Officer refuses to serve in Iraq

The reason for the war keeps changing.

Also, I do not know this man and I am not going to give him a blanket approval.
BUt I am not going to just write him off automatically.

We invaded a foreign country that had not invaded us.

With the logic of this war, I could walk up to someone and shoot them because "I thought" they had a gun on them!
We "Thought" Iraq had WMDs but guess what? They were never found!
And BTW, who gives the US the right to tell them what they can and can't have anyway?
Also, why does Dubya declare war on the US for murdering babies?
or on Florida for murdering Terrie Shaivo?

My dad always taught me growing up that there could be two wrongs side to a war, but there can only ever be one right side in a war.

I believe many wars have two wrong sides.

 

Yes, WMD's were not found, but we certainly gave enough warning to the Iraqi government to ensure that they had time to move them to Syria if they wanted to, right? Just because they weren't there when the Army got there, doesn't mean that they never existed.

Regardless, you make decisions on the intelligence you have at the time. If Bush was acting on the best intelligence available, then he didn't lie. You may say he was incorrect, but being incorrect is not the same thing.

UN resolutions gave us the right.

I must have missed when Bush declared war on the US. Care to cite some documentation of this? (Liberal talking points is not documentation, btw).

 

Sorry, that was a typo. It should have said why DOESN"T Dubya declare war on the US for murdering babies?
Oh, wait, he is the dictator in charge of the US and the killing of these babies.
I see, killing in Iraq is bad, but if it is legalized by the god of the world (the Supreme Court) I guess it is ok.
No one seems to care what the God of the universe thinks.

Your point would be valid IF he got our troops out as soon as he realized he was "mistaken"

There is a saying that a man may be honestly mistaken, but when he learns the truth, he either ceases to be mistaken, or he ceases to be honest!

GWB has ceased to be honest (assuming he ever was!)

 

Dale-c

Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to leave Iraq as soon as WMDs were not found? Honestly?

I think that would have been the second "mistake".

BTW, I don't think it was a mistake to go in there and remove Saddam. For the many reasons others have mentioned, it was the right thing to do.

 

Once you start something like this, you can't just stop it like that unless you want the country to fall into total anarchy!

Also, you are totally discounting the other reasons for the war. There is still the issue of support of terrrorism among others.

Everyone liked it when Bush said on September 12 that we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them, but once he actually does it, then people object. This is a different type of war than the historical wars that have been fought. Terrorism does not have a country with borders, but it is definitely supported by a few of them.

 

Why would they want to?

It's been pretty well determined that the majority of the WMDs were destroyed back in 1990.

Well, "if" - that's a huge if. Why did he cite Brittish intelligence on the nuclear programme and not trust our own?

No, they did not. At most, they gave the UN the right and the UN declined. Do the resolutions say anything other than "severe consequences"? Must "severe consequences" mean invasion and loss of sovereigncy?

Do you even know which resolutions and what they actually say?

 

If you want honesty from me I think they should take care of our own problems first.

We should have never gone there at all.

 

That's fair, but that was not my question. The question was: Since we did go there, would it have been wise to leave Iraq with no government in place as terrorists were gathering there?

 

Let's never let reason get in the way of a debate. The "dictator in charge"? All Congress has to do is cut off funding for the war, but you might remember, Dale, that Congress approved this war, overwhelmingly. Overwhelmingly. Dictator? Ridiculous.

Actually OK'd by Congress. Did I say overwhelmingly?

OK, what does he think of this war? And how is his voice/vote registered in our democratic process? Does his will trumpet the U.S. Constitution? If it is contrary, how is it to be discerned and then enforced? Or is your opinion enough "discernment" of God's view of this war?

 

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

 

Thanks for the info, Poncho

Let me ask you this: When is the best time to stop doing something that is wrong?
Should you wait until you "save face"? After many more of our boys (and girls) are dead?

BTW, it is OUR army that are terrorizing the middle east!

 

That is absurd.

 

Exactly how was he "lied to"?
The reason for the war keeps changing.

Also, I do not know this man and I am not going to give him a blanket approval.
BUt I am not going to just write him off automatically.


Quote:
On what basis do you call it ungodly? I suspect I would be able to raise similarly devised objections to every war ever fought no matter how just you or I think they might have been.

We invaded a foreign country that had not invaded us.[/quote] We invaded a foreign country that had a) violated a ceasefire agreement, b) the world's intelligence consensus advised us was hiding WMD's, and c) (in the post-9/11 era) had openly stated an intent to support a war against us by terrorists.

No. It is more like a man in a standoff with police refusing to show his hand and making aggressive and/or evasive moves that demonstrate a threat against the safety of the police and those they are there to protect.

Two points. How is it Bush's fault that the intel was bad... even though it was the consensus of the world's credible intel agencies to include those of the French and Russians?

Second, the fact that we have not found WMD's that the UN inspectors said were there does not help your case and should be pretty frightening to all of us.

The same authority that says terrorists don't have unrestricted access to airplane cockpits. We have a right to defend ourselves and our allies. Saddam violated a ceasefire resolution. That violation represented both a direct and indirect threat to the US and its interests.

 

Still avoiding the question, eh? Well, I won't avoid your's.

The "wrong", as you call it, has already been done, (going in there). Do we correct the "wrong" with another wrong? Being there now is not the continuance of the "wrong", it is cleaning up the mess created by the "wrong". I think it would be wrong to walk away from it.

Does anyone ever bother to ask the "boys and girls" what they think of what they are doing there? Maybe they are proud of what they are accomplishing over there.

Our army is terrorizing the middle east???!!! If you don't take that back, I'm done talking to you.

 

Liberals thrive on absurdity.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Said the Coulter fan.

 

Yep, that'a a big, big problem.

Polls are taken from time to time. The great majority have maintained their pride.

That is worded badly....How about: firebombing cities is a form of terrorism?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Liberals thrive on absurdity

Touche' :laugh:

 

Dadgummit, now I have to buy a new irony meter. You just broke mine.

 

Hmmmm

Now I guess we were terrorists during WWII when we firebombed Dresden, etc.

I guess we just deserve terrorists attacking us since the US has been such a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad country :tear: