Articles of impeachment introduced against Bush?!

[Ray H]

For every innocent civilian you kill, you create a whole family of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

For every innocent family we kill, we creat a family of dead terrorist.
I like dead terrorists.

 

[winkosmosis]

If you use that rationale, then are all the family members of the victims from 9/11 now terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?
















I didn't think so.....

We aren't Afghans or Iraqis. There's no Al Qaeda recruiting center on our streetcorners, no Sadr militia men handing out food and candy to our children, not many mosques promoting terrorism to get 72 virgins, and no century of constant violence and oppression.

 

[buschwhaked]

Ever thought about the burden soldiers would have to carry if they "wasted" civilians unneccesarily?

 

[WrenchMonkey]

We aren't Afghans or Iraqis. There's no Al Qaeda recruiting center on our streetcorners, no Sadr militia men handing out food and candy to our children, not many mosques promoting terrorism to get 72 virgins, and no century of constant violence and oppression.

That's his point: Their culture instills that hatred and violence in their citizens, in a way that ours doesn't. Saying that attacking terrorists magically creates new terrorists ignores the fact that many of these backward fawks were 90% of the way there already, looking for an excuse.

We can't afford to tiptoe around these psychos because they've got a chip on their shoulder. We need to find a way to change that culture that creates that bloodthirst.

Sowing the seeds for good ole American-style Consumerism seems an odd way to do that, but I'll be damned if I can come up with a better idea...

Robert

 

[kahaikapu]

haha..america is the terrorist..look what the have done to the native people..indians,,blacks,mexicans..and the hawaiians..like all great nation..U.S will fall..they deserve it.....chill its the truth..get ready for the New World Order..remember this quote..its comin
THATS WHAT THE WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS IS ALL ABOUT

 

[vetteboy]

:lol:

 

[winkosmosis]

Ever thought about the burden soldiers would have to carry if they "wasted" civilians unneccesarily?

Yes, which is why I hate it when someone says we need to kill every Afghan, Iraqi, or whatever. The people who take the "nuke them all" stance are the ones who will never see combat.

 

[Shorty]

IMO, they were most concerned with public opinion, which supported the war, otherwise they wouldn't have voted to authorize the use of force.

and for this, they should be given a free pass?? it just goes to show that they'll vote for anything that will keep them in office and use the excuse of "public opinion" to fall back on when it turns out to be an unwise choice.

The Iraqi dictator was a monster that killed tens of thousands of people and you don't see why we removed him from power? He agreed to UN weapons inspections after the first gulf war and failed to abide by the terms of his own agreement seventeen times and you don't see why we ousted him??

I don't fool myself by believing Hussein was the only monster (or even the worst) in the region, but when you've got the chance to rid the world of any of them (monsters) you take it. You don't sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent people to save the lives of a few. Thanx Bill.......

 

[ZomBrady]

and for this, they should be given a free pass?? it just goes to show that they'll vote for anything that will keep them in office and use the excuse of "public opinion" to fall back on when it turns out to be an unwise choice.

The Iraqi dictator was a monster that killed tens of thousands of people and you don't see why we removed him from power? He agreed to UN weapons inspections after the first gulf war and failed to abide by the terms of his own agreement seventeen times and you don't see why we ousted him??

I don't fool myself by believing Hussein was the only monster (or even the worst) in the region, but when you've got the chance to rid the world of any of them (monsters) you take it. You don't sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent people to save the lives of a few. Thanx Bill.......

That's fine and can agree with that.

But the point is that Bush's administration purposefully used intel reports and information that was faulty and or fabricated in order to justify the use of force in Iraq. And dubiously outed a CIA operative because the intel she gathered was contrary to what they wanted to hear.

Multiple questionable and illegal activities by our current administration that have resulted in the quagmire in Iraq and Bin Laden still on the lam.

 

[Boatwrench]

Page Two.

Carry on!

Fixed it Dan! This ones going to be good.

 

[Shorty]

That's fine and can agree with that.

But the point is that Bush's administration purposefully used intel reports and information that was faulty and or fabricated in order to justify the use of force in Iraq. And dubiously outed a CIA operative because the intel she gathered was contrary to what they wanted to hear.

Multiple questionable and illegal activities by our current administration that have resulted in the quagmire in Iraq and Bin Laden still on the lam.

I am not aware of any proof of intent to use faulty or fabricated to justify that which was already justified. I know some or the intel was shown to be incorrect, but to my knowledge the decision to react came before the that realization. I've been wrong before and can happily admit my ignorance, but I'm not aware of any decisions intentionally based on known false intel.

