Republican Candidates

scubadoo

Active Member
Tarball said:
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ok, your right. America isn't a gluten for oil & Iraq & Iran have no oil reserves....

Please site your soruces as to where the natural resources of Iraq are currently going?
Also, please be specific as to where, who is getting the $ , etc.
Do you even understand how the oil industry works?
over the past two decades the most significant increase for oil demand is from Asia. Following your position.... China should be attacking this region and our ally in the battle.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
How many more shall die before the insanity of the likes of you stop. You are no different then the people you war against & hate. War minded people love hate & destruction.
Like minded people will surely lead us to our demise.
Excuse me if I rebut against those.
Feel free to share this view when the terrorists are knocking on your door.
How many builidings need to fall before you realize what you are dealing with?
I guess we should have continued to ignore Hitler and WWII as we once did. No doubt, we would have been better off to do so. We should have ignored the communists...we would have been safe as we could have offered them some cookies at the borders.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Joint Resolution from Congress continued...Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime
;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable
";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups
combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations
;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations
;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
How many more shall die before the insanity of the likes of you stop. You are no different then the people you war against & hate. War minded people love hate & destruction.
Like minded people will surely lead us to our demise.
Excuse me if I rebut against those.
Just over 2,000 Americans died at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.
We lost close to 300,000 total. Based on your reasoning was that also a mistake?
 

tarball

Member
Sorry about my delay, I had to reboot my modem, It was getting bogged down by the Bullsh*t it was receiving from you guys.
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Feel free to share this view when the terrorists are knocking on your door.
How many builidings need to fall before you realize what you are dealing with?
I guess we should have continued to ignore Hitler and WWII as we once did. No doubt, we would have been better off to do so. We should have ignored the communists...we would have been safe as we could have offered them some cookies at the borders.
All you list had legitimate militarise, Terrorism is a Small group or a one man act. Not a parallel of truth. Once again, you ignore trillions on security
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
How many more shall die before the insanity of the likes of you stop. You are no different then the people you war against & hate. War minded people love hate & destruction.
Like minded people will surely lead us to our demise.
Excuse me if I rebut against those.
The men and women that have served our miltray for our country past,present and future have sacrificed with their life so you can enjoy this freedom.
You are free to come here and post as you feel against our government, president, etc.
You have no problem sharing in this freedom...but remember why you currently can do so.
Unfortunatley, past present and future...folks simply want to destroy us...period.
I am proud of those that have fought and will fight to preserve the freedoms we all take for granted.
There is no need for thanks...there is enough of Americans who appreciate this sacrifice to let them know.
I take issue with you comparing me personally to a terrorist...but I do understand this is the reality for those that live in the conspiracy world.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
All you list had legitimate militarise, Terrorism is a Small group or a one man act. Not a parallel of truth. Once again, you ignore trillions on security
Wait.. So were you against the war in Afghanistan too?
If the War on Terrorism is just about money, why were we attacked so many times under President Clinton? Why didn't he just spend more money?
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wait.. So were you against the war in Afghanistan too?
No, I was not, nor was i against the first war against Iraq.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
?
pm sent with deleted post....
It is against forum rules to use symbols like #@
# to beat the profanity filter.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
No, I was not, nor was i against the first war against Iraq.
The war in Afghanistan was against who?
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
All you list had legitimate militarise, Terrorism is a Small group or a one man act. Not a parallel of truth. Once again, you ignore trillions on security
So, your positon was to do nothing after 9/11? Nothing? I doubt you can find much support regarding that position even from the cut and runners. Also, I doubt many of the politcal leaders supporting cut and run will tell you that terrorism should be ignored and is not much of a threat. Just one person or a few bad boy scouts?
Rosie is thet you?
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
No, I was not, nor was i against the first war against Iraq.
Geez, I wonder why we don't have 150,000 plus troupes in Afghanistan where Al qaeda exists. Very convenient they are now in Iraq. don't you think?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
Geez, I wonder why we don't have 150,000 plus troupes in Afghanistan where Al qaeda exists. Very convenient they are now in Iraq. don't you think?
You said previously "Terrorism is a Small group or a one man act. "
Are you now admitting Afghanistan was a terrorist state?
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
Bush did not lead a vast shadow government for 3 yrs before he was elected. Bush was the tail end of the dog. There were powers before him in politics that influenced him to lead us to war. Daddy Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, & so on.
You honestly do not think Bush Jr is the brains behind the powers do you?....

I never suggester that, nor would I ever! Da boys a puppet, like the mini-cons in this thread.
So, you supported the first Iraq war. But according to this post, you appear to claim that "Daddy Bush" was part of this vast conspiracy theory?
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The war in Afghanistan was against who?
Don't ask me stupid questions.
What has that to do with Iraq?
You should know Osama & Saddam had nothing to do with each other.Nor Afgan & Iraq.
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You said previously "Terrorism is a Small group or a one man act. "
Are you now admitting Afghanistan was a terrorist state?
911 was a terrorist act against our government that killed 3000 plus American.... YES
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
Don't ask me stupid questions.
What has that to do with Iraq?
You should know Osama & Saddam had nothing to do with each other.Nor Afgan & Iraq.
I'm just trying to nail down your thought process. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Can a nation be a sponsor of terrorism, and if so, does that make them a legitimate target?
 
Top