I like the Charles Barkley quote better.....
" I may be wrong, but I DOUBT it! " :yowsa:[/b][/quote]
Bill, I like that one too. :okthumb:

Don't want to come off as a cocky American or CJ won't bring me any tim-tams. :D

Point by Point, Lie by Lie

A professor and author goes over Bush's 3/17 speech.

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the Constitution being ignored...

Here's a snip:

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

The oath of office also demands that the president uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, which forbids such an illegal use of force. Virtually no international legal authority recognizes such an invasion as an act of assuring legitimate national security interests.

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

The U.S. Congress--with the support of both the Republican and Democratic leadership--did authorize the use of force against Iraq. However, the resolution violates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which does not allow Congress to grant such open-ended warmaking authority to the president for an offensive military action. Only a formal declaration of war in such a situation can be considered legitimate. Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution declares that international treaties to which the United States is a party are to be treated as supreme law, thereby proscribing Congress from passing any resolution that violates the UN Charter, such as supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation. As a result, this resolution is unconstitutional and thereby invalid.

Interesting.

The situation as I see it ....

France and Russia have a deal with Iraq to buy oil from them as soon as the sanctions are lifted.

If America and the United Kingdom invade and topple Saddam, then this deal becomes void. This is why they objected to military force.

America and the UK want to control the oil in Iraq (notice I said control, not take). This will help the US and UK economies no end.

Saddam needs a big kick up the arse and I believe the USA are justified in doing so. But I also believe that the USA must also take action to settle the Israel/Palestine conflict asap.

There cannot be double standards here, so Israel and the Palestinians should also be told to disarm when Iraq has been dealt with.

I am not a big fan of Bush, but I do think he should use his nations muscle to stop conflict in the world. America has been too insulated to the rest of the world for too long.

I hope the war is over fast, and I wish US, UK and Aussie troops all the best.

:rokk:

Why do you people start out like that; then attack Bush? Is it incomprehensible to you that the Commander-in-Chief is one of the troops? :wankit:[/b][/quote]

hehehe

"you people"

Now that cracks me up Torone!


Hey did you hear the Fench have finally committed troops to the effort..

**************
Subject: French troops deployed to Iraq


PARIS, FRANCE -
President Jacques Chirac announced today that France would be deploying
two elite units of French troops to Iraq in the event of war.

Five hundred crack troops from the 2nd Groupement d'Instruction en
Abandonment are mobilizing to assist the Iraqi Army in the finer points of
military surrender.

"The immediate capitulation of an armed force is a delicate and intricate
tactic in which we French have much experience." said Defense Ministry
spokesperson General de Armee Francois-Phillippe Hommes de Petit-Pommes.

"There is a certain protocol in laying down your arms or fleeing the battlefield.
To wave the white flag while remaining arrogant, pompous and insufferable
requires experience and training. The French Army believes it is second to
none in the fine art of surrendering quickly. The record of our armed forces
in that area speaks for itself. The Iraqi performance in giving up without a fight
during the last Gulf War was commendable but slip-shod. We hope to improve
their level of surrender execution for the next war."

General Hommes de Petit-Pommes further announced that 1000 advisors
from the Regiment de Collaborateurs Francais will also be dispatched to Iraq to
assist the Iraqi people in collaborating effectively with any occupation force.
"It is more important to protect their art treasures than to defend their honor,"
the General pointed out.

The General also expressed the hope that Baghdad has some tree-lined
boulevards. "It was our experience that the Germans liked to march in the
shade, and we feel the Americans and the British might like that same
measure of comfort in Iraq - especially in warm weather.

hahahahahahaha :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:


Too damn funny :rokk:

Actually was going to let Torone's comment slide here as I covered it in another thread... But since it was brought back up and I was quoted I guess I'll point out why I feel he errs....

Bush is an elected official, he is not a 'troop', he is not putting his ass on the line...

That presently unknown Marine that was KIA earlier today... He was a troop, a brother to every one of us who ever wore the uniform and a son of every American... I and others support that man, he swore to put his life on the line and do what he was ordered to do knowing full well it could mean his life... There are thousands just like him racing across the desert right now who have uttered the "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)..." pledge... And they deserve a hell of alot more respect than to be lumped in with the temp Commander in Chief... :butt:

I didn't mean to bring the topic up!

Torone's sweeping generalisation of "you people" makes me giggle each time I see it... by now I reckon it must cover almost everybody apart from Torone! :biglaugh:

Ok. If you need specifics, I refer to those people known by various names (you pick your favorite)...

Clintonistas
Democrats
Liberals
Progressives
Centrists
Socialists
(my favorite) Communists
:moon:

S'ok Opti... Torone's generalizations make me giggle sometimes too... Never had much use for disagreeing with a label... much more fun to disagree with a person on a deep individual level... Labels have caused more deaths than smallpox... B)

Ok. If you need specifics, I refer to those people known by various names (you pick your favorite)...

Clintonistas
Democrats
Liberals
Progressives
Centrists
Socialists
(my favorite) Communists
:moon:[/b][/quote]
God damn.. that almost sounds like a list of diseases! :blink:

What ideology do you think you fit into?

You should have done Colin's survey!!
http://www.buildinganempire.com/politics/results.html

A large portion of the Pentagon etc's war strategies are now based on game theory, which was 'perfected' during the Cold War... a so-called war with two combatants, the US and Russia.

Middle eastern nations, especially Muslim fundamentalists, do NOT respond to these theories in the same manner that the Russians would have during the Cold War, that is obvious...

Interesting war games report was released recently...

the US appointed one of it's more imaginative generals to run the Iraq side. They reset the wargame and fired the general once 2 aircraft carriers went down to guys in jetboats packed with shaped charge explosives.

They said "that's not in the rules!"