Open carrier in the news, and not in a good way.

[smoking357]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

While Hussein may have been the tyrant that he is played out to be. nothing he or his regime did met the requirements for Congress to call out the militia.

secondly, how has Iraq threatened OUR freedoms? surely that regime threatened the freedoms of the Iraqi people, but since when are they citizens of the United States?

That's game, set, and match right there folks.

No, that is the view of someone who does not desire to step outside. Freedom is not a construct of the US, but an ideal that ALL persons should be allowed to enjoy. Why would you wish us to keep it to ourselves? Why would you wish us to NOT assist others?

Because I'm not a neocon. Which side are you on? You have no familiarity with the founding principles of this country.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

While Hussein may have been the tyrant that he is played out to be. nothing he or his regime did met the requirements for Congress to call out the militia.

secondly, how has Iraq threatened OUR freedoms? surely that regime threatened the freedoms of the Iraqi people, but since when are they citizens of the United States?

That's game, set, and match right there folks.

No, that is the view of someone who does not desire to step outside. Freedom is not a construct of the US, but an ideal that ALL persons should be allowed to enjoy. Why would you wish us to keep it to ourselves? Why would you wish us to NOT assist others?

Step outside of what?

If we assisted them in a revolution that they themselves started, that's one thing. But the Iraq war went from Saddam having ties to Bin Laden, to Saddam having WMD's - omg we're all gonna die, to Saddam being in violation of UN resolutions, to Saddam just being not a nice guy... now we've got nothing left... why are we there? Oh, that's right, we're forcing the Iraqis to let us "liberate" the living @#$% out of them.

As unreconstructed point out, the constitution does not allow for use of the military in preemptive war, world policing, "freedom" spreading, and just general sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. In addition, UN Resolution 3314, THAT WE DAMN NEAR WROTE OURSELVES, doesn't allow for preemptive war.


[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Article 3[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"](g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Article 4[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Article 5[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.[/font]

[/font]


The US does this stuff on a daily basis, then turns around and bombs the @#$% out of anyone else that dares to do it, calling them "terrorists" if they try to fight back.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

The US does this stuff on a daily basis, then turns around and bombs the @#$% out of anyone else that dares to do it, calling them "terrorists" if they try to fight back.

South Ossetia comes to mind here.

As does the entire "Cold war" series of conflicts.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

The US does this stuff on a daily basis, then turns around and bombs the @#$% out of anyone else that dares to do it, calling them "terrorists" if they try to fight back.

South Ossetia comes to mind here.

As does the entire "Cold war" series of conflicts.

How about something as simple as the Iraqi "insurgents"? How dare they fight back against an invading army!! Or another good one... US troops getting attacked by those evil "foreign forces" (Iranians) in Iraq. Former secretary Rice was quoted as saying that problems in Iraq would be significantly decreased if all the foreign forces were removed. What are we the indigenous people? We AREa foreign force.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

The US does this stuff on a daily basis, then turns around and bombs the @#$% out of anyone else that dares to do it, calling them "terrorists" if they try to fight back.

South Ossetia comes to mind here.

As does the entire "Cold war" series of conflicts.

How about something as simple as the Iraqi "insurgents"? How dare they fight back against an invading army!! Or another good one... US troops getting attacked by those evil "foreign forces" (Iranians) in Iraq. Former secretary Rice was quoted as saying that problems in Iraq would be significantly decreased if all the foreign forces were removed. What are we the indigenous people? We AREa foreign force.

well at least she was correct...

one thing that aggravates me is how badly the democrats were screaming for blood over the Neo Cons war, and now the perpetuate it... hell, Hitlary was even trying to have a pissing contest with Iran to provoke them...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

The US does this stuff on a daily basis, then turns around and bombs the @#$% out of anyone else that dares to do it, calling them "terrorists" if they try to fight back.

South Ossetia comes to mind here.

As does the entire "Cold war" series of conflicts.

