the nie to iran to bush not thinkin that much about bin ladin.  

would you be happy with gore if he got hit on 9 11 and to this day still bin ladin was not killed or captured?

you aren't  even intellectually honest with yourself so why should I expect more?


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> but yet I read over my post and everything I said was spot on.  from the nie to iran to bush not thinkin that much about bin ladin.
> 
> would you be happy with gore if he got hit on 9 11 and to this day still bin ladin was not killed or captured?
> 
> you aren't  even intellectually honest with yourself so why should I expect more?



In your delusional world I am sure it was spot on. You get your news from Air America and you expect the mainstream media to present the news as they do?

Well its widely reported Clinton had the chance to kill Bin Laden after terror attacks and he refused to do so. Maybe you should redirect your rants towards Clinton.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> my neo con buddies at work have 2 yrs worth of cut and paste proof.  I know like them, you don't want to read it.  you can find it yourself if you just look.
> 
> and again, i'm on a internet phone.  I am typing with thumbs. gimme a break.
> 
> and just look yourself to prove me wrong.  that's how I find the facts.  listen to air america and-or nova m radio, then compare it to the mainstream and then listen to fox and rush.
> 
> only then will it all be clear.  if you only listen to one side, you are brainwashed.
> 
> and a lot of people are indifferent.



Dude 40% of the media has admitted they are liberals I have posted proof, while only 25% say they are conservatives. What else is there to be said?


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Well its widely reported Clinton had the chance to kill Bin Laden after terror attacks and he refused to do so. Maybe you should redirect your rants towards Clinton.



lets talk about now.  may and june, more troops died in afgan than in iraq.  pentagon expects violence to increase and it is already up 40 percent from last yr.

this is along the pakistan border.  300 prisoners were just broke out.  are you sure we are winning?

and pakistan has nukes.  gop took their eye off the ball.  

and you didn even know who bin ladin was under clinton.  I did because I read time.  

I watch every news.  if you guys dismiss air america, you don't want to know you are sick.  don't worry.  we'll have an intervention this nov.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> lets talk about now.  may and june, more troops died in afgan than in iraq.  pentagon expects violence to increase and it is already up 40 percent from last yr.
> 
> this is along the pakistan border.  300 prisoners were just broke out.  are you sure we are winning?
> 
> and pakistan has nukes.  gop took their eye off the ball.
> 
> and you didn even know who bin ladin was under clinton.  I did because I read time.
> 
> I watch every news.  if you guys dismiss air america, you don't want to know you are sick.  don't worry.  we'll have an intervention this nov.



Let me ask you this, how long should Afgan. take to be completely secure?
I knew who Bin Laden was under Clinton, remember this, America is the paper tiger. That was Bin Laden's response when questioned about why the U.S. fled Somalia after suffering casualities. 

I have read Obama's books and listened to left wing moonbats. That still doesn't change my opinion that the majority of those moonbats supported the war in Iraq from the onset then opposed it when it became politically advantageous to do so.


----------



## politicsezine

A war with Iran would cost America an estimated $6 trillion over a 5 year period. The country is larger than Alaska, has a population of 66 million, a military/militia of 12 million, and is larger/more populated than both Iraq and Afghanistan put together.


----------



## politicsezine

I've been called a leftwinger quite a bit, but oddly enough I support the war in Afghanistan.

In fact, I think we should be sending more troops to the front lines to fight the Taliban and spend less time building these stupids roads, oil pipelines and schools. We didn't go over there to build infrastructure, we went over there to catch terrorists. Stop building the damn roads/etc and finish the job already.

I am however against the Iraq War. I think that one was a complete of time and resources right from the beginning. Finish the first war and do it properly. Instead we have two unfinished wars and the Bush Administration has done a half-ass job of both of them.


----------



## bush lover

Thank you, President Bush, for focusing on attacking the biggest Bin Laden ally and the biggest threat to Israel, Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil list. First we do another Shock and Awe, then do a pincer attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. As for North Korea, I trust our President has made a wise decision in removing North Korea from our list of Axis of Evil, although it's a highly classified secret.


----------



## Shogun

yea.. Bush pushing another war.. THAT will sell.


The US does not exhist to make sure israel survives.  We allow them to have nukes unfettered so let israel live or die by it's own accord.  Iran has yet to attack anyone.  Bullshit paranoia and the standard zionist manipulation of the west just isn't a viable excuse to attack another M.E. nation.  


We've seen who the warmongers are in these days of hindsight excuses for rationalized iraqi invasions.  Letting israel throw the US under a bus for the sake of zion may sound good to the hagee types and the israel firsters but I have a high degee of skepticim that this is anything more than the usual sabre rattling we've seen from israel, and those who expect the US to jump when israel says leap, all summer long.


----------



## politicsezine

Question:

Do you think Bush will attack Iran now or in the near future... or leave it for the next president to handle?

I personally believe he will leave it to Obama or McCain to handle, and ride out the rest of his term playing the statesman role.


----------



## Shogun

I think that bush will back down on the dangled carrot that he is using to tempt jewish votes in this election year much like he totally failed the pro-life crowd, the anti-illegal alien crowd, etc.  Bush knows that his legacy is smeared enough already without having to instigate another invasion for the sake of ISRAEL.  We are not all jews or christians and the  bullshit threat of WMDs following 9/11 resonated a LOT more than some apocolyptic dogma junky bullshit.  Especially when israel is acting no less racist and xenophobic of non-jews than germany did with them.  It's a fucking joke for the ONLY nuke having nation in the ME to run to the US for anything other than gentile fodder.  


now, lemme return the question:

1. If you were a muslim watching the creation of israel and the marginalization of the pals and you KNEW israel had nukes would you want them "for defense" too?


2. Who has Iran attacked in the last 25 years?  Now, Israel?  If israel wants to talk shit and sabre rattle then so be it.  But, don't drag the US into the bullshit while acting on an ethnic standard no less despicable than than the Aryan nation.


3. Did you have much luck finding ANY coverage of jewish settlers whupping the shit out of old pal farmers on the jpost?  Why do you think this is?  Further, WHY do you think every zionist publication must insist that the jews were "merely instigated" prior to taping?  Are jews NOT human like the rest of us?  Are they NOT able to hate for the sake of their ethnic common denominator JUST LIKE the klu klux klan?  You suggested that I further a stereotype that is minimal.  I DEFY you to prove me wrong by providing evidence like I did.


----------



## Paulie

jreeves said:


> Dude 40% of the media has admitted they are liberals I have posted proof, while only 25% say they are conservatives. What else is there to be said?



I'd even question the authenticity and integrity of the 25% who say they are conservative.


----------



## Shogun

Israel reassures West: No Iran attack in 2008


"There will not be any operation in 2008," the official said. "An operation such as this must be coordinated &#8212; at least with the United States."

World Tribune &#8212; Israel reassures West: No Iran attack in 2008


----------



## Paulie

Shogun said:


> Israel reassures West: No Iran attack in 2008
> 
> 
> "There will not be any operation in 2008," the official said. "An operation such as this must be coordinated  at least with the United States."
> 
> World Tribune  Israel reassures West: No Iran attack in 2008



Unless of course some crazed terrorist loosely connected to Iran blows up a major city.

All bets are off after that, huh?


----------



## sealybobo

politicsezine said:


> Question:
> 
> Do you think Bush will attack Iran now or in the near future... or leave it for the next president to handle?
> 
> I personally believe he will leave it to Obama or McCain to handle, and ride out the rest of his term playing the statesman role.



if they don't attack, they are bluffing well.  and they just got $400 mill to perform covert operations.  totally unnecessary.  whoever doesn't sell out to "the west", gets embargoed or bombed.  do you remember bush tried to kill chavez?  n.korea just sold out.  now they will be westernized.  controlled by the same bankers that control us.  

we are gobbling up control thru banks so collectively they will have leverage and wealth after china takes over.  they are going around doing business with are trading partners.  this is a conspiracy theory.  imo.  just speculating.  

did chaney send the antrax?  why did he have control of norad on 9 11.  no one can say.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sealybobo said:


> if they don't attack, they are bluffing well.  and they just got $400 mill to perform covert operations.  totally unnecessary.  whoever doesn't sell out to "the west", gets embargoed or bombed.  do you remember bush tried to kill chavez?  n.korea just sold out.  now they will be westernized.  controlled by the same bankers that control us.
> 
> we are gobbling up control thru banks so collectively they will have leverage and wealth after china takes over.  they are going around doing business with are trading partners.  this is a conspiracy theory.  imo.  just speculating.
> 
> did chaney send the antrax?  why did he have control of norad on 9 11.  no one can say.



Retard Alert, Retard Alert.


----------



## jreeves

RetiredGySgt said:


> Retard Alert, Retard Alert.



My thoughts exactly....this guy not only gives the liberals a bad name, its disgraceful being from the same species as this guy.


----------



## Shogun

Paulitics said:


> Unless of course some crazed terrorist loosely connected to Iran blows up a major city.
> 
> All bets are off after that, huh?



given the "loose" connection that we know as a punchline the LAST time that accusation was tossed around...


----------



## politicsezine

Paulitics said:


> Unless of course some crazed terrorist loosely connected to Iran blows up a major city.
> 
> All bets are off after that, huh?



I'd bet odds on that one happening sometime in 2009.

The only question is which terrorist target will get hit...? Here's an old website, but still a good one:

The Top 100 Terrorist Targets in the United States


----------



## JimH52

bush lover said:


> Thank you, President Bush, for focusing on attacking the biggest Bin Laden ally and the biggest threat to Israel, Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil list. First we do another Shock and Awe, then do a pincer attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. As for North Korea, I trust our President has made a wise decision in removing North Korea from our list of Axis of Evil, although it's a highly classified secret.



You are just begging to pay $10 for a gallon of gas, huh?


----------



## Chris

sealybobo said:


> if they don't attack, they are bluffing well.  and they just got $400 mill to perform covert operations.  totally unnecessary.  whoever doesn't sell out to "the west", gets embargoed or bombed.  do you remember bush tried to kill chavez?  n.korea just sold out.  now they will be westernized.  controlled by the same bankers that control us.
> 
> we are gobbling up control thru banks so collectively they will have leverage and wealth after china takes over.  they are going around doing business with are trading partners.  this is a conspiracy theory.  imo.  just speculating.
> 
> did chaney send the antrax?  why did he have control of norad on 9 11.  no one can say.



The U.S. Army anthrax was sent to the two Senators, Daschle and Leahy, who were holding up the Omibus Spying Bill(Patriot Act). The case has never been solved.

And why did Cheney have control of NORAD on the morning of 9/11? Awfully big cowinkidink, don't you think?


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> The U.S. Army anthrax was sent to the two Senators, Daschle and Leahy, who were holding up the Omibus Spying Bill(Patriot Act). The case has never been solved.
> 
> And why did Cheney have control of NORAD on the morning of 9/11? Awfully big cowinkidink, don't you think?



