Im not afraid to admit that i would have voted for the war in iraq...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mikasa11, Nov 3, 2005.

1. mikasa11Registered Senior Member

Messages:
258
IF I were in the same shoes as the Senators.

Why, because the intelligence given to the Senate was from the White House. The White House cooked the fuck out of it and lied. How as a senator would I know that they are lying until after the fact.

Now yes war is wrong but...they were saying some AWFUL things about what Uncle SADDY had. I would have been afraid that it could have come here.

Now hindsight being 20/20 Uncle Saddy didn't have it. Rumsfeld didn't have a plan.

Looking back my vote would have been wrong. I would lay awake nights knowing that my vote cause the innocent deaths and maiming of 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 10's of thousands of our own soldiers.

I would apologize to the American people for my mistake and make sure that intelligence given to the senate comes directly from a non politicized source like the CIA under a non-partisan leader.

I'm just being honest. I know there are those who will say with impunity that they wouldn't have done it. But what if it were true. And we didn't and your kids got blown up @ a mall you'd wish you had. There are no winners in this thing only losers and losers.

I'm not afraid to say if I were fed the same shit I would have voted for the war. I can't knock anyone who did because I'm only human and so are they. BTW so are you.

3. dkb218BannedBanned

Messages:
793
Yeah but here's the thing. Those who voted for this war, should have KNOWN what was and what wasn't. All types of information flowing in the halls of power. To think that the majority of those who voted "yes" to war took the Neocons at face value seems, well, stupid.

Information about what Saddam had or didn't have was well known. How many UN inspections was Iraq subjected to? What was found in all those years? Nothng - NADA - ZIP...

To think that the people who are suposse to add balance to the power of the executive branch had no idea what was going on in the world and had to come by whatever information from G.Dubba.B is more than scarey - it's down right criminal.

Now, as the average US citizen fed a daily dose of propoganda and lies - yeah - I can see you voting for war but it would help to find the facts before you took anyone at face value.

5. GustavBannedBanned

Messages:
12,575
so the warmongers are up to their usual tricks begging for forgiveness
you will not get that from me

what concrete steps are being taken to rectify your mistakes?
will you go help the iraqi's?
pay for hospitals bills?
build a house?
what?

i know........i'm sorry...so sorry....

/sneer
/contempt

7. AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
mikasa11 thats fair enough except for 3 things

1) apart from what they were telling you did or would you have looked for other sorces of infomation and checked the consistancy of what you were being told

2) would you have lissened to the 1000's of voters protesting against it in your own country and the world wide desent rembering that going against world opinion can hurt you in the long run

3)Now that you have found out you were lied to so blatently would you vote to impeach those who did the lying?

8. nirakar( i ^ i )Registered Senior Member

Messages:
3,383
I had the info on the Niger Yellow cake fraud before Colin Powell went to the UN repeating same the disinformation. The Democrats could have tried to repeal their war authorization after they learned that Bush administration had lied to them. It seems that I may have had better information than Powell had but that is sick and I don't want to believe it.

My feeling was that Democrats like John Kerry should have or could have known better than to believe the Bush administration's bogus case on WMD. My best guess is that the Democrats were gutless cowards rather than ignorant fools.

Did the world's governments believe Saddam had WMD or were they pretending they believed Saddam had WMD? Cheney said we know where the WMD are. Did nobody ask to see the evidence? Cheney lied. The only evidence that they ever showed us was evidence that Cheney already knew was bogus before he claimed that he knew where the WMD was.

Cheney and Rumsfeld showed no sign of caring when Saddam used WMD on Iran and on Iraqi Kurds so how credible were their prewar claims that the war was based on WMD? Our media is so lame.

I never thought I would be defending the CIA but they did not screw up the intelligence. Their intelligence said that we had no credible evidence of Saddam having WMD prior to our invasion. Tenet was not the CIA, he was one man at the head of the CIA who understood that to keep his job he must misrepresent the CIA's findings.

9. gendankenRuler of All the LandsValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
We have an electoral college that gave Bush Florida when Gore won the popular vote.
We have an electoral college that gave Bush Ohio despite hundreds of thousands of democratic voters being turned away at the polls.
We had close to 60 thousand voters disqualified from voting in Florida, a state run by your president's brother , because their names just so happened to be on a list that just so happened to be published weeks before the election by a governer who just so happened to have close ties to the presidential incumbent.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
Your presidential debates are regulated by either Democrats or Republicans and that's it.