 

[Ray H]

Yes, which is why I hate it when someone says we need to kill every Afghan, Iraqi, or whatever. The people who take the "nuke them all" stance are the ones who will never see combat.

Really?
8 years in two branches of the service disagrees with you.
If I were "in combat" today, what I would want most of all is 100% support for the job Im doing. Ever wonder why we kicked so much butt during WWII yet faultered during Korea, Vietnam and Iraq? I'll tell you. The miltary didnt have 100%. I dont mean 100% of the people back here yelling "we support our troops". What I mean is 100% of the economy and 100% of the might that the U.S. poccesses. That means that once we go to war, the politicians shut up and step aside and let the military go do their job unhindered. Politicians should be deciding if we go to war, once that decision is made, get out of the way. The U.S. economy should be regeared to meet whatever needs the military has. That means if need be, the citizens take a hit and stop buying cars or fuel or whatever it takes.
Once we go to war, all talks stop. Talking is for politicians. Do you think we had talks with Japan or Germany? The only talks we had with them was their surrender.
Do I think we should go in and "nuke" the whole place? Of course not. I do think that we shouldve gone in a cleaned house from one end of that whole region to the other end because that whole region poses a threat, plain and simple.

Should we have gone to war in the first place. Im not sure we had a choice. We were already considered a bunch of clowns by the rest of the world, how bad would it have been to let 9/11 go without so much as a shot fired? Personally, I dont think I couldve dealt with that.

 

[ZomBrady]

. . .Should we have gone to war in the first place. Im not sure we had a choice. We were already considered a bunch of clowns by the rest of the world, how bad would it have been to let 9/11 go without so much as a shot fired? Personally, I dont think I couldve dealt with that.

Could you clarify for me this position? Are you saying that Iraq was tied to 9/11? And if so how was Iraq tied to 9/11?

As far as I'm concerned, we had ever right and obligation to invade and occupy Afghanistan. And that campaign is out of this discussion. It was justified.

 

[98XJSport]

Know what would be worse than a war with Iraq? A war with the Muslim Middle East. Which would at some point happen, all it would take is a strong leader to unite (fear for a generation, religion for a second) these regions into a area with large families which we are already aware have no regards to thier own lives.

Just something else to think about :eyes:

 

[lonecountryboy]

To much propaganda flying around and not enough facts. With the media only reporting the bad things that we do and not reporting on the progress that has been made the dems are going to be in charge for at least the next 4yrs. Until the dumba## repubs get there butts in gear and remember what got them there like conservitive principals and law and order and less spending we are going down a very dark path. As far as impeachment give it a rest nothing is going to come of it and it is only for show. They want to impeach him for the one thing I think he has done right and that is be aggresive on the war. What I don't care for is the open borders and out of control spending that is going on. We need to quit believing all the conspiracy theories out there and concentrate on getting out of the hole we have dug for ourselves. Remember the first rule when you are in a hole: quit digging!!!!

 

[Ray H]

Could you clarify for me this position? Are you saying that Iraq was tied to 9/11? And if so how was Iraq tied to 9/11?

As far as I'm concerned, we had ever right and obligation to invade and occupy Afghanistan. And that campaign is out of this discussion. It was justified.

I dont draw any geographical boundries, they are all muslim nation.
The middle east may be dividied by man made lines, and they may fight amongst themselves, but when push comes to shove, they will come together against us. Ever hear of Jihad? History has proven, they ALL will fight us, they just take turns. One of them will fight us while we supply another with arms, then they turn around and fight us. At some time in the near future (as in next 200 years) we will have had to fight each and every one of them at some point, at the same time, we will rebuild the one we just got done fighting.
All Id like to do is stop this rollercoaster ride either by getting completely away from them or by removing them from the planet. Either way is fine with me, I just dont like this halfassed position we have been taking.

 

[buschwhaked]

Really?
What I mean is 100% of the economy and 100% of the might that the U.S. poccesses. That means that once we go to war, the politicians shut up and step aside and let the military go do their job unhindered. Politicians should be deciding if we go to war, once that decision is made, get out of the way. The U.S. economy should be regeared to meet whatever needs the military has. That means if need be, the citizens take a hit and stop buying cars or fuel or whatever it takes.

This is the by-product of an all-volunteer military that is tasked to stay trained and ready for the next fight. WWII we were caught with our pants down, not having enough military might to fight a two war front. That is part of the reason we re-tooled assembly lines to make tanks and rationed the resources neccessary to make the tools of war.

