Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista de Fóruns
Não pode escrever mensagens neste fórum. O nível mínimo de inscrição para o fazer neste fórum é Nível Peão.
Assunto: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy
Pedro Martínez: #1 should say in America, American citizens are granted a fir trial before they are convicted of a crime #2 should be They don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial in an American court
Assunto: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy
Modificado por Pedro Martínez (26. Janeiro 2009, 00:24:19)
Artful Dodger
1. In America a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime. 2. I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo. And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial.
Putting 1 and 2 together, you don't regard Guantánamo detainees as "persons". :)
Assunto: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy
Pedro Martínez:61 of those released went back into terrorism. I doubt Obama will release any of them without some sort of hearing. I personally don't think they deserve a civic hearing but would agree that in some cases a military hearing would be appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, if they were captured in a military operation/conflict, they are military combatants and should be treated as such. I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo. And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial. With all due respect, it's not the same thing as being falsely accused of an illegal act by someone. There are very specifc reasons these guys were detained in the first place. And the fact that many of those previously released have gone back into terrorism and participated in the killing of innocent people should give us all pause before we release any more. Of course I could be missing some important point here and maybe should rethink my position. But at the moment, I can't think of any reason to alter my view.
Assunto: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy
Bernice: Far too often people speak out of ideology, ignorance, or emotion. In America (as in many countries) a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime. All facts are considered, and testimony is heard. Political discussions should follow this model. Opinions are for flavors of ice cream, but history should be about facts. It's probably my biggest beef with some of the liberals I have run into. Something is either true, or not true. Some things are not a matter of opinion. And if a claim is made, the facts must bear it out. Otherwise the claim should be rejected. If I'm falsely accused of something, I don't want my accusers hiding behind the "it's my opinion" excuse. I would think that most people see it this way. ;)
Assunto: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy
The facts tell a different story than the left wing spin. It's a legitimate war and was fully supported by congress after full disclosure. The fact of the matter is that congress had all the intelligence it needed to make intelligent decisions with respect to Iraq and any possible invasion. The following if from a speech President Bush gave. The link will appear at the bottom and contains the entire speech.
While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
Impeached Gov. Blagojevich, on the first leg of his media blitz timed to the start of his impeachment trial, in an NBC interview broadcast on The Today Show Sunday compared himself to human rights heros Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. ... As he was taken from his home by federal agents on Dec. 9, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."
Becomes 1st new president to miss inauguration event
Since its inception in 1953, every new president has attended The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball – until now.
The ball was created for President Dwight Eisenhower's inauguration to honor recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award. The event is sponsored by the American Legion and co-sponsored by 13 other veteran's service organizations, including the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
And while 48 of the nation's 99 living recipients of the Medal of Honor attended the event, reports the Cleveland Leader and various self-attested attendees of the ball, newly sworn-in President Barack Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out on the ceremony.
BadBoy7: I don't know. Usually the guys making the decisions are out of the way of the bullets. But I suspect there would be plenty of men willing to lead the charge. But in reality, it would be irresponsible for any leader to put themselves in harms way since killing them could lose the war for their side (or at least seriously jeopardize things)
Seriously I wonder how many president we would go through in a year if the commander in chief had to lead the armed forces in battle at the front of the lines as they do in tv movies with the leader leading the charge...think about that he has the power to send our men and women over to war and to kill and get killed BUT he is never there leading the charges
Foxy Lady: I've never owned a gun but I saw a bumber sticker I really liked (ok, I do own a pellet gun and I shoot at the racoons butts when they come in my back yard). Wanna hear what the bumper sticker said?
Modificado por Papa Zoom (11. Outubro 2011, 15:48:08)
Bernice: Thing is, I actually like Obama. :) (update) but I no longer do...along with thousands of others who have seen his true colors. He's and incompetent loser and proof that the Peter principle is true.
Bernice: I just wish people would argue their case on its merits and remain consistent. Obama has the backing of the government in Afghanistan but because people see that war as necessary, when innocent people are killed it's considered differently. I don't get the double standard.
coan.net: This is the problem with these kinds of discussions. It was said that Bush is a war criminal. Then you support it by asking a question on whether Hitler could be considered a war criminal for his actions (because he had the backing of his government). But his government was very different for one. And Hitler invaded countries that were no threat to anyone. He had treaties with them and yet he attacked them anyway. He bombed cities relentlessly. He didn't go for military targets, he bombed cities and infrastructures. Then he ordered his soldiers to kill everyone. He did this with the backing of the government (because he was a dictator).
If Bush is a war criminal, then so are all the democrats and republicans that gave approval for the war. It's not a stretch to suggest you were comparing Bush with Hitler since that is exactly what you did. Otherwise, why bring him up?
Artful Dodger: Ok Czuch... I did not compare Bush with Hitler.
I was simply pointing out that just because ones own country backs a war DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
Tuesday & anastasia: Now I remember why I stopped in the fellowship political boards - everyone nit-picks and starts to put words in my mouth. I think I'm done also.
Artful Dodger: Sorry that I started - please just ignore my comments below. I will stay out of the rest of the conversations also.
coan.net: Comparing Bush to Hitler is just such a cheap comparison. Bush never ordered the murder of millions of people (as a matter of policy, that is exactly what Hitler did). Bush attacked an outlaw government after 18 years of defiance, murder, and invasion of allies. How many more years of actively pursuing weapons programs were we to tolerate?
As for the statement, how it can not be a lie, but yet a distortion? What facts were distorted?
Artful Dodger: Well I'm not sure how the Clinton administration could be blamed when they did not act upon it.
So question - is Hitler a war criminal? I mean he acted with the backing of his countries administration & politicians? (like the Bush administration acted with the backing of Congress.) [POINT: Just because someone's own country "backs" killing does not make it right.]
I know bringing this up will bring up how this organization is broken - but I still believe any elective war against another country should be backed by the UN. (not just a group of friendly countries).
Let me back up a minute:
I see 2 types of wars. First is a war that is started in retaliation for an attack. War on terror & invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. Attack of Japan was in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. War with Germany was in retaliation for them declaring war against the US after Japan started the war with the US.
Second - Elective war. This is a war which is started as a pre-emptive strike. THE ONLY TIME in my eyes that an elective war should be started again is with the backing of the UN - which not just the views of 1 country is taking into account - but the views of many countries.
======= You ask about the president lying in the statement. Well I don't see that statement as a lie - I mean the attack was ordered - was joined by British forces - used the reasoning for attacking weapons program - was a pre-emtive to protect the US. So no, I don't think the statement you wrote is a lie. I believe many facts were distorted and the facts that did not agree with the war plan were labeled as not reliable - and the Bush administration led many to believe the war in Iraq was part of the war on Terror, where in reality it was a second war.
coan.net: I see. So the fact that the Clinton administration, including Al Gore, and other members of his administration called for military action against Saddam (well before Bush came along) and the fact that they all claimed a connection to terrorism and the fact that they all claimed over and over about WMD, just because Bush acts upon those facts, with the backing of congress, democrats and republicans, the war is somehow "elective?"
And that in and "elective" war, it's not ok to kill innocent women and children but in a correct war, it's ok to kill innocent women and children.
Yeah, that sounds like a liberals way of thinking.
So tell me BBW, was the president lying when he said the following:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."