How about something as simple as the Iraqi "insurgents"? How dare they fight back against an invading army!! Or another good one... US troops getting attacked by those evil "foreign forces" (Iranians) in Iraq. Former secretary Rice was quoted as saying that problems in Iraq would be significantly decreased if all the foreign forces were removed. What are we the indigenous people? We AREa foreign force.

well at least she was correct...

one thing that aggravates me is how badly the democrats were screaming for blood over the Neo Cons war, and now the perpetuate it... hell, Hitlary was even trying to have a pissing contest with Iran to provoke them...

At least you didn't say it surprised you. If that was the case, I'd be forced to e-mock you.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

At least you didn't say it surprised you. If that was the case, I'd be forced to e-mock you.

surprised? no, never surprised. at this point I have learned to expect the worse from either side of the duopoly.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

At least you didn't say it surprised you. If that was the case, I'd be forced to e-mock you.

surprised? no, never surprised. at this point I have learned to expect the worse from either side of the duopoly.

Duocracy?

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

At least you didn't say it surprised you. If that was the case, I'd be forced to e-mock you.

surprised? no, never surprised. at this point I have learned to expect the worse from either side of the duopoly.

Duocracy?

duopoly- meaning the controlling grip of the 2 party "lesser of two evils" BS that most buy into...

but now that I think about it, duocracy would be a decent term as well...

 

[wrightme]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

While Hussein may have been the tyrant that he is played out to be. nothing he or his regime did met the requirements for Congress to call out the militia.

secondly, how has Iraq threatened OUR freedoms? surely that regime threatened the freedoms of the Iraqi people, but since when are they citizens of the United States?

That's game, set, and match right there folks.

No, that is the view of someone who does not desire to step outside. Freedom is not a construct of the US, but an ideal that ALL persons should be allowed to enjoy. Why would you wish us to keep it to ourselves? Why would you wish us to NOT assist others?

Because I'm not a neocon. Which side are you on? You have no familiarity with the founding principles of this country.

No, that is false. It is not about familiarity with the founding principles of this country. Where do you get that from my post?

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

No, that is false. It is not about familiarity with the founding principles of this country. Where do you get that from my post?

well, Washington for instance spoke of avoiding "entangling alliances", and what could be more "entangling" than overthrowing a government and installing one of your liking?
another:

.... And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

 

[wrightme]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No, that is false. It is not about familiarity with the founding principles of this country. Where do you get that from my post?

well, Washington for instance spoke of avoiding "entangling alliances", and what could be more "entangling" than overthrowing a government and installing one of your liking?
another:

.... And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

Once again, where do you get any of that from my post? I did not allege that the Iraq war (or whatever you prefer to call it) was legal, constitutional, or right. Please use only the words I provide to determine the meaning of my posts.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wrightme wrote

Once again, where do you get any of that from my post? I did not allege that the Iraq war (or whatever you prefer to call it) was legal, constitutional, or right. Please use only the words I provide to determine the meaning of my posts.

fair enough, then without jumping to conclusions, exactly what did you mean with your post?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

wrightme wrote

Once again, where do you get any of that from my post? I did not allege that the Iraq war (or whatever you prefer to call it) was legal, constitutional, or right. Please use only the words I provide to determine the meaning of my posts.

fair enough, then without jumping to conclusions, exactly what did you mean with your post?

Exactly what I posted:


wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

While Hussein may have been the tyrant that he is played out to be. nothing he or his regime did met the requirements for Congress to call out the militia.

secondly, how has Iraq threatened OUR freedoms? surely that regime threatened the freedoms of the Iraqi people, but since when are they citizens of the United States?

That's game, set, and match right there folks.

No, that is the view of someone who does not desire to step outside. Freedom is not a construct of the US, but an ideal that ALL persons should be allowed to enjoy. Why would you wish us to keep it to ourselves? Why would you wish us to NOT assist others?

Pretty clear.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Pretty clear.

obviously not. you state that you don't allege that the Iraq war is right, yet your words allege just that. from your post you seem to think that we have some sort of moral obligation to "bring liberty" to the world. quite frankly, if the world wants liberty, then they should grow a pair and take it upon themselves, just like our forefathers did.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Pretty clear.

obviously not. you state that you don't allege that the Iraq war is right, yet your words allege just that. from your post you seem to think that we have some sort of moral obligation to "bring liberty" to the world. quite frankly, if the world wants liberty, then they should grow a pair and take it upon themselves, just like our forefathers did.