We knew Bin Laden was behind 9-11, the whole nation agreed to it, but your president gets on national television giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to surrender.
And you still think your vote counts?

None of you count. Sure you show up nice and early at the libraries and civic centers with patriotism in your undies, serving that country of yours, but truly I tell you whatever evil your country is guilty of is through no fault of your own. As soon as you punched that chad in 4 years ago or pressed your eager little index finger on the screen last year that won't leave a paper trail, they were laughing at you because you don't.fucking.count.

I hear that in firing squads they make sure to leave blank in at least one gun so the soldiers can trick themselves into committing technical murder with a clean conscience:

See that blank?
That's you in the system. You shoot, or in this case vote, but its a blank so why all this feeling guilty over sending your boys to Iraq for no reason? These soldier can tell themselves they didn’t kill anybody because of that blank so you can tell yourself that Iraq, Rwanda, Venezuela, Palestine, Haiti or whatever other nation that YOUR country has its greedy little hands is not your fault because, really, it isn’t when you don’t count.

10. AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
gendanken we arnt talking about the average voter, he said that if he was a SENITOR he would have voted to go to war based on what he had been told. I said having found out that it was a lie what would you have done about it. What does that have to do with a firing squad?

11. gendankenRuler of All the LandsValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
What about the senate? Does it count or only counts when its vote is what the politburo wants it to be?
The senate was was opposed to Bolton being appointed to the UN and Bush overrdode it.

If the senta had voted against war, we'd still be in Iraq.

That you're all shooting blanks, Imaginative One.

12. RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
I predicted an invasion prior to W's first election.

By the way, that piss way stinks. only 4:23 more minutes to go.

13. AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
gendanken can the president overule his own impeachment?

14. Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
Goes to show you why you MUST go to great lengths to avoid supporting the start of a war. Once you're into it, no matter how badly your reasons turn out to be wrong, you're kind of stuck. Not to mention you've killed a whole lot of people and you can never undo that.

Let me say this one more time: This country is 229 years old. We have absolutely no sense of history. The conflicts in the Mideast have been brewing for centuries, some of them for more than 2000 years. It is absolute, unforgivable hubris for a country like the USA to presume that it can solve problems that we can't possibly understand.

Suppose we tell the Palestinians that Israel is the Jews' historical homeland, going back three or four thousand years, and we're terribly sorry that they just happened to be on holiday in Egypt running away from the Roman tax collectors when the Philistines landed there, but even though they made their homes there they have to give it back.

The Palestinians say, "Fine, then you have to give Arizona back to the Navajos."

Then we say, "Wait a minute, lets think this over a little longer. You guys really did make your homes there in good faith, and possession is nine points of the law. I guess the Israelis will have to concede this one."

Then the Israelis walk in and say, "Okay, then you have to give Arizona back to Mexico."

15. travisRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
160
Published: 5/11/2005, 07:11 (UAE)

Zionist lobbies are turning the wheel of US foreign policy

By As'ad Abdul Rahman, Special to Gulf News

"You tell me America will do this and will do that ... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." - Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

What made the Israeli prime minister make such utterance without fearing any adverse reactions is the presence of powerful Zionist "lobbies" in the US capable of influencing the actions of politicians and of conditioning public opinion.

In the US, where more than 6 million Jews live, (less than 2 per cent of the total population), the Jewish vote can be an important factor in determining the electoral majority where victory can often be achieved with a very narrow margin.

The strength of the Zionist lobby in the US is so great that US President George W. Bush's speech regarding the need for "Palestinian reforms" was sent to Occupied Jerusalem for final proofing and corrections not less than 28 times.

This shows how biased, or forced to be, the present administration is when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For all the turmoil in the Occupied Territories, the US and Israel are in agreement that the Palestinians are to blame, which was aptly demonstrated during a news conference in which Bush proclaimed, "the signal to the Palestinians is to stop the violence. I can't make it any more clear".

