George W. Bush's unelectable foreign policy

[dross]

JAG...

JAG is wrong.

 

[jeremy]

JAG is wrong.

Possibly but the countless amount of Lawyers that work for the NSA and the POTUS say that JAG is right?!

 

[UncleMike]

Possibly but the countless amount of Lawyers that work for the NSA and the POTUS say that JAG is right?!

Aaaannnnddddd.....................
Lawyers have never been wrong before????

 

[jeremy]

Aaaannnnddddd.....................
Lawyers have never been wrong before????

Point taken...

 

[Mr.JAG]

JAG is wrong.

I don't remember posting in this thread!

 

[Zoub]

you're waiting for a train, a train that will take you far away.

You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure.

But it doesn't matter.

How can it not matter to you where that train will take you?

Tell me WHY in 1 sentence or less!

Probably that in real life you may have some serious mental issues and this forum is where you come to feel your life has meaning.

As for What, since Paul is going to lose, I suggest you start spending some time in other forums, like the Survival or Training forums. You know how to survive AND use a weapon to do it without pissing yourself. Whne SHTF Ron Paul won't do it for you and he will be living in his secured hood. Probably won't take your calls either.

 

[jeremy]

JAG is wrong.

Not really....

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Oddly enough since 1973 the only 2 POTUS that have acted against the Resolution are Presidents Clinton and Obama. Clinton in 1999 in the Bombings of Kosovo, and Obama in 2011 in Libya...

 

[88GT]

Not really....

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Oddly enough since 1973 the only 2 POTUS that have acted against the Resolution are Presidents Clinton and Obama. Clinton in 1999 in the Bombings of Kosovo, and Obama in 2011 in Libya...

With all due respect, what you just offered contradicts your claim.

Furthermore, a lawyer's opinion without the supporting evidence doesn't mean much. On the one hand, I have at my disposal a duly enacted piece of legislation saying 60 days. On the other, an internet stranger who offers only "JAG" as his source. I'm not at the point of calling BS, but you've got to give me something more to go on.

 

[jeremy]

With all due respect, what you just offered contradicts your claim.

Furthermore, a lawyer's opinion without the supporting evidence doesn't mean much. On the one hand, I have at my disposal a duly enacted piece of legislation saying 60 days. On the other, an internet stranger who offers only "JAG" as his source. I'm not at the point of calling BS, but you've got to give me something more to go on.

Already adjusted my caveat above...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?

In the case of Iraq, we had access to the facilities we needed to amass combat resources in order to overwhelm Iraq with minimal casualties to our allies and civilians. In Afghanistan, we used non-conventional means to encourage various tribes who were already fighting the Taliban to unite and throw them out.

The second technique, non-conventional means, would probably suffice to bring down the Iranian regime; the people aren't happy with the turn their government has taken since the Shah was overthrown.

The North Korean peninsula is largely mountainous and, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, shares a border with Communist China, and has been a client state since the 1950s. Although I don't believe their country is as robust as their South Korean neighbor, their military gets the best of whatever they have and, as a culture, they are harsh and hardy fighters. Probably the main obstacle to removing them as a threat to the South and as a sponsor of world-wide terrorism, is uncertainty as to how much support they would get from a major nuclear power, the People's Republic of China.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

No, based on history. Based on facts about the hundreds of different terrorists groups out their, their motivations, their alliances, their history. It's really not that hard. What if Saddam was supporting a terrorist group who were enemies with Al Queda? If nothing else, at least Saddam was keeping his own borders secure from terrorists getting in and out, finding sanctuaries, places to train. The borders are less secure now than they were 10 years ago.

Perhaps you missed the part where Dross (and others) have noted that Sadaam's internal security forces were meeting with senior Al Qaeda personnel? Or the fact that his internal security forces were funding and assisting terror training camps inside Iraq? Or did you just willfully ignore those facts because they don't fit your prejudices?

 

[turnandshoot4]

Did everyone miss the part that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan?

You know, the head of Al Quaeda.

So again, Iraq made no sense to invade after 9/11. The hijackers were Saudis. The leader was in Pakistan. When he was in A-Stan they let him slip away by letting local generals go in and get him. Who isn't funding terror in the Middle East? Iran is. Pakistan is. Heck, Pakistan has the STATE funding it. Even our CIA is funding them.

Not everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's. Hans Blix ring any bells? The U.S. and the British were the ONLY countries in the WORLD that were saying Iraq had WMDs. They (US & UK) were also trying to build the war propaganda. NATO did not support the war because there was NO evidence that Iraq had any WMDs. Maybe a couple of trucks that MIGHT have been mobile chemical weapon factories but evidence was sketchy. They heard what they wanted to hear then went running around like chicken little.

I remember asking myself WTH when they said we were going to Iraq. They couldn't even import PS2s because of the chip in them.

China doesn't want to go to war with anyone. They just want to trade. They are better at taking over the world like that than with a fight.

 

[rambone]

(*)

Probably that in real life you may have some serious mental issues and this forum is where you come to feel your life has meaning.

