Yet more WMD talk

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:42 pm

bash wrote:Both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were authorized by Congress.

Bash, I'm being kind of lazy here, but I think (without checking) there's a dispute whether the President needs the Congress to declare war, before he can engage in war. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were not declarations of war by Congress. They were resolutions supporting the war.

I guess we would need to look at the War Powers Act (Congress' attempt to reign in the executive branch), but I think there's a question about it's constitutionality.

BD

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:52 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Gooberman wrote:
Will wrote:....fail to cooperate with the U.N. sanctions and resolutions for over a dacade....
So you would oppose Bush going to war with Iran in the next 10 years?
No, just the number of years they were in violation isn't a threshold certain, in fact that's about as insignificant as the exact number of WMD's he had. It's the sum of the total makes the threshold.

And there you have it.

I think Mr. G was anticipating something more reflexive, specific to the knee area. As always, Will, you disappoint by failing to properly adhere to type. Really, how dare you suggest that context defines the propriety of the foreign policy decisions?

BD

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:38 pm

lol!

I was just pointing out that the Iran/Iraq anology was BS. As it was, I picked that one segment to show it was BS. Follow the flow of conversation, Zuruck asked when Iran falls into Iraq category, Will started, "When they .....", and made Iraq analogies.

You guys will be willing to go to war with Iran as soon as Bush believes it is the right course of action. Maybe sooner, not later.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:27 pm

Gooberman wrote:lol!

I was just pointing out that the Iran/Iraq anology was BS.

So was I by showing the only way they could fall in the same catagory was to engage in the same behavior.

You guys will be willing to go to war with Iran as soon as Bush believes it is the right course of action. Maybe sooner, not later.

You're pulling the same BS Zuruck was trying to pull.
The 'catagory' of which country Bush wants to go to war with doesn't dictate my preference, as I said before, if we are going to stop bad guys from doing bad things on a scale that warrants my concern I'm for it.

I was in favor of going to finish off Saddam before Bush ever became president!
Likewise, if conditions warrant, I'm for going after Iran and/or Syria regardless of whether Bush wants to or not!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:50 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I was in favor of going to finish off Saddam before Bush ever became president!
Likewise, if conditions warrant, I'm for going after Iran and/or Syria regardless of whether Bush wants to or not!

x2

Though, I think Bush is in a bit better position to judge than I am, since I don't have any covert recon in Iran.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:00 pm

Lothar wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:I was in favor of going to finish off Saddam before Bush ever became president!
Likewise, if conditions warrant, I'm for going after Iran and/or Syria regardless of whether Bush wants to or not!
x2

Though, I think Bush is in a bit better position to judge than I am, since I don't have any covert recon in Iran.

Which is kind of the point of electing a candidate believed by voters to possess the best judgment.

That he or she will exercise that good judgment when presented with facts and circumstances that perhaps none of us will ever be privy to.

BD