Seriously, do you desire an argument so much that you are willing to create positions for me so you can argue against them? Kind of like arguing with yourself, eh?

I "think" that I asked what someone else believed, or wished.
But, feel free to create strawman positions to argue against if you will feel better for it.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

I "think" that I asked what someone else believed, or wished.

actually, you told me what I believed, and then asked a hypothetical question relative to the bviewpoint that you had already established for me, but since this is all a strawman anyway....

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Pretty clear.

obviously not. you state that you don't allege that the Iraq war is right, yet your words allege just that. from your post you seem to think that we have some sort of moral obligation to "bring liberty" to the world. quite frankly, if the world wants liberty, then they should grow a pair and take it upon themselves, just like our forefathers did.

Seriously, do you desire an argument so much that you are willing to create positions for me so you can argue against them? Kind of like arguing with yourself, eh?

I "think" that I asked what someone else believed, or wished.
But, feel free to create strawman positions to argue against if you will feel better for it.

You really take the cake for the most dishonest debating on this board.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

Styles and unreconstructed are right, no country should ever get involved in a war for freedom in another country. (Sarcasm off)

Don't forget how many countries helped us out in our fight for Independence. Even before France and Spain helped out with their navies, the Dutch and others were smuggling weapons to our forces.

As for Operation Iraqi Freedom, you guys really need to learn some facts before you start spouting off.

It was not a preemptive war to gain control of Iraq. It was a continuation of Operation Desert Storm (the "previous" gulf war) which we wereasked by our allies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and others)to get involved with, andwhich was never settled by a peace treaty, only a cease fire which Saddam violated every day for many years. The war had never ended, we just stopped fighting to let them have a chance to behave themselves before we completely destroyed them. They didn't live up to their end of the deal, so in reality they caused the total takeover of their country by foreign forces. That is how war works, if you violate a cease fire, you are responsible for what you get.

Saddam threatened the US on a daily basis. I know, I know, "Saddam didn't have the power to strike us with anything that would cause any real damage." I can assure you that he did, Bin Laden only needed 19 guys with little box cutters to deliver 9/11 to us, I'm sure that Saddam had more at his disposal than that. (Nobody has ever fully answered the question of the whereabouts of 10,000 liters of weaponized anthrax spores inventoried by the UN after Operation Desert Storm.)

As for the WMDs, numerous reports show that they were transported to Syria to avoid being destroyed. Even if they weren't, then what happened to them? There are no records of their destruction. This in a country where detailedrecords were kept to document what bribes were paid and to whom, just to show Saddam that the money wasn't being stolen by his officials. Do you really believe that weapons worth millions of dollars would be destroyed without any record of it? Although no large stockpiles were found after Iraqi Freedom, WMDs have been used to attack our troops, although never really successfully.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And before you say "Oh well, it's just Fox, they don't count." the Associated Press contributed to the story as well.

As for the charge "Why don't they fight their own war for freedom?" They tried, they were crushed by Saddam's forces using chemical weapons after we pulled out our promised support because of political pressure form Congressional wienies who were afraid of "another Vietnam" (a Democrat got us in that mess by the way).

Oh, before I forget, smoking357, you still haven't told me where this Western Europeanbastion of freedom is. If it is as great as you say, I may want to join you.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Pretty clear.

obviously not. you state that you don't allege that the Iraq war is right, yet your words allege just that. from your post you seem to think that we have some sort of moral obligation to "bring liberty" to the world. quite frankly, if the world wants liberty, then they should grow a pair and take it upon themselves, just like our forefathers did.

Seriously, do you desire an argument so much that you are willing to create positions for me so you can argue against them? Kind of like arguing with yourself, eh?

I "think" that I asked what someone else believed, or wished.
But, feel free to create strawman positions to argue against if you will feel better for it.

You really take the cake for the most dishonest debating on this board.

LOL!!:lol: Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.