Kirk, for you I'm sure conjecture is proof but for most reasonable minded people they need a little more than coincidences to believe something occured.


----------



## Paulie

jreeves said:


> Kirk, for you I'm sure conjecture is proof but for most reasonable minded people they need a little more than coincidences to believe something occured.



Just out of curiosity, how many coincidences would need to occur before you thought something seemed fishy?

I'm not just talking about this particular subject, but _anything_.


----------



## mattskramer

JimH52 said:


> Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran - CNN.com
> 
> Why am I not shocked?



Oh no.    Not again.  Not another screw-up.  Are we going to have the same mistakes and rush to judgment  WMD, strong links to anti-American terrorist camps, it being a significant threat to America?  Are we going to throw our soldiers in without full armor?  At least lets be sure that our military hospitals are in readiness for our injured. 

Hurry up Obama before Bush and his lackeys do something foolish again.


----------



## jreeves

Paulitics said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many coincidences would need to occur before you thought something seemed fishy?
> 
> I'm not just talking about this particular subject, but _anything_.



Anthrax being sent to senators doesn't constitute proof of wrong doing by the Bush adminstration.....OMG


----------



## Paulie

jreeves said:


> Anthrax being sent to senators doesn't constitute proof of wrong doing by the Bush adminstration.....OMG



Like I said, I wasn't talking about this particular issue.  I also didn't mention the Bush administration.

I'm just asking a question.  How many coincidences would you require before you deemed something to be fishy?


----------



## jreeves

Paulitics said:


> Like I said, I wasn't talking about this particular issue.  I also didn't mention the Bush administration.
> 
> I'm just asking a question.  How many coincidences would you require before you deemed something to be fishy?



If you are going to deal with hypotheticals maybe you should ask a specific question then I can answer it?


----------



## Article 15

I'll just say what I always say about Iran.

"Yo, Israel, Iran is that --------------->way.  If you feel so threatened, have at it."


----------



## Chris

Article 15 said:


> I'll just say what I always say about Iran.
> 
> "Yo, Israel, Iran is that --------------->way.  If you feel so threatened, have at it."



This is what will happen.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Oh no.    Not again.  Not another screw-up.  Are we going to have the same mistakes and rush to judgment  WMD, strong links to anti-American terrorist camps, it being a significant threat to America?  Are we going to throw our soldiers in without full armor?  At least lets be sure that our military hospitals are in readiness for our injured.
> 
> Hurry up Obama before Bush and his lackeys do something foolish again.



Such a moderate..

Are we going to have a war authorization then have democrats using the war as a political hingepin issue? 

Until the war improves and the casuality numbers are reduced by 80%, then democrats in congress stop talking and the media withdraws reporters.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jreeves said:


> Such a moderate..
> 
> Are we going to have a war authorization then have democrats using the war as a political hingepin issue?
> 
> Until the war improves and the casuality numbers are reduced by 80%, then democrats in congress stop talking and the media withdraws reporters.....



According to the left wing nut jobs we have been on the verge of invading Iran for what? 4 years now? Just like the " Bush will become dictator" claims this one is up there with the birds.

Of course at first the Dems DEMANDED action against Iran and their Nuclear threat, now it is, "oh no another war" It is just a game for them to play in hopes of scaring people to vote for them as usual.

The left gets their votes two ways, BUY them or SCARE people into voting for them with lies and less than half truths.


----------



## matty

RetiredGySgt said:


> According to the left wing nut jobs we have been on the verge of invading Iran for what? 4 years now? Just like the " Bush will become dictator" claims this one is up there with the birds.



Ron Paul: I hear members of Congress saying "if we could only nuke Iran"

I have another one or two.


----------



## stivex

You think the Dem-lead Congress is going to fund an invasion of Iran for a Republican president? Not likely.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

stivex said:


> You think the Dem-lead Congress is going to fund an invasion of Iran for a Republican president? Not likely.



Don't rain reality on the Liberal lie parade. What else have they to scare us with?


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Such a moderate..
> 
> Are we going to have a war authorization then have democrats using the war as a political hingepin issue?
> 
> Until the war improves and the casuality numbers are reduced by 80%, then democrats in congress stop talking and the media withdraws reporters.....



Authorizing war and wanting to go to war are two different things.  I think that if the Democrats had known that Bush would respond so quickly and recklessly, they would not have voted to authorize the war. 

It is about time that it shows improvement.  Still, it is too little too late.  The war was unnecessary and poorly run.


----------



## Paulie

stivex said:


> You think the Dem-lead Congress is going to fund an invasion of Iran for a Republican president? Not likely.



Well, they've almost unanimously passed every resolution against Iran since they've taken power in Congress.  They don't seem to be very shy in regards to Iran.

Plus, they haven't yet closed the purse for Iraq like they said they would do in 2006.

If the establishment wants war, it will happen regardless of dem or repub.


----------



## Article 15

It would be galactically stupid for the US to attack Iran at this time yet alone _invade_.


----------



## BrianH

sealybobo said:


> are you for real?  first of all, why isn't  this all over the news?
> 
> remember the NIE said Iran stopped trying to build weapon grade nukes and bush said all that proved was that iran was trying to build one?
> 
> as if that's enough reason to invade?
> 
> u r a good german.
> 
> and don't worry about the libs holding their breath when I post because no one is swallowing what you are serving.
> 
> u'r either rich or dumb.
> 
> most of my friends that are sheep are voting for obama.  they don't know if i'm a conspiracy nut or if i'm just as brainwashed as you.  all they know is the gop did a bad job.  so they know more than you.




Well let's see here...considering Bush doesn't have much time in office, and plans are being put in place to invade Iran, would it not be your magnifiscent Obama (given he wins) that will be carrying out this affair?  Wrap that around your brain for a second....


----------



## Paulie

BrianH said:


> Well let's see here...considering Bush doesn't have much time in office, and plans are being put in place to invade Iran, would it not be your magnifiscent Obama (given he wins) that will be carrying out this affair?  Wrap that around your brain for a second....



If plans are being put in place CURRENTLY to invade Iran, those would be the plans of the current administration.  There may be a general military contingency plan that would always exist, but if there are real plans in the works to invade Iran they are, and will be, carried out by this admin.  

I'm not sure the Bush admin would draw up their plans for war, and then hand them over to Obama's admin to use.  That doesn't make much sense.  Obama's admin would most likely have their OWN plans they would use.  Remember, this cabinet that exists now is Bush's.  When he leaves, so does his cabinet.


----------



## BrianH

Paulitics said:


> If plans are being put in place CURRENTLY to invade Iran, those would be the plans of the current administration.  There may be a general military contingency plan that would always exist, but if there are real plans in the works to invade Iran they are, and will be, carried out by this admin.
> 
> I'm not sure the Bush admin would draw up their plans for war, and then hand them over to Obama's admin to use.  That doesn't make much sense.  Obama's admin would most likely have their OWN plans they would use.  Remember, this cabinet that exists now is Bush's.  When he leaves, so does his cabinet.



I'll agree to that, but I'm not sure I would believe that Bush is planning to invade Iran.  Unless the Bush admin. is planning on a 5 month invasion and success, then I see know reason why the Bush admin. would even plan this if they didn't plan on it continuing into the next administration.


----------



## Taomon

Because they have beating the drums of war with Iran for some time now. It is obvious that Bush fuck up as much as he can before leaving office.


----------



## BrianH

Taomon said:


> Because they have beating the drums of war with Iran for some time now. It is obvious that Bush fuck up as much as he can before leaving office.



What I am saying, is that beating his drum won't do crap because he doesn't have that long in office.  Unless he plans on toppling Iran's regime and complete, what has taken years in Iraq, in only 5 months, the NEXT president will have to carry out the Invasion.  It's highly unlikely that the Bush administration will invade Iran in the remaining 5 months.  And, if the planning continues or is discontinues, it will have to do so in the next admin.  

That's all I'm saying, I'm not taking any sides between the Bush admin. or not, but I'm not going to blame something (that hasn't happened yet) on an administration that only has a few months left in office.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Authorizing war and wanting to go to war are two different things.  I think that if the Democrats had known that Bush would respond so quickly and recklessly, they would not have voted to authorize the war.
> 
> It is about time that it shows improvement.  Still, it is too little too late.  The war was unnecessary and poorly run.



Specific contents of the authorization act. If they didn't want the President to respond they would have adopted one of the amendments, the simple fact is that they seen a threat as well. Up until the war started improving they seen a political hingepin issue, now not so much.


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. 
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."[citation needed] 
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." 
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". 
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 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." 
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. 
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. 
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 Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. *Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Specific contents of the authorization act. If they didn't want the President to respond they would have adopted one of the amendments, the simple fact is that they seen a threat as well. Up until the war started improving they seen a political hingepin issue, now not so much.
> 
> 
> The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
> 
> Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
> 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."[citation needed]
> Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
> Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
> Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 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."
> Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
> The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
> 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 Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. *Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What amendments are you talking about?
I found quite a few no votes by Democrats.  Im sorry that there were not more. I still contend that an authorization is not the same as a call to go to war.  If Democrats knew that Bush would have acted so quickly, the vote would have been different.  I wonder how the vote would have gone if the authorization went like this:

We think that we should declare war on Iraq immediately.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> What amendments are you talking about?
> I found quite a few no votes by Democrats.  Im sorry that there were not more. I still contend that an authorization is not the same as a call to go to war.  If Democrats knew that Bush would have acted so quickly, the vote would have been different.  I wonder how the vote would have gone if the authorization went like this:
> 
> We think that we should declare war on Iraq immediately.


These amendments......that would have restricted his authority...

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amendments Offered to the Senate Resolution

[edit] The Byrd Amendment
Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq[citation needed]. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Defeated 14 - 86.


[edit] The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Defeated 24 - 75.


[edit] The Durbin Amendment
Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Defeated 30 - 70.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Dude 40% of the media has admitted they are liberals I have posted proof, while only 25% say they are conservatives. What else is there to be said?



YOUR HOMEWORK
1.  what 5 companies own almost 100 percent of the media.

i'll give you one.  clearchannel.  

do you think rove politicized the gov, military, justice dept, religion, and forgot the media?

we know exactly how the gop did it.  books are written about it.  

either you are dumb or think we are dumb.  

bush fudges the economic numbers.  what makes you think your media survey is accurate?  

who decides what story are aired?

lincoln asked the media to take it easy on him during the civil war.  you think bush, chaney and rove are above manipulating the media?

think of all the bush appointees that wil stay in power if mccain wins.  scary.  sabotures.  traitors.  treasonist hacks from Regency U.  what a joke.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> YOUR HOMEWORK
> 1.  what 5 companies own almost 100 percent of the media.
> 
> i'll give you one.  clearchannel.
> 
> do you think rove politicized the gov, military, justice dept, religion, and forgot the media?
> 
> we know exactly how the gop did it.  books are written about it.
> 
> either you are dumb or think we are dumb.
> 
> bush fudges the economic numbers.  what makes you think your media survey is accurate?
> 
> who decides what story are aired?
> 
> lincoln asked the media to take it easy on him during the civil war.  you think bush, chaney and rove are above manipulating the media?
> 
> think of all the bush appointees that wil stay in power if mccain wins.  scary.  sabotures.  traitors.  treasonist hacks from Regency U.  what a joke.