I'm not the one who came into a thread about campaign platforms to rant about my childhood and to deliver personal attacks to other members.

 

[dross]

It's too bad we can never see alternative versions of history.

Imagine this scenario:

Bush declares that since we know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, we're not looking at regime change there.

A reporter asks why he's not worried that Saddam will provide WMD to a terrorist group. Bush replies that we don't even think they have WMD, and even if they do, we don't think they'll help any terrorists.

I'm imaging all the attacks he'd get from the left for being such an idiot as to make those assumptions.

Let's take it a step farther. Let's say that after that, Iraq, did provide terrorists with a WMD, let's say the very last of the gas they had in stock. The terrorist group kills a few hundred Americans with it.

It's nice to know that all you guys would be defending Bush right now. And I'm sure the left wing press would have stood up behind him.

In this alternate World, I'd be criticizing Bush for being an irresponsible idiot, and rambone and turnandshoot would be standing up for him, trying to explain that any reasonable person would have left Iraq alone, and there's no way Bush could have realized that Iraq even had any gas left and that it was unthinkable that Saddam would give it to terrorists.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would have gone.

We know the answer because we can look at all the criticism the first Bush got FROM THE LEFT for honoring his original scope in Desert Storm and stopping short of Baghdad. Anyone remember that? The left beat him up for that for a decade.

Puh-lease.

 

[KG1]

It's too bad we can never see alternative versions of history.

Imagine this scenario:

Bush declares that since we know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, we're not looking at regime change there.

A reporter asks why he's not worried that Saddam will provide WMD to a terrorist group. Bush replies that we don't even think they have WMD, and even if they do, we don't think they'll help any terrorists.

I'm imaging all the attacks he'd get from the left for being such an idiot as to make those assumptions.

Let's take it a step farther. Let's say that after that, Iraq, did provide terrorists with a WMD, let's say the very last of the gas they had in stock. The terrorist group kills a few hundred Americans with it.

It's nice to know that all you guys would be defending Bush right now. And I'm sure the left wing press would have stood up behind him.

In this alternate World, I'd be criticizing Bush for being an irresponsible idiot, and rambone and turnandshoot would be standing up for him, trying to explain that any reasonable person would have left Iraq alone, and there's no way Bush could have realized that Iraq even had any gas left and that it was unthinkable that Saddam would give it to terrorists.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would have gone.

We know the answer because we can look at all the criticism the first Bush got FROM THE LEFT for honoring his original scope in Desert Storm and stopping short of Baghdad. Anyone remember that? The left beat him up for that for a decade.

Puh-lease.

See that's the real reason why GW did the whole Iraq thing is to clear up the unfinished business that pops took all the heat for not doing. That and for oil.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

See that's the real reason why GW did the whole Iraq thing is to clear up the unfinished business that pops took all the heat for not doing. That and for oil.

How much oil did we garner out of that deal? I'm really curious to know how much American Oil Companies turned a profit on Iraqi oil after we ousted Sadaam.

 

[KG1]

How much oil did we garner out of that deal? I'm really curious to know how much American Oil Companies turned a profit on Iraqi oil after we ousted Sadaam.

I don't know. Ask the people that claimed it as one of the reasons along with the other one I posted.

 

[dross]

How much oil did we garner out of that deal? I'm really curious to know how much American Oil Companies turned a profit on Iraqi oil after we ousted Sadaam.

I want to know the same thing. Where's the oil? Apparently we traded blood for oil and didn't even get the damned oil.

I don't know. Ask the people that claimed it as one of the reasons along with the other one I posted.

I got your sarcasm.

 

[KG1]

I got your sarcasm.

 

[turnandshoot4]

It's too bad we can never see alternative versions of history.

Imagine this scenario:

Bush declares that since we know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, we're not looking at regime change there.

A reporter asks why he's not worried that Saddam will provide WMD to a terrorist group. Bush replies that we don't even think they have WMD, and even if they do, we don't think they'll help any terrorists.

I'm imaging all the attacks he'd get from the left for being such an idiot as to make those assumptions.

Let's take it a step farther. Let's say that after that, Iraq, did provide terrorists with a WMD, let's say the very last of the gas they had in stock. The terrorist group kills a few hundred Americans with it.

It's nice to know that all you guys would be defending Bush right now. And I'm sure the left wing press would have stood up behind him.

In this alternate World, I'd be criticizing Bush for being an irresponsible idiot, and rambone and turnandshoot would be standing up for him, trying to explain that any reasonable person would have left Iraq alone, and there's no way Bush could have realized that Iraq even had any gas left and that it was unthinkable that Saddam would give it to terrorists.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would have gone.

We know the answer because we can look at all the criticism the first Bush got FROM THE LEFT for honoring his original scope in Desert Storm and stopping short of Baghdad. Anyone remember that? The left beat him up for that for a decade.

Puh-lease.

Oooooo . I love this game.

How about we invade a country that had taken zero American lives on Sept. 11. Go to war and have them take thousands. Oh wait, we did.