BF2S Forums The US in 2008

B.Schuss wrote:

Up to now, I can't see any viable Candidate for either party... So who will it be ?

Oprah.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 wrote:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq…

…Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';…

…Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and…
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1)    SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

hmm...it seems the US is expanding their view on what is an acceptable reason for war on another nation.
Bush obviously interpreted this authorization in such a way that he was allowed to basically invade Iraq.
Did the iraqi Government order the 09/11 attacks ?

here is an commentary on the war authorization issue: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html

@Darth: I wonder who will be the next Pres according to your opinion ?

_j5689_ wrote:

Obviously he's going to want to know everything about everyone.  There's probably plenty of terrorists here and Saddam just sent a message that there will be more attacks on the U.S. if we don't withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, which of course, we won't be doing.

and thats were the patriot act comes in...

Anyone ever think that Osama Bin Faggin might be backpedalling a bit. Offering a truce now that he realizes we aren't backing down? Threatening us with more attacks? Like he hasn't done that before.... lol. Then turning the tables, like somehow the fact that he is a worthless piece of shit coward is our problem.

I think he is trying to play on the fact the US is divided right now. Not gonna work man, but nice try. Even at our worst, piss us off, and we can reunite real quick to fuck someone else up. America is a huge dysfunctional family. Like family, we back each other up, no matter what. You just gotta piss us off enough.

Just ask the japanese.

Spark wrote:

I've got a question: Why, oh why, do you run a Two-Party System???? In Australia we have the unique situation where the 'balance-of-power' (so to speak) is not in the hands of the two major parties.

Do you know there are communists who try to get votes on the election cards we vote on? Of course most of us dont vote for them because communism has already proven to not work. Man has tried everything and it all came down to man having to be free. Sorry if we are already light years ahead of you.

(Food for Thought):  Ever watch a movie that has alot of corrupt politicians and in the end the good guyz win...and you say..."Phewwww....thank god the good guyz won...can you imagine a world run by evil, corrupt, back-stabbing politicians.....I mean, a world literally run by scum who count on our ignorance to continue destroying our world for greed and power!"  You sit back, turn off your DVD player, watch the news and think...."Wow...I am living in that world!"

Last edited by SSgt_Mo (2006-01-20 10:04:30)

Greetings to Germany! My family fled Leipzig in 1954 to the west and emigrated here in 1956. Anyway, probably more than you wanted to know.

B.Schuss wrote:

hmm...it seems the US is expanding their view on what is an acceptable reason for war on another nation.
Bush obviously interpreted this authorization in such a way that he was allowed to basically invade Iraq.
Did the iraqi Government order the 09/11 attacks ?

There was no other way to interpret it. That's exactly what the authorization was, an authorization to use the U.S. military against Iraq. Nice way to word it as though Bush had his own unique take on it.

No, the Iraqi government did not order the 9/11 attacks. The sections of the authorization that I posted were meant to counter Marconius and other liberals who try to say that we are not at war. The report you mention is an interesting take on the international aspect of the legality of the war, I'll get to it in a moment. Let me take another excerpt from the authorization that deals with your third question.

Congress of the United States of America wrote:

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

...Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;...
...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;...
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Actually, I suggest that you read the document in its entirety rather than letting me excerpt it for you. This will prevent accusations of "spin". Back on topic, Saddam Hussein was actively supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with large cash bonuses.

BBC wrote:

Palestinians get Saddam funds


Iraq regularly parades volunteers to "liberate Palestine"
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000
PALF figures 
One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each...

...The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Clearly Mr. Hussein was willing to use terrorism to further his goals and ideals. As an aside, this is while the sanctions against Iraq were in place and his people were starving which Saddam was also playing like a fiddle. Which brings me to my next point, the article that you present the international legality of the war. Now, what I want to ask you is this, if some of the permanent members of the U.N. Security council are illegally exploiting the sanctions against a country for profit, and a vote to support an action that  will either end or expose their illegal behaviour, should their vote count? Wouldn't their opposition be consider illegal?