What does all that ranting have to with the majority of the media *admitting that they are liberals*? If you want to discuss other issues we can do that but start a new thread.


----------



## sealybobo

BrianH said:


> Well let's see here...considering Bush doesn't have much time in office, and plans are being put in place to invade Iran, would it not be your magnifiscent Obama (given he wins) that will be carrying out this affair?  Wrap that around your brain for a second....



that's easy.  obama will call a truce with iran and immediately hold talks with iran to discuss splitting up iraq with them.  we get the sunni oil wells.  because we can't let the sunnis perish.  but combat missions are done.  we need the troops in afgan.  al queda is getting stonger on the pakistan border.  

bush n chaney love the blackwAter kbr haloburton part of this war.  that's over when obama wins. 

you believe lies and spin.  good german.  

big oil isn't  paying for the war.  that's over.  

socialize oil, health and regulate for the middle class and poor.  deregulate the media.  nothing to worry about if its alreAdy liberal.  

so many holes in your positions.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> that's easy.  obama will call a truce with iran and immediately hold talks with iran to discuss splitting up iraq with them.  we get the sunni oil wells.  because we can't let the sunnis perish.  but combat missions are done.  we need the troops in afgan.  al queda is getting stonger on the pakistan border.
> 
> bush n chaney love the blackwAter kbr haloburton part of this war.  that's over when obama wins.
> 
> you believe lies and spin.  good german.
> 
> big oil isn't  paying for the war.  that's over.
> 
> socialize oil, health and regulate for the middle class and poor.  deregulate the media.  nothing to worry about if its alreAdy liberal.
> 
> so many holes in your positions.


----------



## Taomon

BrianH said:


> What I am saying, is that beating his drum won't do crap because he doesn't have that long in office.  Unless he plans on toppling Iran's regime and complete, what has taken years in Iraq, in only 5 months, the NEXT president will have to carry out the Invasion.  It's highly unlikely that the Bush administration will invade Iran in the remaining 5 months.  And, if the planning continues or is discontinues, it will have to do so in the next admin.
> 
> That's all I'm saying, I'm not taking any sides between the Bush admin. or not, but I'm not going to blame something (that hasn't happened yet) on an administration that only has a few months left in office.



What makes you think Bush cares if he finishes a war with Iran? You actually think he would not start a war without finishing it within 5 months.


----------



## sealybobo

BrianH said:


> 5 month invasion and success, then I see know reason why the Bush admin. would even plan this if they didn't plan on it continuing into the next administration.



lol.  with bush's track record, you want him making this decision.  its like a buddy of mine.  he screwed his best friends wife.  when I saw him talking to my girl, I punched him in the back of the head.

congress instead will let bush try so mccain is forced to defend that move.  we'll see if america wants war with iran.

and I wouldn't put it past bush to pull a mugabi and delay elections because we are in a war.  and you would defend that too.  treasonist, unamerican, unconstitutional, illegal, corupt, greed, stupid, racist, homophobe, hypocritical...


----------



## JimH52

sealy, you should have punched him in the face.  bush would be totally out of his mind to start a war with Iran now...but hey the argument could be made that he is.

But it is a point that another front in the war right now could instill a degree of fear in the voters, once again, and would give McCain a greater chance of winning.  The GOP used fear in 2004 to give gw his second term.  It stands to reason that an attack against Iran could prevent the GOP from suffering the massive losses that many politicos are predicting.

So can you pay $10 for a gallon of gas?


----------



## sealybobo

Lets say obama his to stay the course and toe the line for corporate america, so you guys say, "their all corrupt".  if that is true, at least obama will throw us a bone.  so he might kiss corporate americas collective ass.  so what?  what he will do is take away from the top 10 percent richest americans.  those ppl will never vote for him.  

he might get a little tough with corporate coruption, enron loopholes and regulations, but he is going to end unfair taxbreAks so rich ppl, watch out.  I hope you saved your bush tax breaks.  you should have never got the reagan tax breaks let alone the bush ones.  not during a time of war.  went on the debt.  made china rich.  sold america to foreign interests.  dubai port deals...

dumb americans.  hate em.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> Lets say obama his to stay the course and toe the line for corporate america, so you guys say, "their all corrupt".  if that is true, at least obama will throw us a bone.  so he might kiss corporate americas collective ass.  so what?  what he will do is take away from the top 10 percent richest americans.  those ppl will never vote for him.
> 
> he might get a little tough with corporate coruption, enron loopholes and regulations, but he is going to end unfair taxbreAks so rich ppl, watch out.  I hope you saved your bush tax breaks.  you should have never got the reagan tax breaks let alone the bush ones.  not during a time of war.  went on the debt.  made china rich.  sold america to foreign interests.  dubai port deals...
> 
> dumb americans.  hate em.



Nope the top 10 percent won't vote for Obama. Makes you wonder if Obama's rhetoric matches what his policies will actually be?

Obama Visits Billionaires Row

In the Haight, stencils of Barack Obama's smiling face are decorating the sidewalk. But in real life, he is turning up in more lucrative venues: The candidate will be around here on April 6, at a series of events that includes three $2,300-a-head maximum-strength fundraisers: Sara and Sohaib Abbasi are throwing a luncheon in Atherton; he'll zip up to Nancy and Bob Farese's house in Kentfield in mid-afternoon; and proceed from there to Ann and Gordon Getty's in San Francisco. 
Your trusty party-animal-by-proxy has tried to infiltrate these events, but transparency seems to be fogged up. *No media eyes allowed on the collection kettles; when the gifts are big, the press is barred.*

Obama bills himself as a man of the people, who will beat down big business. ... Given his populist stance, Obama's recent trip to the Bay Area, during which he hobnobbed only with the richest and most famous, is amusing, since it either presents a man with no discernible principles or it presents a bunch of rich people who are allowing themselves to be led like lambs to the slaughter. 
... 
The 46-year-old Democratic senator started the day in Atherton [really rich people], made his way to Marin [really rich people] and then was due in at the Getty [plutocrats] mansion in San Francisco for another event. 

Actually, the political pandering from Obama, on the one hand, and the stupid fawning from the rich, on the other hand, wasn't what I found so irritating about the IJ article. Politics in America is, after all, mostly about power, and Obama looks as if he will have the power and these people think that they can buy access. End of story.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> What amendments are you talking about?
> I found quite a few no votes by Democrats.  Im sorry that there were not more. I still contend that an authorization is not the same as a call to go to war.  If Democrats knew that Bush would have acted so quickly, the vote would have been different.  I wonder how the vote would have gone if the authorization went like this:
> 
> We think that we should declare war on Iraq immediately.



I don't agree.  The Democrats were every bit as gung-ho as the Republicans and were more than willing to pass off their responsibility -- and blame if there was going to be any -- onto the President.  

Congress -- not Democrats nor Republicans -- abdicated its responsibility.  The usual suspects like to blame Bush for amassing and consolidating power in the Executive Branch, but he could not have done it without Congressional inaction.  

An authorization to use whatever force necessary is shirking the responsibility of declaring war and while you may argue that it is not he same as a declaration of war on paper, it amounts to the same thing in its real-world application.


----------



## JimH52

sealybobo said:


> I hope you saved your bush tax breaks.  you should have never got the reagan tax breaks let alone the bush ones.  not during a time of war.  went on the debt.  made china rich.  sold america to foreign interests.  dubai port deals...
> 
> dumb americans.  hate em.



bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment but I maintain to this day that the tax breaks, when we were at war, were terribly ill-conceived and ill-timed.  Never have we seen tax breaks during a war.  The weak dollar is just one results.  It will take generations for the US to recover from bush's mismanagement, if we are able.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Nope the top 10 percent won't vote for Obama. Makes you wonder if Obama's rhetoric matches what his policies will actually be?
> 
> Obama Visits Billionaires Row
> 
> In the Haight, stencils of Barack Obama's smiling face are decorating the sidewalk. But in real life, he is turning up in more lucrative venues: The candidate will be around here on April 6, at a series of events that includes three $2,300-a-head maximum-strength fundraisers: Sara and Sohaib Abbasi are throwing a luncheon in Atherton; he'll zip up to Nancy and Bob Farese's house in Kentfield in mid-afternoon; and proceed from there to Ann and Gordon Getty's in San Francisco.
> Your trusty party-animal-by-proxy has tried to infiltrate these events, but transparency seems to be fogged up. *No media eyes allowed on the collection kettles; when the gifts are big, the press is barred.*
> 
> Obama bills himself as a man of the people, who will beat down big business. ... Given his populist stance, Obama's recent trip to the Bay Area, during which he hobnobbed only with the richest and most famous, is amusing, since it either presents a man with no discernible principles or it presents a bunch of rich people who are allowing themselves to be led like lambs to the slaughter.
> ...
> The 46-year-old Democratic senator started the day in Atherton [really rich people], made his way to Marin [really rich people] and then was due in at the Getty [plutocrats] mansion in San Francisco for another event.
> 
> Actually, the political pandering from Obama, on the one hand, and the stupid fawning from the rich, on the other hand, wasn't what I found so irritating about the IJ article. Politics in America is, after all, mostly about power, and Obama looks as if he will have the power and these people think that they can buy access. End of story.



Obama arrives at billionaires row....


----------



## BrianH

Taomon said:


> What makes you think Bush cares if he finishes a war with Iran? You actually think he would not start a war without finishing it within 5 months.



Well, let's just say your side of the argument is arguing about something that HASN'T happened.  When tanks roll on Iran during Bush's administration, then you can get on here and say "I told you so."


----------



## BrianH

sealybobo said:


> lol.  with bush's track record, you want him making this decision.  its like a buddy of mine.  he screwed his best friends wife.  when I saw him talking to my girl, I punched him in the back of the head.
> 
> congress instead will let bush try so mccain is forced to defend that move.  we'll see if america wants war with iran.
> 
> and I wouldn't put it past bush to pull a mugabi and delay elections because we are in a war.  and you would defend that too.  treasonist, unamerican, unconstitutional, illegal, corupt, greed, stupid, racist, homophobe, hypocritical...



Typical presumption from you.  You're passing judgement and opinion on something that hasn't happened yet.  I don't agree with alot of things that Bush has done, but there's one thing that many of you extreme liberal Bush Bashers have in common, the ability to blame a republican for shit that hasn't happened yet....  Oh it's Bushes fault that he might, possibly, one day if he wants to, just to piss the dems of, Invade Iran.