Also, back then there wasn't the War Powers Act which allowed the president to fight unilaterally. It was unlawful at that point to marshall the military into a campaign congress hadn't approved. Also, back then they didn't have the military-industrial complex we do today.

So, for one of those rare moments in life I agree with Bush. After 9/11 he encouraged everyone to go about their lives and spend money. Why? Because your tax dollars were going to be paid to civilian companies that supply the tools of war. I'm not saying this from a conspiriatorial perspective either. More money made/spent=more money to tax More tax revenue=more dollars for bullets, tanks, etc.

I'm not going to jump back into a debate over whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, my opinions are clear on that. But the 'kill 'em all' attitude isn't effective in the modern world for an unconventional conflict. No to mention it's immoral and wrong. To boot, our end goal (as stated by he President) is to set up a stable democracy. Killing everyone does not result in stability of any kind. The second and third order effects are too costly.

 

[winkosmosis]

and for this, they should be given a free pass?? it just goes to show that they'll vote for anything that will keep them in office and use the excuse of "public opinion" to fall back on when it turns out to be an unwise choice.

The Iraqi dictator was a monster that killed tens of thousands of people and you don't see why we removed him from power? He agreed to UN weapons inspections after the first gulf war and failed to abide by the terms of his own agreement seventeen times and you don't see why we ousted him??

I don't fool myself by believing Hussein was the only monster (or even the worst) in the region, but when you've got the chance to rid the world of any of them (monsters) you take it. You don't sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent people to save the lives of a few. Thanx Bill.......

I didn't say they should be given a free pass for voting to authorize the war. I'm blaming them to caving to public opinion.

Deposing a dictator is a good thing, but we didn't invade Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts, but because he supposedly had WMDs... At least officially. Unofficially, war is obviously good for business. Remember the Haliburton no-bid contracts?

During the run up to the war, my position was that we should wait for UN support. The IAEA said the same thing. The reality was that there was no rush. Many commentators said that Saddam was only posturing, which it turns out he was.

Bill didn't sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands to save a few. He refrained from killing one based on dodgy intel, to save the lives of a few hundred. He did everything short of killing 200 innocent worshippers plus other innocent people in that governor's mansion, to capture bin Laden.
And guess what. Bin Laden is not synonymous with terrorism. If he didn't plan the attack, someone else would have.
You'll never kill every terrorist. The only way to keep your nation reasonably safe is to have a foreign policy that tries to solve the situations that create terrorists in the first place.

 

[winkosmosis]

Really?
8 years in two branches of the service disagrees with you.
If I were "in combat" today, what I would want most of all is 100% support for the job Im doing. Ever wonder why we kicked so much butt during WWII yet faultered during Korea, Vietnam and Iraq? I'll tell you. The miltary didnt have 100%. I dont mean 100% of the people back here yelling "we support our troops". What I mean is 100% of the economy and 100% of the might that the U.S. poccesses. That means that once we go to war, the politicians shut up and step aside and let the military go do their job unhindered. Politicians should be deciding if we go to war, once that decision is made, get out of the way. The U.S. economy should be regeared to meet whatever needs the military has. That means if need be, the citizens take a hit and stop buying cars or fuel or whatever it takes.
Once we go to war, all talks stop. Talking is for politicians. Do you think we had talks with Japan or Germany? The only talks we had with them was their surrender.
Do I think we should go in and "nuke" the whole place? Of course not. I do think that we shouldve gone in a cleaned house from one end of that whole region to the other end because that whole region poses a threat, plain and simple.

Should we have gone to war in the first place. Im not sure we had a choice. We were already considered a bunch of clowns by the rest of the world, how bad would it have been to let 9/11 go without so much as a shot fired? Personally, I dont think I couldve dealt with that.

8 years in the military and you think Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Colin Powell said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[JNickel101]

Mismanaging the war by sending too few troops with insufficient equipment, causing the quagmire we have today. Remember, McCain spoke out against this.

Yep, but he was going with the recommendation of the GENERALS and the SecDef (who is the one/are the ones to blame for that)

Rummy will go down as the worst SecDef in US History. That's who you can blame.

And you can blame Slick Willy Clinton for destroying the CIA and NSA (among other Intel agencies), leaving it in the condition it was in when Bush took over....

Step back and imagine the past 8 years with Owl Gorilla or John Kerry as President instead...

I shudder at the mere thought....