The Timesonline on October 03,2004 wrote:

Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil
Robert Winnett

A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.
The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action...

...The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 80,00.html

aljazeera.com<<YES aljazeera wrote:

Operation of the scheme
The scheme is alleged to have worked like this: individuals and organizations sympathetic to the Iraqi regime, or those just easily bribed, were offered oil contracts through the Oil-for-Food Programme. These contracts for Iraqi oil could then be sold on the open world market and the seller was allowed to keep a transaction fee, said to be between $0.15 and $0.50/barrel (0.94 and 3.14 $/m³) of oil sold. The seller was then to refund the Iraqi government a certain percentage of the commission.

The role of France, China and Russia

While the U.S and U.K are said to have been aware of the scandal, it has become known that the primary beneficiaries were France, China and Russia. These three countries were the main suppliers of conventional weapons estimated at between 650,000 and 1,000,000 tons. As late as 2002, French and Chinese companies were providing Iraq with chemical fuels for rockets in violation of U.N. sanctions. Additionally, the sole bank handling funds transfers for the Oil-for-food program was the New York branch of the Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas, or BNP Paribas. This French bank was the sole bank for administering the $64 billion U.N. program and did not have adequate checks on whether money was being funneled to terrorists, according to a US House of Representatives International Relations Committee probe. The investigation found that BNP Paribas made payments without proof that goods were delivered and sanctioned payments to third parties not identified as authorized recipients. Investigators estimate that the bank received more than $700 million in fees under the U.N. program that began in 1996 and ended after the ouster of Saddam in March 2003.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10274

You are so eager to associate corruption with Bush, when this goes largely ignored. Again, this goes to picking your issues a little more carefully and at least be consistant. Bush's war upset a great many people who were making a lot of money with Saddam in power. They in turn have ginned up a great deal of anti-Bush and anti-American sentiment by playing on the sympathies of the young and easily mis-lead. Even Osama himself his counting on your support and sympathies.

aljazeera wrote:

In the tape, the speaker also slammed the U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH, saying that he is

Osama bin Ladn wrote:

“misinterpreting public opinion polls which show that the vast majority of you (the Americans) support the withdrawal of your forces from IRAQ,...

...He (BUSH) disagreed with this desire and said the withdrawal of troops will give the wrong message to the enemy and that it is better to fight them on their ground than on our ground."

Reality shows that the war against the U.S. and its allies is not just restricted to IRAQ as he claims, but Iraq has become a gravitational point,...

Based on the substance of the polls, which indicate Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions… so we can build IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN,

"There is nothing wrong with this solution except that it deprives the influential people and warlords in America from hundreds of billions of dollars, -- those who supported BUSH's election campaign with billions of dollars.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_s … e_id=10465

He is taking a page right out of the liberal play-book.

There is an old saying...if you are not liberal while you are young, you have no heart, if you are not conservative when you get older, you have no brain.

You will notice that I have been using "approved" sources in my last several posts and I want to address Mr. Marconius and whoever else may care on this issue. One aspect of a bias that any individual or news organization has has at their or its disposal is what or what not they or it will report, not just how they or it reports it. The organizations that Marconius objects to may have a right wing slant but they will sometimes report on things that would otherwise go unreported. Categorically disregarding them is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" so to speak. Simply apply a mental filter and sift through the presented information.

And, finally an answer to your last question.

B.Schuss wrote:

@Darth: I wonder who will be the next Pres according to your opinion ?

At this point in time there is no way for me to predict to this, all I can tell you is who I might be able to support. From the Democrats, I could possibly support Joe Lieberman. Of the Republicans side, no one has really caught my attention...possibly Rudy Guiliani if only for his handling of New York during the aftermath of 9/11. Ideally, my candidate will be more conservative than G.W. Bush. Just as an aside, I too have issues with Mr. Bush...he is too liberal!



ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or for that matter whatever I may write, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

gennerally in the usa year 2008 everyone will be fat is my guess

AirForce2076 wrote:

Spark wrote:

I've got a question: Why, oh why, do you run a Two-Party System???? In Australia we have the unique situation where the 'balance-of-power' (so to speak) is not in the hands of the two major parties.

Do you know there are communists who try to get votes on the election cards we vote on? Of course most of us dont vote for them because communism has already proven to not work. Man has tried everything and it all came down to man having to be free. Sorry if we are already light years ahead of you.

What do you mean? Having a multiple-party system ensures that one party, even if they control both houses of parliament, don't have full control. Mostly they have to go begging to the Independents/Minor parties to support their policies (which they seldom do).

If we are to get back on topic of what we can expect in 2008, we need to evaluate what has gone on in recent elections and what is going on now in the lead up to the 2006 elections if we are to have any clue as to what we can expect in those elections.

Marconius wrote:

Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?

First of all, a definition.

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:

Main Entry: sin·is·ter
Pronunciation: 'si-n&s-t&r, archaic s&-'nis-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English sinistre, from Latin sinistr-, sinister on the left side, unlucky, inauspicious
1 archaic : UNFAVORABLE, UNLUCKY
2 archaic : FRAUDULENT
3 : singularly evil or productive of evil
4 a : of, relating to, or situated to the left or on the left side of something; especially : being or relating to the side of a heraldic shield at the left of the person bearing it
   b : of ill omen by reason of being on the left
5 : presaging ill fortune or trouble
6 : accompanied by or leading to disaster

To answer your question, Marconius, yes, there IS something sinister going on...but not necessarily by the Republicans, the left (Democrats) are sinister by very definition.

We have already demonstrated in this thread that the accusation that Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq is FRAUDULENT, satisfying the 2nd definition. Even though he was merely the Vice President, Al Gore was still present in the White House during the Clinton administration and he access to information unfiltered by G.W. Bush. We have already presented quotes from Hillary and Bill Clinton (Hill-Billy?).

Al Gore, Monday September 23, 2002 wrote:

...Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organise 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. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 … 99,00.html

In the lead up to the November 2004 elections he had changed his tune and purpoting that the war was 'illegal'...

Al Gore, May 26, 2004 wrote:

The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat.
http://www.moveon.org/pac/gore-rumsfeld-transcript.html

Contrast that statement with this quip while Mr. Gore was Vice President.

Richard Clarke wrote:

"Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said,

Al Gore wrote:

"That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

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

Did you get that?

On post-war policy

Al Gore, again Monday September 23, 2002 wrote:

...Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

Now the left claims that we should get out of Iraq...it is becoming a quagmire.

Now, in light of the fact it is now drawing toward the end of the SECOND January sine the 2004 elections, let’s revisit the “January Surprise” claims of a draft being re-instated and social security benefits being cut made just prior the November 2004 elections in a concerted effort to scare both the young and the elderly and thereby gain their votes. This satisfies the 5th definition of sinister.

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:

Main Entry: pre·sage
Pronunciation: 'pre-sij, pri-'sAj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pre·saged; pre·sag·ing
transitive senses
1 : to give an omen or warning of : FORESHADOW
2 : FORETELL, PREDICT
intransitive senses : to make or utter a prediction

Howard Dean, Tuesday, September 21, 2004 wrote:

A key issue for young Americans and their families to consider as they prepare to cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election is the real likelihood of a military draft being reinstated if President Bush is re-elected.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-10.htm

Senator Tom Harkin, October 28, 2004 wrote:

Why Bush will restart the draft if re-elected.