----------



## sealybobo

JimH52 said:


> bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE
> 
> the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives.  loss on 401k's,  $40 you might have made aint what it used to be.  seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.
> 
> how much did you make?
> 
> ps.  gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE
> 
> the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives.  loss on 401k's,  $40 you might have made aint what it used to be.  seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.
> 
> how much did you make?
> 
> ps.  gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, Hugh Hewitt played some clips of Barrack Obama, including one about his desire to raise the Capital Gains tax (At ~31:00). Obama tried to brush it aside as a "phony argument" by saying that it wouldn't affect regular folks, since their 401ks aren't subject to the Capital Gains tax upon withdrawal, and that only the wealthy who own stock will be affected, and besides they "can afford to pay a little bit more".
> 
> This whole argument shows great ignorance about the reality of how the market works, and follows the normal liberal economic delusions.
> 
> First, not just the wealthy own stocks in this country Mr. Obama. I am hardly wealthy, but I own stock outside of my retirement vehicles.
> 
> Second, those regular folk who have IRAs and 401ks *will* be affected by this tax hike. Not by paying the taxes, but by suffering the market losses that will occur when this plan is passed. Not to mention the wider effect on the overall economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Foxtrot: Capital Gains and the Obama Effect
> Tell me again how a capital gains tax hike helps the middle class?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Paulitics said:


> Unless of course some crazed terrorist loosely connected to Iran blows up a major city.
> 
> All bets are off after that, huh?



I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but recently condi was bucking for more iranian visas.  perhaps it'll look suspicious if they helped terrorists take cuts, so they just asked for more visas.  

she did lie when she said they never imagined this could happen. 

they keep the border unsecure.  they aren't  making us safer.

read nami klein disaster capitalism.  

pnac said they needed a pearl harbor type incident to push the neo agenda.  they met in the late 90's.....

in an age where lies become the norm, truth becomes provacative.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but recently condi was bucking for more iranian visas.  perhaps it'll look suspicious if they helped terrorists take cuts, so they just asked for more visas.
> 
> she did lie when she said they never imagined this could happen.
> 
> they keep the border unsecure.  they aren't  making us safer.
> 
> read nami klein disaster capitalism.
> 
> pnac said they needed a pearl harbor type incident to push the neo agenda.  they met in the late 90's.....
> 
> in an age where lies become the norm, truth becomes provacative.



Do you ever provide proof to your outlandish charges or does the truth actually play second fiddle to your partisanship?


----------



## Article 15

GunnyL said:


> An authorization to use whatever force necessary is shirking the responsibility of declaring war and while you may argue that it is not he same as a declaration of war on paper, it amounts to the same thing in its real-world application.



Except when it comes to GITMO and the Geneva Conventions ... right?


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> Except when it comes to GITMO and the Geneva Conventions ... right?



When has the geneva conventions been violated by the US in GITMO? Please be specific.....


----------



## stivex

jreeves said:


> Do you ever provide proof to your outlandish charges or does the truth actually play second fiddle to your partisanship?



Trutherists rarely provide credible evidence. They all seem to follow the same pattern as those given in the DaVinci Code. It goes like this:

If it is not impossible, then it is not improbable. Therefore, it cannot be considered implausible. 

That is all the proof they need to justify their faith in their beliefs. Anyone questioning this logic is close-minded, apparently.


----------



## BrianH

sealybobo said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE
> 
> the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives.  loss on 401k's,  $40 you might have made aint what it used to be.  seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.
> 
> how much did you make?
> 
> ps.  gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we just have it SOOOO bad....
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Kirk, for you I'm sure conjecture is proof but for most reasonable minded people they need a little more than coincidences to believe something occured.



I guess oj didn't do it then?

for years you said we didn't have proof the justice dept had been politicized and your side said we couldn't prove bush lied us int iraq.  even after we found there were no wmd's you were sucker enough to believe they just moved them to syria.  how many times do we need to PROVE anything to you?  trust us, you think truth is fiction and you only believe lies.

you and your buddy can laugh off my conspiracy theories as one by one they turn out to be true.

I just can't figure out if you are dumb or do you know how corrupt the gop is and just chose to make excuses for treason & high crimes.


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> When has the geneva conventions been violated by the US in GITMO? Please be specific.....



An excerpt from the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld syllabus.

The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by
any congressional Act. Quirin held that Congress had, through Article
of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions to try offenders
or offenses against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 28. UCMJ
Art. 21, which is substantially identical to the old Art. 15, reads: The
jurisdiction [of] courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving
military commissions . . . of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders
or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried
by such . . . commissions. 10 U. S. C. §821. Contrary to the Governments
assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a
sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions
whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognized that
Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution
and the common law of war, the President already had to convene
military commissionswith the express condition that he and those
under his command comply with the law of war. See 317 U. S., at
2829. Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific,
overriding authorization for the commission convened to try
Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the Presidents war powers,
see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances,
see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMFs text or legislative
history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter
the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21. Cf. Ex parte Yerger, 8
Wall. 85, 105. Likewise, the DTA cannot be read to authorize this
commission. Although the DTA, unlike either Art. 21 or the AUMF,
was enacted after the President convened Hamdans commission, it
contains no language authorizing that tribunal or any other at Guantanamo
Bay. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most
acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military
commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution
and laws, including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional
authorization, this Courts task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide
whether Hamdans military commission is so justified. Pp. 25
30.
4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because
its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the
four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 4972.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Read the entire PDF.  Interesting stuff.  There's a whole lot of smackdown being layethed on the Administration.


----------



## Paulie

BrianH said:


> I'll agree to that, but I'm not sure I would believe that Bush is planning to invade Iran.  Unless the Bush admin. is planning on a 5 month invasion and success, then I see know reason why the Bush admin. would even plan this if they didn't plan on it continuing into the next administration.



But a war can start and be continued by the next admin.  What do you think Obama is going to do with Iraq?  You don't really think he's going to pull out just because he says so, do you?

Basically, a current war can easily be handed off to the next president.  But I don't see Bush's admin drawing up plans for an invasion/occupation, and then not going through with it, only to hand it off to Obama or whoever.

If it's going to happen, I think it's going to happen before Bush leaves office.  But that's completely my opinion, and nothing more.


----------



## BrianH

Paulitics said:


> But a war can start and be continued by the next admin.  What do you think Obama is going to do with Iraq?  You don't really think he's going to pull out just because he says so, do you?
> 
> Basically, a current war can easily be handed off to the next president.  But I don't see Bush's admin drawing up plans for an invasion/occupation, and then not going through with it, only to hand it off to Obama or whoever.
> 
> If it's going to happen, I think it's going to happen before Bush leaves office.  But that's completely my opinion, and nothing more.



That's what I'm saying as well.  I'm sure it's a possiblity, but I don't see the point of beating a dead hourse that doesn't exist, if you catch my drift.  I don't think Obama will pull out just because he says so, among other things.  But I personally don't think Bush will invade Iran with the little time left in his presidency.  His goal is to improve his ratings before he's done IMO... based on the already decrease in support from anyone.  I'm not trying to say I KNOW what's going to happen--I, as you do, have my own opinion....however, some on these threads seem to post their messages as if they're %100 fact.  They're already condemning Bush for invading Iraqn---which is something that hasn't happened yet.  

I can understand people speculating the outcome, and/or stating their opinion about their disagreement with an invasion of Iran...but see no point in blaming someone for something that hasn't happened yet. 

What I forsee, is him pulling out Osama Bin Laden from a secret prison...  But I won't pass judgement yet...lol.


----------



## Reality

RetiredGySgt said:


> The libs and the press don't mind one bit selling out the Country when it is a republican Administration.
> 
> And then we have EOTS and others claiming the Government pulled off the 9/11 attacks in secret.



Do you mean like Kissinger reporting to Nixon what was happening in Johnson's negotiations w/ the Vietcong in France?


----------



## Reality

jreeves said:


> In your delusional world I am sure it was spot on. You get your news from Air America and you expect the mainstream media to present the news as they do?
> 
> Well its widely reported Clinton had the chance to kill Bin Laden after terror attacks and he refused to do so. Maybe you should redirect your rants towards Clinton.



No true. He tried to kill him w/ cruise missiles. It failed. He rejected an offer from Sudan to turn him over because, in the administration's view, what the hell where they going to do w/ him. Put him on trial where exactly?


----------



## Reality

bush lover said:


> Thank you, President Bush, for focusing on attacking the biggest Bin Laden ally and the biggest threat to Israel, Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil list. First we do another Shock and Awe, then do a pincer attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. As for North Korea, I trust our President has made a wise decision in removing North Korea from our list of Axis of Evil, although it's a highly classified secret.



ROFL!!! Bin Laden sees Khomeinei as the ultimate infidel. But do rant on.


----------



## sealybobo

just wait and see how easily obama solves the iraq quagmire.  of course that will mean blackwater won't be able to rape the treasury anymore, but that's chaneys problem.

and I can't wait to hear you second guess him when you toed the gw line for all thse yrs.  just like you deny clintons greatness.

lie about a war and about politicizing the justice dept, no problem.  lie about sex and LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN.

PS  here is a new rumor.  charlie christ, gov of florida is growing a beard, I mean getting married. dude, he's another gay gop.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sealybobo said:


> just wait and see how easily obama solves the iraq quagmire.  of course that will mean blackwater won't be able to rape the treasury anymore, but that's chaneys problem.
> 
> and I can't wait to hear you second guess him when you toed the gw line for all thse yrs.  just like you deny clintons greatness.
> 
> lie about a war and about politicizing the justice dept, no problem.  lie about sex and LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN.
> 
> PS  here is a new rumor.  charlie christ, gov of florida is growing a beard, I mean getting married. dude, he's another gay gop.



I feel sorry for boobs like you. If Obama wins you are either going to be so disappointed we need to put you on suicide watch or so delusional you won't care when Obama does none of the things you think he will do.


----------



## BrianH

sealybobo said:


> just wait and see how easily obama solves the iraq quagmire.  of course that will mean blackwater won't be able to rape the treasury anymore, but that's chaneys problem.
> 
> and I can't wait to hear you second guess him when you toed the gw line for all thse yrs.  just like you deny clintons greatness.
> 
> lie about a war and about politicizing the justice dept, no problem.  lie about sex and LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN.
> 
> PS  here is a new rumor.  charlie christ, gov of florida is growing a beard, I mean getting married. dude, he's another gay gop.




You're funny...Solve?  It's easy to solve something when someone else has done 5 years of the dirty work.  I'm sure when the main objective in Iraq is completed, you'll all give props to Obama because it was his idea to invade Iraq...  Let me give you some adivce genius...you have a bad habit of predicting futuristic events and either condemning people for them or worshipping the crap out of them.  Do you realize how stupid you are?  You're giving props to Obama for solving the Iraq "problem" when Obama is, currently, not the president, and obviously (at the moment) not the future president.  But just wait, you'll be sorry when Huckabee wins in 2020...


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> I feel sorry for boobs like you. If Obama wins you are either going to be so disappointed we need to put you on suicide watch or so delusional you won't care when Obama does none of the things you think he will do.



