A list of Bush admin lies

“No, it's your hateful nature!”

“too bad they wasted that sweet Fairlane.”

“That looks more like a '63 Falcon.

For a moment it was the Millenium Falcon.”

“It was a '61 Plymouth”

“Is that Evil?”

““The Repubs could have turned this whole world into a Utopian space-station and "certain" libs would still be complaining about something, offering nothing positive to say. It's their hateful nature.”

Keyword there is "could have". Reagan is spinning in his grave over what Republicans like you, "Sarge", have done to that party. High deficits, wild spending, going into military action without proper support, runs completely counter to the "Reagan Revolution". Your above statement, which is directly in response to my statement, offers no coherent counter argument and can only function at best as a hasty generalization. Too bad you cannot offer any examples of success; rather, resort to typical "blah, blah" crap you always do.

We've all been through this subject matter well before you even trolled here, "Sarge". You need to step away from your keyboard and help your party not be the effectual pussies that they have become.”

“I thought that was because of his prostate problem....�
ickyma
12:29:34 PM
1/31/08

No, it is because when he was a member of the Senate Intelligence committe he leaked Secret documents to the press, which is a crime.”

“Kinda like Cheney's office leaking Valerie Plame's name... ?”

“I will gladly finish this another time...
I gotta fly...”

ickyma
5:17:35 PM
1/30/08


You back yet?”

“Sarge is like a bad penny...
last edited: 1/31/08 2:28:26 PM”

“I think icky is just another violin troll.”

“Folks, I didn't even eat lunch today until 3:30...

I haven't had enough time to pay proper attention to this (or any thread)...

I've made a quick or silly comment here and there... but I just haven't had time to focus...

been busy today...”

“No problem icky. We can revisit it later when you're ready.”

“Ick, pep pills!”

“Oh, pile lite#3.”

“Here you go ickyma. When you take so long to get back to someone, eventually the thread goes off the main page and you have to bump it back up.”

“Here you go:

Article Six (Article VI) establishes the United States Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, and fulfills other purposes.

...

TREATIES of which the US is Signatory are SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

That's about as clear as I can make it...

Straight from the Constitution.”

“I get the feeling, ickyma, you forgot what we were debating.

You claimed that there were only certain justifications for war. They are listed here:

1) Civil War (Allowed)
2) Your Friend asks for your help, you may help.
3) UN Sanctioned (Meaning the UN sends in troops)
4) *the one we used* SELF Defense.

I asked you (first) where does it state that those are the only four justifications for war. You didn't answer, but the emphasized #3, and basically said that because the UN didn't sanction it, it isn't legal.

I asked you in regards to that : "Where specifically in the UN Charter does it say the only justifications for war? Don't give me an opinion piece, unless it's yours. Where in the actual Charter does it state as much?�

All you have done so far is tell me what I already know, that if we enter into a treaty, it's law of the land.

I'm still waiting for you to support your position, with the law that states that there are only the four justifications for war that you listed.

Those may be four reasons for war, but what makes you think they are the only legal justifications for war? How do you know that? What law is that?

The basis of this debate is that you are claiming that Bush started an "illegal war" (your words), but you haven't given any evidence of that.


[edit] - THAT is about as clear as I can make it.
last edited: 2/05/08 9:03:27 AM”

“I told you, Sarge, these rules can be found in the Geneva Conventions ... and in the UN Charter (Which, Incidentally, lists only 2 legal reasons if I recall... and I posted that)

So, just the UN Charter ALONE is enough to justify my claim...”

“also... just because it's an opinion piece doesn't mean it's useless. They cite several "LAWS" in forming their opinion... If all you want is a cited law, an opinion place is a good place to look.”

“You aren't getting something here.

I'll give you another analogy.

Let's say you like chocolate and peanut butter ice cream. Does that mean you don't like vanilla ice cream? Of course not!

Just because the Un Charter says that XYZ IS a justification for war, it doesn't say that nothing else is a justification for war.

We've apparently agreed that certain things are justifications for war, but where have we agreed that other things are NOT a justification for war?

You haven't shown that at all.

--

re: opinion pieces - If there are so many laws forming their opinions, you should be able to produce ONE. You haven't. I'm not debating them, I'm debating you. Where is just ONE of these laws you keep speaking of? If Bush did something illegal, you should be able to provide a law that supports that. Why is this difficult? More opinion pieces "based" on laws are just that, opinion pieces - but even they don't name the laws. I want the law you're referring to.
last edited: 2/05/08 9:16:50 AM”

“What other reason did the US use as justification?”

“Oh boy, here we go .....

ickyma, if you're unwilling to provide the law or laws that support that Bush started an illegal war, just say so and we'll end it right now. Why are you dragging this out?

So far you've given me some legal justifications for war, but NOTHING that claims they are the only justifications for war.

Are you willing to support what you said or not? This shouldn't be difficult considering how you've framed this as an open and shut case.
last edited: 2/05/08 9:39:53 AM”

“Way More Destruction.”

“The US Stated it's reason as "Self Defense"

If there was another reason, please tell me.”

“Why won't you provide the law/laws?”

“Probably for the same reason you won't admit you lied. LOL

(eta: sorry, couldn't resist. I'll stop)
last edited: 2/05/08 10:15:28 AM”

“
� � � You're just feeding a troll, E.

”

“Yeah, I'm starting to realize that maybe he is a troll Tilt.”

“I may have missed this in earlier posts, but I thought every expert of every country in the whole world was of the opinion that Saddam was blocking efforts of weapons inspectors, or was hiding stuff, and/or had designs and intentions to build WMD, either in progress or soon to be?