The fact that Israel's colonial occupation has continued for almost four decades is irrelevant to Bush. Instead, he seems intent on blaming the Palestinians for disrupting the peace.

This is vital to Israel's public relations campaign. Of course, the Bush administration's support for Israel is more than just verbal.

The president will continue to push for economic and military aid to Israel which has been estimated between $3 billion (Dh11 billion) and$5.5 billion (Dh 20.18 billion) a year.

American vociferous support for Israel and its indifference in the face of Palestinian suffering are a direct result of an "ideological" support that has gripped the US government.

This occupation is based on the internalisation of Israel's arguments vis-à-vis the current conflict.

The success of this ideological occupation is partly the result of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), considered one of the most influential lobbying organisations in the United States.

The influence of this lobby could be seen by the sheer number of policy makers who attend its annual policy conference.

Its last conference of March 2004 was attended by 103 members of the House of Representatives, 43 senators and 15 officials (including secretary of state Colin Powel).

AIPAC's ongoing mission is to nurture and advance the US-Israeli relationship by advocating strong US economic, military and political support for Israel.

The organisation uses its formidable lobbying abilities to maintain the US governments' unwavering support for Israel and to make life difficult for any public official who dares to challenge the statue quo.

In addition, AIPAC is very active on college campuses throughout the US. It has a Political Leadership Development Programme (PLDP) whose goal is to get college students involved in pro-Israel activity.

Basically, AIPAC not only tries to strengthen ties between the US and Israel, its activists also work to intimidate and defame those who are critical of Israeli policy.

Other Zionist lobbies operate in the US albeit less influential than AIPAC.

Involved in espionage

more:
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/OpinionNF.asp?ArticleID=190220

16. Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
There is still a strong legacy of distrust of Jews among America's upper economic class where all the power lies. That's not to say that it's unanimous but it's there. Notwithstanding the occasional headline-making exception such as Bill Gates's recent trip to Israel, industrialists know that if we want to avoid a real war over the Mideastern oil supply, we have to avoid royally pissing off the Muslim nations. Our own President was photographed in public holding hands with his Arabian boyrfriend. (Hey I don't care about Arab customs, that's exactly what it looked like to us.) And it was one of the guys who was instrumental in providing both the finances and the manpower for 9/11. The only plane that was allowed to fly out of a U.S. airport after the 9/11 attack was a Saudi plane that was probably carrying members of the extended family to which Osama belongs. When a Saudi royal airplane uses an American airport, our authorities quietly send all the female air traffic controllers off on an extended lunch and let the Saudi flight be handled by male ATCs.

Sure there's a Zionist lobby here. This is America, even child molesters have their own lobby. But what's this drenn about the Zionist lobby being powerful?

17. madanthonywayneMorning in AmericaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
12,461
This is pure BS and revisionism. Bush neither lied nor manipulated the intelegence reports. This was proven by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission which found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence. On the contrary, the manipulation and lying was on the other side as evidenced by this quote re: the famous "yellow cake".
Wilson's article directly contradicted his previous oral report to the CIA immediately following his trip to Niger.

18. madanthonywayneMorning in AmericaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
12,461
Another point, much of Hussain's chemical and biological weapons were, in fact, found. There existence was just ignored. After the first gulf war and the destruction of much of his chemical and biological weapons, Hussain made sure his new weapons would be "dual use". There is little difference between pesticides and chemical weapons, so large stockpiles of "pesticides" hidden at ammo dumps indicates either we are looking at a chemical weapons depot or Iraq had a big problem with insects at it's weapons depots!

19. JaggerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
315
ummmmmmmm, I see you "word for word" repeating Bill Kristol. It is not a good idea to pass along Neocon justifications-considering every other word out of their mouths are lies or misstatements.

Check out the Silberman-Robb report. Technically Kristol is right, they didn't find any evidence. Of course, they weren't allowed to look for evidence.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html

Remember to double check everything and anything whenever a neocon is talking. Lying is their middle name and Kristol is a hardcore neocon.

20. gendankenRuler of All the LandsValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
Asguard:
Allright, we're on.

Yes, I believe that he can override his own impeachment. All the houses are controlled by his party and the Nixon name, which was impeached, was nowhere near as powerful as the Bush one.