You mean like clinton disappointed me?  NOT!

delusional?  dude, yu are in denial.

your like an abused woman.  always making excuses why he beats you up.

ps.  military men are not typically intelligent.  they are tough and do what they are told, but not generally brite.  jarheads, grunts, etc.  you were brainwashed.

are you angry because they put something in your food to prevent you from getting erections?


----------



## BrianH

Yeah, Napoleon and Patton were both dummies.  And those guys running nuclear submarines are really just dummies in disguise...  You dumbest-smart person on these boards.  You have more opinions backed up with no fact that anyone else.  It would common frickin knowledge that most people who join the military after high school are not quite ahead of the game when it comes to actual collegiate level studies--not because they're not smart, but because they havn't taken the classes yet.  They've taken 4 years or more and dedicating it to protecting your ass so that you can say what you want to say with as little fact as possible.  

Maybe you forgot about the Naval Academy, West Point, Air-Force Academy?...all of which are filled with men MUCH MUCH Smarter than you...and I as well.  And I'd like to see you assess a combat situation and figure out something effective to do without getting you and your men killed.


----------



## sealybobo

BrianH said:


> You're funny...Solve?  It's easy to solve something when someone else has done 5 years of the dirty work.  I'm sure when the main objective in Iraq is completed, you'll all give props to Obama because it was his idea to invade Iraq...  Let me give you some adivce genius...you have a bad habit of predicting futuristic events and either condemning people for them or worshipping the crap out of them.  Do you realize how stupid you are?  You're giving props to Obama for solving the Iraq "problem" when Obama is, currently, not the president, and obviously (at the moment) not the future president.  But just wait, you'll be sorry when Huckabee wins in 2020...



i'm able to predict the future because I have heard obamas plan.  the "liberal" media called it a flip flop.  now why would a lib. media do that?

you think you see the future too.  you think mccain will have good judgement and you see political reconciliation in iraq that hasn't happened.   

your problem is you are all wrong about past, present and future events.  

prediction.  malaki will be out and sadr will run iraq.  iraq will be divided into 3 countries.  foreign oil companies will get some of iraq's oil field and american oil companies will get some.  its already happening.

iran can be an ally just as easily as n. korea is.  stop demonizing them the way they hate israel.

ps.  the global billionaires will all reap the benefits of iraq.  not you.  the same foreign bankers that own our federal reserve, yes that's right, look into who owns the federal reserve, it isn't  all american owned.  anyways, they now own iraq and n. korea.  next is cuba and venesuela and iran.  instead of russia, we are now competing with china.  we purchased russia when reagan broke them.  russian millionaires became bilionaires.  the same thing is happening here.


----------



## sealybobo

BrianH said:


> Yeah, Napoleon and Patton were both dummies.  And those guys running nuclear submarines are really just dummies in disguise...  You dumbest-smart person on these boards.  You have more opinions backed up with no fact that anyone else.  It would common frickin knowledge that most people who join the military after high school are not quite ahead of the game when it comes to actual collegiate level studies--not because they're not smart, but because they havn't taken the classes yet.  They've taken 4 years or more and dedicating it to protecting your ass so that you can say what you want to say with as little fact as possible.
> 
> Maybe you forgot about the Naval Academy, West Point, Air-Force Academy?...all of which are filled with men MUCH MUCH Smarter than you...and I as well.  And I'd like to see you assess a combat situation and figure out something effective to do without getting you and your men killed.



are u comparing yourself to napoleon?  did you go to west point?  didn't think so.  and bush's war isn't  about protecting my freedom or protecting me.  

its about emptying the treasury and stealing a soverign countries natural resources.

you are no patriot.  you are a pawn.

I respect what you did for america, I just don't respect you.  how about the blackwater guys that raped that woman and then locked her in that shipping container?  how about racist service men?  do you think I should honor them?  

did you join for college or did you sign up after 9 11?  

I respect tillman.  he was conned with patriotism, but what a hero.  so you too probably love america.  I apprecate that.  I just don't agree with you when it comes to what america should be all about.  
its like you want our kid to be a christian and I want him to be muslim or jewish.  we both love our kid, we just have different agendas.

i'l try to find you dumbasses at work tomorrow.  there I have high speed and i'll be able to show you proof.  what exactly do you not believe?

stolen elections, iraq not going great, foreigners own the federal reserve, etc.

don't you fucking say i'm using lberal sources though without disproving their facts with your own facts.  ny times doesn't lie.  prove they do if you think they do.

I hate proving to you guys because you just go find spin to argue facts.  betrayus saying iraqi's want us to stay isn't  fact.  he'll say whatever bush wants.

and mukasey is better than gonzo, but still a bush lapdog.  

your 5 neo con scientists saying global warming is not caused by humans does not make you credibile when the consensus is you are wrong.

you know what, you aren't  worth it.  I have "proved" everything to my neo con friends and it didn't change their minds, so I know it won't help you.  

what you need is to call randi rhodes.  I love it when she makes guys like you look foolish.

remember a soldier called rush to say iraq was a mistake and rush called him a phony soldier?  

that's all he had?  lol.  weak!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sealybobo said:


> are u comparing yourself to napoleon?  did you go to west point?  didn't think so.  and bush's war isn't  about protecting my freedom or protecting me.
> 
> its about emptying the treasury and stealing a soverign countries natural resources.
> 
> you are no patriot.  you are a pawn.
> 
> I respect what you did for america, I just don't respect you.  how about the blackwater guys that raped that woman and then locked her in that shipping container?  how about racist service men?  do you think I should honor them?
> 
> did you join for college or did you sign up after 9 11?
> 
> I respect tillman.  he was conned with patriotism, but what a hero.  so you too probably love america.  I apprecate that.  I just don't agree with you when it comes to what america should be all about.
> its like you want our kid to be a christian and I want him to be muslim or jewish.  we both love our kid, we just have different agendas.
> 
> i'l try to find you dumbasses at work tomorrow.  there I have high speed and i'll be able to show you proof.  what exactly do you not believe?
> 
> stolen elections, iraq not going great, foreigners own the federal reserve, etc.
> 
> don't you fucking say i'm using lberal sources though without disproving their facts with your own facts.  ny times doesn't lie.  prove they do if you think they do.
> 
> I hate proving to you guys because you just go find spin to argue facts.  betrayus saying iraqi's want us to stay isn't  fact.  he'll say whatever bush wants.
> 
> and mukasey is better than gonzo, but still a bush lapdog.
> 
> your 5 neo con scientists saying global warming is not caused by humans does not make you credibile when the consensus is you are wrong.
> 
> you know what, you aren't  worth it.  I have "proved" everything to my neo con friends and it didn't change their minds, so I know it won't help you.
> 
> what you need is to call randi rhodes.  I love it when she makes guys like you look foolish.
> 
> remember a soldier called rush to say iraq was a mistake and rush called him a phony soldier?
> 
> that's all he had?  lol.  weak!



You have NEVER, NOT ONCE, posted a link to anything you have claimed as fact. That is called OPINION. And we all have one just like we all have an asshole.

Want to be taken seriously? POST some links that support your supposed facts.


----------



## Article 15

sealybobo said:


> ps.  military men are not typically intelligent.  they are tough and do what they are told, but not generally brite.  jarheads, grunts, etc.  you were brainwashed.



Careful you don't hurt your back lifting that broad brush, sealy.

I served in the USAF.  I am an OIF veteran.  I am not an unintelligent person.  Generally speaking, the people serving next to me weren't unintelligent either.

You are showing a lot of ignorance if you think that the military is made up of "jarheads" and "grunts" etc.  There are countless high tech career fields, folks that work on fighter jets, logistics people, planners, engineers, pilots, lawyers, doctors, nurses, linguists, ect. that serve.  The list goes on and on and applies across all branches of the military.    Remember that those "jarheads" and "grunts" require a base to operate from and those bases require support troops to operate it.  That's besides the point anyway because I've met plenty of intelligent "grunts" in my day.

And I'll tell you another thing, I may not agree with the war in Iraq but I have plenty of respect for the ones who fight it.  Especially the "jarheads" and the "grunts" ... they have more courage inside of them than any other kind of military member I've served with.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> I guess oj didn't do it then?
> 
> for years you said we didn't have proof the justice dept had been politicized and your side said we couldn't prove bush lied us int iraq.  even after we found there were no wmd's you were sucker enough to believe they just moved them to syria.  how many times do we need to PROVE anything to you?  trust us, you think truth is fiction and you only believe lies.
> 
> you and your buddy can laugh off my conspiracy theories as one by one they turn out to be true.
> 
> I just can't figure out if you are dumb or do you know how corrupt the gop is and just chose to make excuses for treason & high crimes.



Well considering pretty much the whole free world believed Saddam had Wmd's including democrats. I don't believe he lied, I believe it was faulty intelligence. Saddam did collaberate with terrorist, that has been proven. I just can't believe how easily democrats blame Bush for something when it was Clinton he set up the policy of removing Saddam during his adminstration.


----------



## jreeves

Reality said:


> No true. He tried to kill him w/ cruise missiles. It failed. He rejected an offer from Sudan to turn him over because, in the administration's view, what the hell where they going to do w/ him. Put him on trial where exactly?



Former President BILL CLINTON: We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice.

MYERS: What you're about to see is extraordinary secret video shot by the US government and obtained exclusively by NBC News.  *It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics say, a missed opportunity.*
The fall of 2000, Afghanistan.  Unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators fly over known al-Qaeda training camps.  The pictures transmitted live to CIA headquarters half a world away show al-Qaeda terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills, then scattering on cue through the desert.  Also that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures, this tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is Osama bin Laden. The images may seem fuzzy to amateurs, but to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC, they couldn't be more clear.

Why does US intelligence believe this is Osama bin Laden?

Mr. WILLIAMS ARKIN: You see a tall man, you see him surrounded by or--or--or at least protected by a group of guards.

MYERS: Bin Laden is 6'5.  The man here clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.  Another clue, the video is shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live.  The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches these secret US intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

Mr. ARKIN: It's dynamite.  It's putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn't happen every day.  I guess you could say we've done it once, and this is it.

MYERS: The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaeda a year before 9/11.  But that also raises one big question: If the US government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

Flashback: NBC Reported Missed Bin Laden Opportunity by Clinton in March 2004 | NewsBusters.org


----------



## jreeves

BrianH said:


> You're funny...Solve?  It's easy to solve something when someone else has done 5 years of the dirty work.  I'm sure when the main objective in Iraq is completed, you'll all give props to Obama because it was his idea to invade Iraq...  Let me give you some adivce genius...you have a bad habit of predicting futuristic events and either condemning people for them or worshipping the crap out of them.  Do you realize how stupid you are?  You're giving props to Obama for solving the Iraq "problem" when Obama is, currently, not the president, and obviously (at the moment) not the future president.  But just wait, you'll be sorry when Huckabee wins in 2020...