If there was one thing we should have learned from Hitler is that a whacko dictator with huge resources and a total control of a nation will carry out schemes that would shock reasonable men. Better to take him out and ask forgiveness than to ask permission, which you will never get with Russia, China, and France both having a veto vote.

What the Israelis did in bombing Iran's nuclear facility was likely illegal, or an act of war. Does anyone regret it, even France who supplied the nuclear technology? I think everyone said "shame on you" and then thought to themselves "I'm glad somebody had the guts to do it." They probably slipped Israel a thank you note by back channels.

To put things in perspectives, 257,000 men were killed in one day, at the Battle of Antietam. 40,000 to 72,000 people died in WWI, 19,000 to 119,000 died in WWI including from the flu, 2-4 million died in French religious wars, 5-9 million in the Russian revolution.

Historically, nations invaded other nations whenever they felt they could win. The reasons for invading were to conquer territory, to get income streams from conquered nations in the form of taxes, to get resources like horses, soldiers, crops, gold, and slaves. The tactics often included killing the entire population, enslaving them, or appointing their leaders as governors over the conquered people.

At no time in the history of the world has one nation invaded another nation for the purpose of making life better for the other nation, with little prospect of benefit to the invading nation, until the U.S. entered WWI and WWII. At no time in the history of the world has a nation invaded another nation to remove a tyrant, to install a democratically elected government to manage the people and resources, and plan to then leave the country as an independent ally country. The U.S. did that with Japan and Germany in WWII, and intends to do the same with Iraq. That is unusual in the history of the world. What the U.S. will get out of a democratic Iraq is a stable trading partner, not a colony like England, France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal have traditionally sought.”

“So, how many more US invasions to finish off on the help a country list ?”

“"To put things in perspectives, 257,000 men were killed in one day, at the Battle of Antietam."

Whoa, mule!!

On that day, September 17, 1862 there were a total of about 24,000 casualties to include about 13,000 U.S.A. and 11,000 C.S.A.

This was at the battle in which the C.S.A. was defending the ridge at Sharpsburg, Maryland against the U.S. Army which had to cross Antietam Creek.

Of that number roughly 25% were dead and the rest were killed, wounded or missing.
Many of the wounded died in the weeks following.

The Army of Northern Virginia(C.S.A.), approximately 41,000, was commanded by R.E. Lee and the Army of the Potomac(U.S.A.), 87,000, was commanded by G.B. MacClellan.

That's off the top of my head.

Invading Iraq was not necessary.
Saddam Hussein couldn't even take over Iran in the '80s with help from the U.S. administration of the time.
His forces were in worse repair in the '90s and worse yet in 2003.

Hitler??
Not even close.....
last edited: 2/05/08 11:55:28 AM”

“Good question, salebored.

What's going on in parts of Africa makes Saddam look like a boyscout....

of course, those dumb poor bastards don't happen to be sitting on rich oil reserves, so "their democracy" is a little less compelling.”

“Speaking of Democracy! Why are we so friendly with Saudi Arabia? If Democracy is soooo important, why doesn't the Administration criticize the Saudis? (for example)”

“Wow, a little bit of revisionist history going on there Idaho? I think the Bush apologists will continue to "remember" the fact differently as time continues. I mean, Saddam was about to send a bunch of chemical weapons in our direction IMMEDIATELY, right? Code orange, get ur ducttape and all that? It didn't matter that his greatest missle technology range was about 500 miles or something, even IF he had chemical weapons when Bush and crew said he did. The Bush admin jokers rode the wave of hysteria as far as it would carry them.
last edited: 2/05/08 11:56:22 AM”

“This is why, Icky.

”

“What, they're lovers? Oh, that explains A LOT!”

“So ickyma, you're not going to provide the law(s) you referenced? Just checking because it seems like you've moved on.”

“..... and Condolisa walking four paces behind with head bowed.”

“Oh yeah... No doubt about it... But it does go to show the hypocrisy of "president" Bush, no?

Democracy! Freedom!

Phooey... He doesn't give a rats a**! It's the oil, stupid.”

“Ain't Condi submissive?

I think Cheney is making out with one of those princes.”

“Royal Dutch Shell is going like gangbusters in Nigeria.”

“Oh yeah...but then we have this, its NOT theoretical, not made up its PROVEN FACT OF LYING OBSTRUCTION AND INTERVENTION with the legal system.....by!~!!!! This is the tip of an iceberg of corruption that just flys right by Libbies pointing blackhelicopter fingers at the President.

http://www.peterfpaul.com/2007/01/20/hillarys-criminal-conduct-presented-to-three-judge-appeals-court-for-adjudication/


She even used her Co-Presidential power of appointment of federal judges to have a judge she and Bill appointed to the bench in Los Angeles preside over the criminal trial of her finance director, David Rosen, in 2005. Bill appointee, Judge Matz, publicly declared Hillary�s complete innocence and lack of any involvement in Rosen�s indicted charges before any evidence was ever presented in court!

Now, after three years of maneuvering in Paul v Clinton et al, Hillary managed to invoke a California statute that protects candidates from frivolous law suits, and she was dismissed from the case as a defendant in April, 2006, (but not as a material witness) based on her First Amendment protection of committing civil frauds in the course of campaign fund raising. While the California Anti-SLAPP law can protect frauds committed by candidates in the course of fund raising, it does not protect their criminality in connection with fund raising. The facts of the case demonstrate conclusively that Hillary committed at least one felony in her role in violating Federal campaign finance laws.”

“Once again ...

�So ickyma, you're not going to provide the law(s) you referenced? Just checking because it seems like you've moved on.�
Sarge
3:02:17 PM
2/05/08”

“Condi's looking for lucky pennies while the boyz decide who'll be on top.

Dick's showing that one prince a picture of I da ho Larry.”