I stand by this statement and will suffer impeachment if someone more knowledgeble on U.S. history and legislation can convince me othwerwise. I don't really know what I'm talking about, really.

All I know is money=influence=power.

Fraggle:
Personally, I think its even more 'hubris' to expect a nation as powerful as the U.S to at least try to 'understand' them.

America is not trying to solve or understand anything and I don't blame them for not trying the impossible. For one, history is littered with nations that existed via the only means that make their existence possible- political ingenuiity and military might. American did not become a nation by going to a seminar to "understand" the Royal's feelings, its impossible.

For two, would you try reasoning with a childiish, emotional midget who has nothing? Not unless he's sitting on pot of gold and could ruin you financially- and that's the Jew. And the Saudi Arabian. And the Kuwaitian, and the few other small sovereign nations holding our blood supply.
Saddam was just in the way, I suppose, and got played by his own game which makes him no better than the childish, emotional midget you can't reason with. Which he clearly was.

If only the Palestenian were as cunning and organized as the Jew.

21. GustavBannedBanned

Messages:
12,575
i agree pookie

Speak softly and carry a big stick

22. invert_nexusZe do caixaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,686
Gendanken,

1.) Overriding an impeachment is unnecessary. What you're really thinking of is 'removal from office.' Impeachment is merely the bringing it to a vote. Nixon was impeached. But he wasn't removed from office. He resigned.

2.) I don't think the president would be able to override his own removal from office. Not without overriding the constitution itself (not saying that this is impossible.)

3.) You make a good point about the party's power. To be removed from office, there must be a majority vote in the house and senate (I think... I'm not entirely certain) and in the case we have with a Republican dominance, then removal from office would be unlikely. Impeachment itself would be unlikely.

However, the Republican party is beginning to show some backbone with amendment 1977 introduced by McCain. I forget the bill that it's tacked onto, but it's an anti-torture amendment. Very simple. Very pure. And Bush has made it clear that he wants no such laws being passed. And yet the Senate passed the amendment with a vote of 90 to 9. I haven't kept tabs on this. Bush threatened to veto and wants the amendment dropped. I wonder if the Repub's are standing strong or if they're falling in line?

Quite.
Our government has yet to stand such a blatant disruption of checks and balances, but the outcome of such an encounter is definitely in the air.
The 'war on terror' has definitely empowered the administration. The signs are in the air that the empowerment is almost at an end though. Either more terror must be imbued or strong-arm tactics must be introduced to maintain the hold.
Let's hope that America withstands the temptation to enter imperialism.

Ha!
I'm brought to mind of George Washington psychoanalyzing King George.
"Vat do you think of your mother?"
Muaha!

However, understanding one's enemy is a rather important element of modern warfare. And one in which we seem to be very poor at... If you understand your enemy enough, they can be induced to defeat themselves.

Give them time. Monkey see, Monkey do.

23. gendankenRuler of All the LandsValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
Gotcha.

Well, he's just appointed a personal suckling to chief justice.
Think about that one- the U.S. Supreme Court had enough power to overrule a majority and stop a voting count that would have taken the presidency from Bush.

True, but are fleas your enemy or just annoying?
Mark Twain wrote this neat little story about Satan coming to earth among humans. Satan being so powerful tried explaining to a little boy how he saw humans as bugs:

Ok, so we're not indifferent since America has this habit of fondling other countries but the Palestanian, the Chechnyan, and the angry little liberal shaking their fist at the governemt are like a spider to an elephant.
Now we do make mistakes- Vietman is one. We saw it as this small thing we could squash without blinking when it was really an organized army of black widows focused on one thing, and that was its power.

The Jew is another instance of mistaking your enemy for a bug when it isn’t.
This is what the Arab's intifada (sp?) lacks.

Well, well...
Where have I been?
Never heard of this....

I can't believe how riled people got over naked Arabs being 'tortured' with a poloroid camera.
They get hot meals, air conditioning, a psychologist- JESUS CHRIST, I'd have to sell my body to pay for a shrink and I need it more than some mujahadeen who's rightifully pissed off at your foreign policy.

You call that torture???? Ever heard of Nanking? Stay with a Japanese for a day and then come back to talk about torture. Its ironic how such a strong nation as this one is filled with such pussies.