LMAO....Well when my daughter becomes President in 2036, she will solve world hunger and there will be no wars because of her extraordinary foreign policy ideas. Where will the democrats be then.....Lmao


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> You mean like clinton disappointed me?  NOT!
> 
> delusional?  dude, yu are in denial.
> 
> your like an abused woman.  always making excuses why he beats you up.
> 
> ps.  military men are not typically intelligent.  they are tough and do what they are told, but not generally brite.  jarheads, grunts, etc.  you were brainwashed.
> 
> *are you angry because they put something in your food to prevent you from getting erections?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Are you angry because your mom put stupid pills in your cereal?


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> An excerpt from the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld syllabus.
> 
> The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by
> any congressional Act. Quirin held that Congress had, through Article
> of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions to try offenders
> or offenses against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 28. UCMJ
> Art. 21, which is substantially identical to the old Art. 15, reads: The
> jurisdiction [of] courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving
> military commissions . . . of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders
> or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried
> by such . . . commissions. 10 U. S. C. §821. Contrary to the Governments
> assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a
> sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions
> whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognized that
> Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution
> and the common law of war, the President already had to convene
> military commissionswith the express condition that he and those
> under his command comply with the law of war. See 317 U. S., at
> 2829. Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific,
> overriding authorization for the commission convened to try
> Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the Presidents war powers,
> see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances,
> see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMFs text or legislative
> history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter
> the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21. Cf. Ex parte Yerger, 8
> Wall. 85, 105. Likewise, the DTA cannot be read to authorize this
> commission. Although the DTA, unlike either Art. 21 or the AUMF,
> was enacted after the President convened Hamdans commission, it
> contains no language authorizing that tribunal or any other at Guantanamo
> Bay. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most
> acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military
> commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution
> and laws, including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional
> authorization, this Courts task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide
> whether Hamdans military commission is so justified. Pp. 25
> 30.
> 4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because
> its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the
> four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 4972.
> 
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
> 
> Read the entire PDF.  Interesting stuff.  There's a whole lot of smackdown being layethed on the Administration.




Come on now when has the US ever given habeus corpus to enemy combatants?


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> Come on now when has the US ever given habeus corpus to enemy combatants?



They just did ...



> It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners&#8217; detention. That is a matter yet to be determined. We hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.



-Justice Kennedy

Edit to add:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did rule that the commission system violated both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, which is what you asked me to show you ...


----------



## Article 15

jreeves, what do you think GITMOs purpose is in the GWOT?


----------



## BrianH

sealybobo said:


> are u comparing yourself to napoleon?  did you go to west point?  didn't think so.  and bush's war isn't  about protecting my freedom or protecting me.
> 
> its about emptying the treasury and stealing a soverign countries natural resources.
> 
> you are no patriot.  you are a pawn.
> 
> I respect what you did for america, I just don't respect you.  how about the blackwater guys that raped that woman and then locked her in that shipping container?  how about racist service men?  do you think I should honor them?
> 
> did you join for college or did you sign up after 9 11?
> 
> I respect tillman.  he was conned with patriotism, but what a hero.  so you too probably love america.  I apprecate that.  I just don't agree with you when it comes to what america should be all about.
> its like you want our kid to be a christian and I want him to be muslim or jewish.  we both love our kid, we just have different agendas.
> 
> i'l try to find you dumbasses at work tomorrow.  there I have high speed and i'll be able to show you proof.  what exactly do you not believe?
> 
> stolen elections, iraq not going great, foreigners own the federal reserve, etc.
> 
> don't you fucking say i'm using lberal sources though without disproving their facts with your own facts.  ny times doesn't lie.  prove they do if you think they do.
> 
> I hate proving to you guys because you just go find spin to argue facts.  betrayus saying iraqi's want us to stay isn't  fact.  he'll say whatever bush wants.
> 
> and mukasey is better than gonzo, but still a bush lapdog.
> 
> your 5 neo con scientists saying global warming is not caused by humans does not make you credibile when the consensus is you are wrong.
> 
> you know what, you aren't  worth it.  I have "proved" everything to my neo con friends and it didn't change their minds, so I know it won't help you.
> 
> what you need is to call randi rhodes.  I love it when she makes guys like you look foolish.
> 
> remember a soldier called rush to say iraq was a mistake and rush called him a phony soldier?
> 
> that's all he had?  lol.  weak!



First off, you have reading comprehension problems.  Your dumbass assumptions definately make you look dumber than you apparently are. 

I'll first help you show your stupidity by saying that I've never been in the military.  So you've once again made an unwarranted and baseless assumption that I am/was in the military and am comparing myself to Napoleon.  

Second, you have the weakest arguements and opinions on these boards.  You have yet to post any proof of anything.  I have seen no links or posted sources for your baseless rantings.  

It's funny how you accuse others of saying your sources are not credible while immediately discrediting scientiest that "neocons" use to to show that global warming isn't caused by humans.  Not to mention that many of these scientists were members of the IPCC and contributed to their reports.  And also not to mention the former chairman of the National Academy of Sciences among others.  

You're the biggest turd at the sewer plant, and everyone sees it.    You make baseless assumptions that I'll now prove you wrong on.

1.  You assume I've been in the military--I've never been in the military
2.  You assume I'm a republican and voting for McCain--I am not a republican and don't know who I'm voting for.
3.  You assume I'm comparing myself to Napoleon because of my (assumed) military service--Wrong again because I've never been in the military.
4.  You assume GW is caused by humans even though it cannot and has not been proven--True
5.  You assume that I have kids and want them to be Christian--I don't have kids.
6.  You assume you're smarter than everyone on this board--you couldn't be more wrong.
7.  You claim that you're able to predict the future because of OBAMA? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.  It's obvious you can't predict the future, considering you can't even make baseless predictions about the character, life, and political affiliation of anyone on these boards.

As far as you're blackwater buddies, they are not the military.   They are privately contracted workers...  

Like I said before, try getting an education before you attempt regurgitate it.  We are all now dumber for listening to your rant.  


THe only Rhandi Rhodes I need to call is the guitarist...







Go ahead, keep playing with your ball.....


----------



## sealybobo

Article 15 said:


> Careful you don't hurt your back lifting that broad brush, sealy.
> 
> I served in the USAF.  I am an OIF veteran.  I am not an unintelligent person.  Generally speaking, the people serving next to me weren't unintelligent either.
> 
> You are showing a lot of ignorance if you think that the military is made up of "jarheads" and "grunts" etc.  There are countless high tech career fields, folks that work on fighter jets, logistics people, planners, engineers, pilots, lawyers, doctors, nurses, linguists, ect. that serve.  The list goes on and on and applies across all branches of the military.    Remember that those "jarheads" and "grunts" require a base to operate from and those bases require support troops to operate it.  That's besides the point anyway because I've met plenty of intelligent "grunts" in my day.
> 
> And I'll tell you another thing, I may not agree with the war in Iraq but I have plenty of respect for the ones who fight it.  Especially the "jarheads" and the "grunts" ... they have more courage inside of them than any other kind of military member I've served with.




I agree.  Sorry.  I'm arguing with a guy that defends the war and Bush and everything that is happening to our country.  My apologies.  Right or wrong, those guys have to do what they are told and I didn't mean to disrespect them.  Just that guy I was arguing with.  Because either he is stupid or evil.  

PS.  Bush has nearly broken the military.  They are taking really dumb people now.  they are taking criminals they wouldn't have taken in the past.  Good soldiers are leaving early to the the hell out of Bush's war.  Illegal aliens are going in exchange for citizenship.  Yada yada.  So while I respect the men and women serving, I also know Bush's actions have dumbed down the talent we have serving.  I'd guess that most of the men and women serving now have no other options.  

Again, I didn't mean to disrespect anyones service.  I feel bad.  Sorry.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Well considering pretty much the whole free world believed Saddam had Wmd's including democrats. I don't believe he lied, I believe it was faulty intelligence. Saddam did collaberate with terrorist, that has been proven. I just can't believe how easily democrats blame Bush for something when it was Clinton he set up the policy of removing Saddam during his adminstration.



Look up the Downing Street memos retard.  I love how you say, "the entire world".  

Is that why Canada told us to fuck off when we asked them to help?  Along with the rest of the world?  The coalition of the willing?  Who?  Poland?  England?  Pahleez.  

We had the world on our side after 9-11.  Bush blew them all off so he could.......

oh yea, bush has since admitted that Iraq was about Oil.  Not wmd's, not spreading democracy, not fighting terrorist, but about money.  He said, "sometimes money trumps piece".  That blows your lie right there.

And did you hear that tape of Bush at a fund raiser joking about WMD's?  He looked under a table and said, "any wmd's here?  NO, any over here?  NO, and the rich neo con crowd was dying laughing.  

I don't think that's funny.  Millions died in Iraq.  MILLIONS.  Bush should be tried for murder.  

You are so misguided it is sick.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Former President BILL CLINTON: We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice.
> 
> MYERS: What you're about to see is extraordinary secret video shot by the US government and obtained exclusively by NBC News.  *It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics say, a missed opportunity.*
> The fall of 2000, Afghanistan.  Unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators fly over known al-Qaeda training camps.  The pictures transmitted live to CIA headquarters half a world away show al-Qaeda terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills, then scattering on cue through the desert.  Also that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures, this tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is Osama bin Laden. The images may seem fuzzy to amateurs, but to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC, they couldn't be more clear.
> 
> Why does US intelligence believe this is Osama bin Laden?
> 
> Mr. WILLIAMS ARKIN: You see a tall man, you see him surrounded by or--or--or at least protected by a group of guards.
> 
> MYERS: Bin Laden is 6'5.  The man here clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.  Another clue, the video is shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live.  The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches these secret US intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.
> 
> Mr. ARKIN: It's dynamite.  It's putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn't happen every day.  I guess you could say we've done it once, and this is it.
> 
> MYERS: The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaeda a year before 9/11.  But that also raises one big question: If the US government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
> 
> Flashback: NBC Reported Missed Bin Laden Opportunity by Clinton in March 2004 | NewsBusters.org




Yes, and we kept Saddam in check.  Do you know Saddam was going to surrender completely and Chaney said no deal.  Chaney was going to invade Iraq no matter what.  

Bush didn't exhaust every option before he invaded, WITHOUT A PLAN.  Actually, the plan worked perfectly, because Blackwater and Haloburton have been raping the treasury every since.  NOW mission is accomplished.  Actually, they'll keep raping the kitty until Bush leaves office.  Didn't we just give them $400 million more?  

The Democrats are not going to cut the President off so you dumb ass voters can hold it against them.  If you like the war and the economy, vote for McCain.  It's that simple.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> LMAO....Well when my daughter becomes President in 2036, she will solve world hunger and there will be no wars because of her extraordinary foreign policy ideas. Where will the democrats be then.....Lmao



No, she will die over in Iraq because she got drafted.