President George W. Bush may or may not have a secret plan to reinstate the draft. But this is besides the point. The deteriorating facts on the ground in Iraq, plus the Bush doctrine of acting pre-emptively and unilaterally against hostile regimes, will soon leave him no choice. If Bush is re-elected, he will have to restart the draft.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2004/10/29/10950

John Kerry wrote:

Just yesterday, we found out that the President told his biggest and wealthiest donors about his big January surprise. He's going to 'come out strong' to fight for his plan to privatize Social Security.
"This may be a good surprise for the wealthiest people and the well-connected in America, but it's a disaster for America's middle class," Kerry said from the pulpit of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio.
Later, he told an audience in Pembroke Pines, Fla.: "I will never privatize Social Security. I'll never cut the benefits and I won't raise the retirement age."
Bush's plan would cut benefits by up to 45% - or $500 a month for many Americans - and would bloat an already record deficit by $2 trillion over a decade.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … 8653c.html

John Kerry, Oct. 15 wrote:

With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Oct15.html

The Washington Post wrote:

Yet many college-age voters -- a group Kerry is aggressively targeting for support -- fear the draft will be reinstated during a second Bush term, polls show.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Oct15.html

There is no draft more than a year later and the legislation that would have reinstated a draft was actually introduced by Charles Rangel, (Democrat-New York) and reintroduced again in May 2005. Who is trying to get you drafted?

Charles Rangel’s press release wrote:

CONGRESSMAN CHARLES  RANGEL
RENEWS CALL FOR MILITARY DRAFT
WASHINGTON, May 26, 2005 -- Lawmaker Says Desperate Measures to Bolster Dwindling Recruitment Highlight Concerns About an Impending Collapse of the Voluntary System
Congressman Charles Rangel today announced the reintroduction of his legislation to reinstate the military draft.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny … 62005.html

So if there are again rumours of a secret agenda of a republican conspiracy to reinstate the draft, they are flatly FRAUDULENT presages of ill omen.
As for Social Security, what has happened in the last year…cuts? No, benefits were increased 2.7% for 2006, they are making the biggest jump in 15 years in 2006, again under the auspices of a Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House for a grand total of 6.8% in increases.

The Social Security Administration wrote:

Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits for more than 52 million Americans will increase 4.1 percent in 2006, the Social Security Administration announced today.
http://ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/2006cola-pr.htm

Where, I ask you is the “January” surprise? Young people are not being drafted and retirees are going to be getting the largest checks they have ever gotten. Again, more FRAUDULENT presages of ill omen (sinister). This is what is known as fear mongering.

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:

Main Entry: mon·ger
Pronunciation: 'm&[ng]-g&r, 'mä[ng]-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mongere, from Old English mangere, from Latin mangon-, mango, of Greek origin; akin to Greek manganon charm, philter
1 : BROKER, DEALER -- usually used in combination <alemonger>
2 : a person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable -- usually used in combination.

Contrast this to the alleged “fear mongering” of the Republicans on the issue of terrorism. Terrorism is a very real threat. See Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow, Amman, Karachi, Riyadh, Beslan, just to mention a few. All have suffered major terror attacks in the recent past, some quite a few times. The reason that it resonates is because it is not a false threat as the above claims were.

What can we expect in 2008? We can expect more false accusations and claims by the left then we can shake a stick at.

Congress may have not actually declared war, but did you forget that Congress gave the president all means necessary to do what needs to be done

The problem with America (and yes, I am American, and damn proud of it) is that people listen to every little fucking thing the media has to say, and doesn't listen to people who know the truth about the war and such, like the soldiers and marines over there, if you ask most of them then they will tell you that the war is right and that the Iraqi's they've talked to are glad the Americans put Saddam out of power, because it is the truth. People only look at Bush's record and problems, but look at all the shit Saddam pulled, and ended up getting away with, again, I could go for fucking days on the bad shit Saddam has done. And the biggest thing that we are fighting for are the rights for you people to speak your mid and openly express your opinions about the war and your government, because in some coutries, if you do that, you will probably be considered a spy and executed. That is all.