Weekend_Climberz Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Any thoughts on this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17819626/site/newsweek/ I kind of see both points of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think I would feel more sorry for them had they been drafted. They went of there own free will. Swore to defend and follow. Only part that makes me feel sorry for them is if they are leaving becuase they are being kept longer that what they signed up for. That I think is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Great quote: Right now it's being done through the courts, and if they can't decide whether the war in Iraq is illegal or not, I think it will become a political issue. We'll see who wants to be saddled with the burden of being a George Bush supporter. I don't think too many of our politicians are comfortable with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Only part that makes me feel sorry for them is if they are leaving becuase they are being kept longer that what they signed up for. How on holy gods planet do you know why these men and women are leaving their posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Only part that makes me feel sorry for them is if they are leaving becuase they are being kept longer that what they signed up for. How on holy gods planet do you know why these men and women are leaving their posts? Did you see the "if" it fucking means something. Read dipshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 More speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) More speculation. No it means "if" they leave for that reason I would understand. Otherwise I don't. Where the fuck is the speculation in that? Man your dense. Edited March 28, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What the hell is an "illegal war"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Man your dense. "Speculation" is the longest word he knows. Oh, that and "ModeratorsPleaseMoveThisToSpray" So just ignore and move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What the hell is an "illegal war"? One not "approved" by Congress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What the hell is an "illegal war"? Iraq war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What the hell is an "illegal war"? Iraq war. Congress authorized the use of force AND continues to fund it, beyotch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What the hell is an "illegal war"? Iraq war. Congress authorized the use of force AND continues to fund it, beyotch. Don't worry he'll come back and say thats speculation. Even though he doesn't know what the hell it means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) What the hell is an "illegal war"? Iraq war. Congress authorized the use of force AND continues to fund it, beyotch. Actually, this isn't quite true. The exact wording of the Resolution of 2001 is as follows: 'That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.' In 2002, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq to enforce various UN resolutions. If one agrees that the Bush administration deliberately used false intelligence of Iraqi WMD programs and terrorist connections to justify the invasion, and the bulk of the evidence certainly supports this, then the Iraq war is, by definition, illegal in that it grossly oversteps the authority granted in 2001 and falsifies Iraq's violation of UN resolutions required to justify activating the resolution in 2002. There is some legal precedence to support my claim. The president used the same resolution to justify illegal spying on Americans, a program which, ostensibly, it has stopped because of its illegal nature. It has also used the same resolution to justify torture of detainees, a practice which has been now forbidden in the uniformed services due to its illegality. The evidence points to this administration's criminal guilt in two main areas; 1) lying to the American people about the intelligence that supported the justification for war in Iraq, and 2) exceeding Congressional authority granted by the Resolution above to wage such a war. Edited March 28, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.