----------



## Article 15

sealybobo said:


> I agree.  Sorry.  I'm arguing with a guy that defends the war and Bush and everything that is happening to our country.  My apologies.  Right or wrong, those guys have to do what they are told and I didn't mean to disrespect them.  Just that guy I was arguing with.  Because either he is stupid or evil.
> 
> PS.  Bush has nearly broken the military.  They are taking really dumb people now.  they are taking criminals they wouldn't have taken in the past.  Good soldiers are leaving early to the the hell out of Bush's war.  Illegal aliens are going in exchange for citizenship.  Yada yada.  So while I respect the men and women serving, I also know Bush's actions have dumbed down the talent we have serving.  I'd guess that most of the men and women serving now have no other options.
> 
> Again, I didn't mean to disrespect anyones service.  I feel bad.  Sorry.



S'all good ... just had to throw a lil' reminder your way and hopefully get you to use some more choice words in the future.

You do make a good point ... the military has lowered it's standards since opening up the front in Iraq.  Age restrictions have been eased and more people with criminal backgrounds have been allowed to enlist.  Enlistment quotas/projections have also been adjusted so the military (primarily the Army and Marines) can report 100% met each month and even with all that they still struggle.  But please, attack the institution, not those brave enough to sign the dotted line.

A life long friend of mine up here is a recruiter for the Marines.  I feel bad for the guy.  He has to bust his ass to barely make his quota, if he can at all.  I'm talking tons of traveling, 12-14 hour days and all that jazz.  

It didn't used to be like that pre-Iraq.


----------



## Paulie

RetiredGySgt said:


> I feel sorry for boobs like you. If Obama wins you are either going to be so disappointed we need to put you on suicide watch or so delusional you won't care when Obama does none of the things you think he will do.



So let me get this straight...

Obama isn't going to do any of the things he says he's going to do, but conservatives should vote for McCain so that Obama isn't elected and therefore won't be able to do all the things you say he won't even do anyway.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> No, she will die over in Iraq because she got drafted.



Well I think I'm safe considering your past assumptions and predictions. At age 8 she has a lot more sense than you do at age???


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> They just did ...
> 
> 
> 
> -Justice Kennedy
> 
> Edit to add:
> 
> Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did rule that the commission system violated both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, which is what you asked me to show you ...



Well I disagree with the SCOTUS, this ruling will allow terrorist to file Habeus Corpus and be released. Are you telling me, you want KSM to have the same Habeus Corpus rights as yourself? 

The laws for Gitmo was passed by Congress.....
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1] was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> jreeves, what do you think GITMOs purpose is in the GWOT?



To protect national security information from being disclosed in open court. Also to be able to debrief suspected terrorist without the limitations of US criminal laws.


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> Look up the Downing Street memos retard.  I love how you say, "the entire world".
> 
> Is that why Canada told us to fuck off when we asked them to help?  Along with the rest of the world?  The coalition of the willing?  Who?  Poland?  England?  Pahleez.
> 
> We had the world on our side after 9-11.  Bush blew them all off so he could.......
> 
> oh yea, bush has since admitted that Iraq was about Oil.  Not wmd's, not spreading democracy, not fighting terrorist, but about money.  He said, "sometimes money trumps piece".  That blows your lie right there.
> 
> And did you hear that tape of Bush at a fund raiser joking about WMD's?  He looked under a table and said, "any wmd's here?  NO, any over here?  NO, and the rich neo con crowd was dying laughing.
> 
> I don't think that's funny.  Millions died in Iraq.  MILLIONS.  Bush should be tried for murder.
> 
> You are so misguided it is sick.



Sigh....such ignorance...I will only respond with facts

President Bush in early 2003, just months after 9/11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had indicted Osama bin Laden, citing ties to Saddam Hussein and had bombed a suspected al Qaeda bio-weapons plant in Sudan with ties to Iraq. Czech intelligence insists that 9/11 plotter Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. UN weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. British intelligence says that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Saddam had invaded Kuwait a decade before and had used chemical weapons on his own people. One of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad and families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq. The CIA Director, originally appointed by Clinton, tells you "it's a slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD. The French, strongly opposed to war with Iraq, say their intelligence service believes Iraq still has WMD. Russian President Putin, opposed to war with Iraq, tells you that Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults on the U.S. Most of the CIA's human assets in Iraq have been discovered and murdered. Do you wait to get more spies into the country to confirm the other intelligence? Or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use force?
While we may know today that some (but not all) of the intelligence related to Saddam's weapons programs was inaccurate, this was not known at the time President Bush decided to request the use of force resolution from Congress. In fact, many members of Congress had access to the same intelligence as the Bush administration prior to the war resolution and came to the same conclusions about the threat of Iraq's WMD. Their statements demonstrate this (the link contains numerous quotes, I have excerpted a few in the interest of brevity): 

*"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 *
Presidential Decisions - The Long War Journal


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> Well I disagree with the SCOTUS, this ruling will allow terrorist to file Habeus Corpus and be released. Are you telling me, you want KSM to have the same Habeus Corpus rights as yourself?
> 
> The laws for Gitmo was passed by Congress.....
> Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1] was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]



Habeas corpus and be released?  Eh?  What makes you think that is the case?

You don't file habeas corpus and "get released."  Habeas corpus is being able to produce a reason for them being held other than, "you are a terrorist because we say so."  Sure some will be released ... the ones whom the US cannot produce any reason for which to hold them ... that's kinda ... you know ... against the law and such.  

Kahlid Sheik Muhammad will be found to have just cause to be held if/when he has a has a habeas corpus hearing ... the man confessed to being behind 9/11.  Pretty open and shut.  

The problem I want to avoid is the U.S. setting a dangerous precedent by rounding up suspected "terrorists," labeling them as "enemy combatants," and then locking them up indefinitely with nothing other than, "because we say so," to justify it.  Do you see what kind of an awful backlash such a policy can have on us?  It would then allow other nations to round up American citizens and do the same ... and when the US comes a calling they will be met with "sorry, you can't have them, they wont be tried ... they are enemy combatants."  Then what?  Scream bloody murder for them and look like HUGE hypocrites in front of the world when you yourselves have hundreds locked up in a similar fashion?  

I'd be willing to bet the farm that the same people here in the US who so vehemently disagree with the SCOTUS recent decision would the ones leading the campaign to wage war on "x" country that would _dare_ do such a thing.


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> To protect national security information from being disclosed in open court. Also to be able to debrief suspected terrorist without the limitations of US criminal laws.



So basically to skirt the rule of law ...

That is why they are getting shot down every time GITMO gets to the SCOTUS ....


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> Habeas corpus and be released?  Eh?  What makes you think that is the case?
> 
> You don't file habeas corpus and "get released."  Habeas corpus is being able to produce a reason for them being held other than, "you are a terrorist because we say so."  Sure some will be released ... the ones whom the US cannot produce any reason for which to hold them ... that's kinda ... you know ... against the law and such.
> 
> Kahlid Sheik Muhammad will be found to have just cause to be held if/when he has a has a habeas corpus hearing ... the man confessed to being behind 9/11.  Pretty open and shut.
> 
> The problem I want to avoid is the U.S. setting a dangerous precedent by rounding up suspected "terrorists," labeling them as "enemy combatants," and then locking them up indefinitely with nothing other than, "because we say so," to justify it.  Do you see what kind of an awful backlash such a policy can have on us?  It would then allow other nations to round up American citizens and do the same ... and when the US comes a calling they will be met with "sorry, you can't have them, they wont be tried ... they are enemy combatants."  Then what?  Scream bloody murder for them and look like HUGE hypocrites in front of the world when you yourselves have hundreds locked up in a similar fashion?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet the farm that the same people here in the US who so vehemently disagree with the SCOTUS recent decision would the ones leading the campaign to wage war on "x" country that would _dare_ do such a thing.



Umm...we didn't just state they were enemy combatants. A military tribunal made the judgement, if a detain was an enemy combatant. So as it stands after the SCOTUS ruling in order to be able to hold a combatant we must divulge national security information in open court. That sounds like a great way to gain even more intelligence on terrorist and future terror plots. Considering there was legal review for the detains prior to the decision, I don't see us setting any precendence for our troops. Are you saying that US troops should receive US legal review when they become a POW? That's simply not going to happen.


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> So basically to skirt the rule of law ...
> 
> That is why they are getting shot down every time GITMO gets to the SCOTUS ....



It was completely legal before SCOTUS issued new law from the bench. Remember, the military commissions act of 2006, the act was a way to provide judicial review for detains while protecting our national security interests.


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> Umm...we didn't just state they were enemy combatants. A military tribunal made the judgement, if a detain was an enemy combatant. So as it stands after the SCOTUS ruling in order to be able to hold a combatant we must divulge national security information in open court. That sounds like a great way to gain even more intelligence on terrorist and future terror plots. Considering there was legal review for the detains prior to the decision, I don't see us setting any precendence for our troops. Are you saying that US troops should receive US legal review when they become a POW? That's simply not going to happen.



The detainees at GITMO are not POWs.  Doing so gives them privileged status and inherently makes them "legal combatants."  That would make it even harder to eventually try these guys ...

And what kind of national security information are we concerned about?  The details of the so-called plot the detainee was involved in and how it was foiled?  So what?  To me, that's a lame excuse.

And I'm not concerned about US troops in as it relates to this because US troops fall into all categories that would make them POWs should the become captured ... "terrorists" don't.  We all know what the terrorists do in these situations ... they brutally murder them ... we both know that Geneva has a problem with that.

I'll repeat what my concern is:  Other gov'ts in the future seizing American citizens and labeling them "illegal combatants" and holding them against their will with out representation or just cause being given to our gov't.


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> It was completely legal before SCOTUS issued new law from the bench. Remember, the military commissions act of 2006, the act was a way to provide judicial review for detains while protecting our national security interests.



Yes, and all the "secret squirrel" type of legal games the US gov't is playing here is what makes the whole process smell fishy to other counties.

It's saying to the world "we got 'em and we're not telling you why."


----------



## AllieBaba

Article 15 said:


> The detainees at GITMO are not POWs.  Doing so gives them privileged status and inherently makes them "legal combatants."  That would make it even harder to eventually try these guys ...
> 
> And what kind of national security information are we concerned about?  The details of the so-called plot the detainee was involved in and how it was foiled?  So what?  To me, that's a lame excuse.
> 
> And I'm not concerned about US troops in as it relates to this because US troops fall into all categories that would make them POWs should the become captured ... "terrorists" don't.  We all know what the terrorists do in these situations ... they brutally murder them ... we both know that Geneva has a problem with that.
> 
> I'll repeat what my concern is:  Other gov'ts in the future seizing American citizens and labeling them "illegal combatants" and holding them against their will with out representation or just cause being given to our gov't.




They already do that, and they've figured out that the way to get around being killed for it is to refuse to wear uniforms, to blend in with non-combatants, and to use non-combatants as shields. Hence "illegal combatants". Otherwise, you can never catch them because they do not fit the description for POW.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Sigh....such ignorance...I will only respond with facts
> 
> [/url]



So then why did Bush use false intelligence to invade?  No doubt Saddam, Amadenijad, and the leader of N. Korea are no angels, but you want facts?

