tennesseeboy Posted December 6, 2005 Posted December 6, 2005 So Clinton's 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act was wrong??? Please advise.. 522493[/snapback] Of course not. In 1998 it was a good act. Since then we declared war (unnecessarily) on Iraq and created a middle eastern powder keg that is a breeding ground for terrorists (and wasn't before) and will soon be an islamic fascist state run by Shiites. Under those circumstances we will back the Sunnis or Kurds (Kurds carry too much baggage from Turkey and elsewhere) so we will back the Sunnis...the Sunnis know they need a vicious mother to survive so we will support or (more likely) find a vicious mother just like the Saddam so loved by Rummy in the Reagan administration. Iraqi Freedom Act went up in smoke when we decided we would do the job ourselves.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 6, 2005 Posted December 6, 2005 Iraqi Freedom Act went up in smoke when we decided we would do the job ourselves. 522519[/snapback] Oy vey. Anyone want to point out the logical fallacy of this statement?
tennesseeboy Posted December 6, 2005 Posted December 6, 2005 Oy vey. Anyone want to point out the logical fallacy of this statement? 522540[/snapback] No fallacy, internal or external. The Act supported internal IRAQI groups that sought to change the existing government of Saddam (a pretty radical change from earlier administrations that left the Kurds to die after egging them on to revolt.) The Act did not purport to send American troops to die on Iraqi soil to force change in that country and to unite those groups we had hoped to support in their own efforts to change the government to a common goal of eliminating an invader who was (opening the envelope) .....uh.....US!!
stuckincincy Posted December 6, 2005 Posted December 6, 2005 No fallacy, internal or external. The Act supported internal IRAQI groups that sought to change the existing government of Saddam (a pretty radical change from earlier administrations that left the Kurds to die after egging them on to revolt.) The Act did not purport to send American troops to die on Iraqi soil to force change in that country and to unite those groups we had hoped to support in their own efforts to change the government to a common goal of eliminating an invader who was (opening the envelope) .....uh.....US!! 522600[/snapback] "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." read on.... http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
/dev/null Posted December 6, 2005 Posted December 6, 2005 "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." read on.... http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm 522731[/snapback] shhh, facts can only serve to distract from shiny things
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." read on.... http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm 522731[/snapback] I read the main body of it. Does it authorize the use of American force anywhere? I see that the last section says: SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act . and 4(a)(2) is for education and military training
UConn James Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 I read the main body of it. Does it authorize the use of American force anywhere? I see that the last section says: SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act . and 4(a)(2) is for education and military training 522801[/snapback] Why read the whole document when the first sentence says everything of what you want it to say? Not that Bill Clinton = Democratic party, anyway. People here are always quick to point out, 'Well, Bill Clinton did X, so therefore all Democrats support X.' Look up what the friggin' DLC was. Clinton was an amalgum of the worst parts of both of the parties, combined with some sh-- luck.
Alaska Darin Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Why read the whole document when the first sentence says everything of what you want it to say? Not that Bill Clinton = Democratic party, anyway. People here are always quick to point out, 'Well, Bill Clinton did X, so therefore all Democrats support X.' Look up what the friggin' DLC was. Clinton was an amalgum of the worst parts of both of the parties, combined with some sh-- luck. 522815[/snapback] What are the best parts? I ask in all seriousness.
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Why read the whole document when the first sentence says everything of what you want it to say? Not that Bill Clinton = Democratic party, anyway. People here are always quick to point out, 'Well, Bill Clinton did X, so therefore all Democrats support X.' Look up what the friggin' DLC was. Clinton was an amalgum of the worst parts of both of the parties, combined with some sh-- luck. 522815[/snapback] I think you lost me. But, I aint that smart.
UConn James Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 What are the best parts? I ask in all seriousness. 522826[/snapback] Well, I'll go about it the other way. Clinton being a World Cop proponent, selling us down the river with NAFTA, a general disdain for law enforcement, allowing the circumstances to happen such that he got bogged down by political crap.... I could go on ad naseum, but I've got more important/interesting things to do --- such as follow my dog with a little shovel, and listen to fingers run down a chalkboard. I think you lost me. But, I aint that smart. 522830[/snapback] That post was directed at others in the thread with yours as reference.
Alaska Darin Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Well, I'll go about it the other way. Clinton being a World Cop proponent, selling us down the river with NAFTA, a general disdain for law enforcement, allowing the circumstances to happen such that he got bogged down by political crap.... I could go on ad naseum, but I've got more important/interesting things to do --- such as follow my dog with a little shovel, and listen to fingers run down a chalkboard. 522845[/snapback] I'm not disagreeing with any of that but I asked the question I did because I'm always curious to hear an avowed liberal give positives about the 2 parties that have been ruining our country for 50 years.
VABills Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Well, I'll go about it the other way. Clinton being a World Cop proponent, selling us down the river with NAFTA, a general disdain for law enforcement, allowing the circumstances to happen such that he got bogged down by political crap.... I could go on ad naseum, but I've got more important/interesting things to do --- such as follow my dog with a little shovel, and listen to fingers run down a chalkboard.That post was directed at others in the thread with yours as reference. 522845[/snapback] NAFTA's been around long before Clinton.
X. Benedict Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 NAFTA's been around long before Clinton. 522854[/snapback] Wasn't it ratified in 95?
VABills Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Wasn't it ratified in 95? 522860[/snapback] I don't remember exactly, but I was developing purchasing systems back in 90-92 where we had to account for NAFTA.
UConn James Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 I'm not disagreeing with any of that but I asked the question I did because I'm always curious to hear an avowed liberal give positives about the 2 parties that have been ruining our country for 50 years. 522852[/snapback] You'll have to ask someone else --- a true conservative neo-Dem (only b/c they generally seem to be the party who's advocating social positions where people can make their own choices) here. But from everything I've read of it, I'd be keen on resurrecting the Bull Moose party. Aside from the political issues, you get to use "I feel as strong as a bull moose!" as your slogan.
Alaska Darin Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 You'll have to ask someone else --- a true conservative neo-Dem (only b/c they generally seem to be the party who's advocating social positions where people can make their own choices) here. Uh, the Libertarians make the Democrats look like Saddam in that realm. But from everything I've read of it, I'd be keen on resurrecting the Bull Moose party. Aside from the political issues, you get to use "I feel as strong as a bull moose!" as your slogan. 522872[/snapback] As good a reason as any!
VABills Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Wasn't it ratified in 95? 522860[/snapback] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA Signed in 92 by Bush Sr. Damn I hate when I am right. Went into effect in 94. Yet another thing Clinton didn't do, but took credit for.
GG Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA Signed in 92 by Bush Sr. Damn I hate when I am right. Went into effect in 94. Yet another thing Clinton didn't do, but took credit for. 522903[/snapback] There you go with your chronology again. Where does it say that it was signed by Bush I in '92? He was certainly a big proponent and catalyst (signing CAFTA earlier), but NAFTA wouldn't have been passed w/o Clinton beating up Dems in both houses. Yeah, hea really sold us down the river that NOLA can't get cheap concrete from Mexico.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 There you go with your chronology again. Where does it say that it was signed by Bush I in '92? He was certainly a big proponent and catalyst (signing CAFTA earlier), but NAFTA wouldn't have been passed w/o Clinton beating up Dems in both houses. Yeah, hea really sold us down the river that NOLA can't get cheap concrete from Mexico. 522950[/snapback] Gotta love the guy. He even takes credit for being right when he proves himself wrong.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Gotta love the guy. He even takes credit for being right when he proves himself wrong. 522979[/snapback] But it's tough to remember things that happened a century ago...
Recommended Posts