We all know Bush lied us into Iraq.  He also admitted that it was about money.

Bush picked bad intelligence and ignored more credible evidence.

Saddam tried to make a last minute deal and Chaney rejected it.

Of course you have the White House position on why they did what they did.  Sounds real good.  But it is debatable.  

Everything is debatable.  But some facts I just can't overlook.  Apparently you can.


----------



## sealybobo

jreeves said:


> Well I think I'm safe considering your past assumptions and predictions. At age 8 she has a lot more sense than you do at age???



She will need it when she's in combat.  10 more years she'll be in a fox hole.  And just think, then only 90 more years and we'll be out of there.  If she makes it, maybe she will give you grandkids, who will still be paying off this war, and fighting in it.    

So would you pay $30,000 for this war?  That's how much it is costing each American, so far.    

How about $10 a gallon?  That's what it will be if we invade Iran.  Dummy.


----------



## Article 15

AllieBaba said:


> They already do that, and they've figured out that the way to get around being killed for it is to refuse to wear uniforms, to blend in with non-combatants, and to use non-combatants as shields. Hence "illegal combatants". Otherwise, you can never catch them because they do not fit the description for POW.



Let's be real here ...

The reason why they are fighting the way they are in Iraq is because they know full well they can't stand toe to toe with the U.S. military.  To do so would be a huge folly on their part.  In the grand scheme of things, can you really blame them?  I know it's a taboo thing to even bring up but it's the reality of the situation over there.  They are fighting the only way they know how "to win."  

I


----------



## AllieBaba

It will cost us less when we use our own oil.

I remember when you could only get gas on odd or even days, depending upon your license plate number.

Quit panicking. It's going to be ok. Despite what the people who hate America say.


----------



## bush lover

Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.


----------



## sealybobo

bush lover said:


> Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.



sometimes we love our family but hate certain relatives.

I love america but hate americans like you.

your like the uncle who molested his niece for 8 yrs.  lol


----------



## Taomon

bush lover said:


> Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.



You seriously believe war is the solution?


----------



## Charles_Main

Good god I hope we don't go to war with Iran.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us do something, to make sure they never get nukes, But and invasion would be a disaster. Sure we would take apart their military easy enough, but try occupying that land, and if you think 4 dollar gas is bad, you have a big shock coming if we have an all out war with Iran, Try 15 or 20 dollars a gallon.

I think even Bush is smart enough not to invade Iran, he may attack them, but it will be a limited air attack if anything at all. Not a full scale invasion. I hope at least.


----------



## Paulie

Charles_Main said:


> Good god I hope we don't go to war with Iran.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us do something, to make sure they never get nukes, But and invasion would be a disaster. Sure we would take apart their military easy enough, but try occupying that land, and if you think 4 dollar gas is bad, you have a big shock coming if we have an all out war with Iran, Try 15 or 20 dollars a gallon.
> 
> I think even Bush is smart enough not to invade Iran, he may attack them, but it will be a limited air attack if anything at all. Not a full scale invasion. I hope at least.



What makes you think that merely an air attack, which would apparently have to include _tactical nukes_, would have any less blowback effect economically?  Or even geopolitically?


----------



## roomy

Blow the fuckers up, the World will soon get over it.


----------



## Charles_Main

Paulitics said:


> What makes you think that merely an air attack, which would apparently have to include _tactical nukes_, would have any less blowback effect economically?  Or even geopolitically?



Just because you assume it would include nukes does not make it so bud.


----------



## Paulie

Charles_Main said:


> Just because you assume it would include nukes does not make it so bud.



You do realize that an air assault on any of Iran's supposed nuke facilities, specifically Natanz, would require something more than a conventional strike?

I mean, isn't that supposed to be the contingency plan?  Take out their supposed abilities to develop nuclear weapons?  You don't really think we'd just bomb key government and financial targets and leave them with a governmental mess and most likely mass chaos, do you?  That would be pretty counter-productive.  They either invade Iraq-style and change the regime, or they nuke the supposed facilities and be done with it.  Otherwise, there's nothing any type of conventional bombing alone is going to accomplish in the long run.


----------



## Charles_Main

No, but there are key targets that could be hit with conventional weapons that would set back their Nuke programs for years. Not everything can be placed far underground.


----------



## Paulie

Charles_Main said:


> No, but there are key targets that could be hit with conventional weapons that would set back their Nuke programs for years. Not everything can be placed far underground.



If you're Iran, and you really _are_ building nuke weapons, you don't have anything important above ground.

There's also the fact that there's still no proof that they're even currently building nuclear weapons.  Our own intelligence community just recently dismissed Iran's claim that it has long range missile capabilities, after Iran tested a missile or 3.

Iran knows they're probably about to be our next victim, the writing's on the wall.  They're doing nothing more than posturing at this point, which you'd have to expect from a nation that knows its days are probably numbered.  

This brings me back to my original question though.  Even if we conventionally bomb the shit out of them, you don't think that's going to cause some major economic and geopolitical blowback?  Let's not forget about a few of their top trade partners, in China and Russia.


----------



## JimH52

bush lover said:


> Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.



Jessie Helms from the grave?


----------



## AllieBaba

Time for another wake up call for zealots in the middle east.

Frigging idiots.


----------



## Charles_Main

Paulitics said:


> If you're Iran, and you really _are_ building nuke weapons, you don't have anything important above ground.
> 
> There's also the fact that there's still no proof that they're even currently building nuclear weapons.  Our own intelligence community just recently dismissed Iran's claim that it has long range missile capabilities, after Iran tested a missile or 3.
> 
> Iran knows they're probably about to be our next victim, the writing's on the wall.  They're doing nothing more than posturing at this point, which you'd have to expect from a nation that knows its days are probably numbered.
> 
> This brings me back to my original question though.  Even if we conventionally bomb the shit out of them, you don't think that's going to cause some major economic and geopolitical blowback?  Let's not forget about a few of their top trade partners, in China and Russia.



Some things simply can't be placed underground.

as far as your question, I never said bombing would not cause economic troubles, I said it would not be as bad as an invasion. What I do not want to see is US troops on the ground in Iran. I hope we can agree at least on that point.


----------



## JimH52

sealybobo said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE
> 
> the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives.  loss on 401k's,  $40 you might have made aint what it used to be.  seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.
> 
> how much did you make?
> 
> ps.  gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I sold real estate and bush's tax cuts saved me about $5,000.
Click to expand...


----------



## Article 15

Using nukes to cripple Iran's capability to develop nukes ... 

What irony ...

And *Paulitics* is right.  Any kind of a strike on Iran would leave a huge footprint geopolitically and on the world economy ...

It would be grossly irresponsible of the US to do so ...


----------



## JimH52

But would it also be grossly irresponsible for the US to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon with the expressed intent to destroy Israel?  Not an easy position, eh?


----------



## Article 15

Well yes, if it were the U.S.' responsibility to do so ...

However, if Israel feels so threatened and believes that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon on them even when they face mutual destruction if the do so then I would say the ball is in Israel's court and not ours ....


----------



## Charles_Main

Article 15 said:


> Well yes, if it were the U.S.' responsibility to do so ...
> 
> However, if Israel feels so threatened and believes that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon on them even when they face mutual destruction if the do so then I would say the ball is in Israel's court and not ours ....



I actually have to agree. I think Israel is fully capable of dealing with Iran, with continued funding from us of course


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Iran's never going to attack Israel, and anything Ahmadinejad says is pretty much just populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (what a suprise!). Nobody in Iran wants to be obliterated (what a surprise!), and that's gonna pretty much going to keep them from doing something rash, unless, of course, someone or something wounds the animal and causes it to attack. 

And then on the other hand, the US is never going to attack Iran, and anything Bush says is pretty much populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (he kinda already backed off from that one, what a suprise, people don't like war!). What nobody in the media says is that the US can't do much about it militarily. They could air-strike it, sure. But that's about it. Just look at a map and look at the chaos. It'd be a battle field some 2,700,000 sq kilometers large, it'd would double the population at stake (Iran actually has even more people than Iraq and Afghanistan combined), and it'd be a ridiculous mess. The most ridiculous thing by far is the fact that back in the 70s the US was just extatic over Iran's fledgling nuclear program- because of course the great and beloved Reza Pahlavi was in charge (courtesy of Britain & the US), but now?! Iran + Nuclear energy?! UNTHINKABLE! Only "our" client states can have nuclear power!


----------



## JimH52

Epsilon Delta said:


> Iran's never going to attack Israel, and anything Ahmadinejad says is pretty much just populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (what a suprise!). Nobody in Iran wants to be obliterated (what a surprise!), and that's gonna pretty much going to keep them from doing something rash, unless, of course, someone or something wounds the animal and causes it to attack.
> 
> And then on the other hand, the US is never going to attack Iran, and anything Bush says is pretty much populist jargon to deal with his low approval ratings (he kinda already backed off from that one, what a suprise, people don't like war!). What nobody in the media says is that the US can't do much about it militarily. They could air-strike it, sure. But that's about it. Just look at a map and look at the chaos. It'd be a battle field some 2,700,000 sq kilometers large, it'd would double the population at stake (Iran actually has even more people than Iraq and Afghanistan combined), and it'd be a ridiculous mess. The most ridiculous thing by far is the fact that back in the 70s the US was just extatic over Iran's fledgling nuclear program- because of course the great and beloved Reza Pahlavi was in charge (courtesy of Britain & the US), but now?! Iran + Nuclear energy?! UNTHINKABLE! Only "our" client states can have nuclear power!



Interesting.  I do hope you are right.  I feel confident that neither Obama not McCain would make such a foolish decision.  Now, bush I ain't so sure.


----------



## Article 15

JimH52 said:


> Interesting.  I do hope you are right.  I feel confident that neither Obama not McCain would make such a foolish decision.  Now, bush I ain't so sure.



I disagree.  The possibility that he may attack Iran is pretty much the one thing that _really_ worries me about McCain.  

Lieberman, his right hand man, during Petraeus' testimony literally said as a lead in to a question, "I want to go into Iran."  Admittedly, he was talking about sending in troops from the Iraq front to go after the Qods forces in Iran but still the idea is still there.

Here's the link with a video.

TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Lieberman: Can't We Invade Iran Yet?

The dude (Lieberman) is a hawk of the highest order.  McCain isn't too far behind.  

No thanks.


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Well, the American far-right has surprised us again and again, but McCain actually launching a war against Iran would be only a little different from Ahmedinejad firing a nuke into israel- the US wouldn't get obliterated, but it'd precipitate a very rapid decline in every field- 0 soft power, 0 world standing, 0 ability to deploy anywhere else, unsurmountable strain on the economy, total chaos in the middle east, an enormous rise in terrorism. It'd be brutal.


----------

