Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2008, 05:57 PM   #31
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_AirHawk View Post
To this day, the only Arkansans that admit to voting for Clinton always add the modifier "I just voted for him to GET HIM OUT OF ARKANSAS........"

Well, I s'pose it worked.

Feh.
I noticed that Hussein Obama is already having those great worldwide effects that everyone wanted to see... well, except they are different than the lefties wanted:

South Korean politicians are demanding their own nuclear weapons program... seems they don't trust Hussein to defend them from north Korea.

Afghani PM is DEMANDING that Hussein stop the predator attacks. Hmmm. I wonder who would have DEMANDED that Reagan or Bush do anything.

Russia is moving new missile batteries to the Polish border to counter our anti-missile system.

And finally:

Russian Nationalist Party Chief has stated that Hussein will ruin the USA's international standing, it will become a weak nation and never recover.

Yep. Those international effects of Universal Brotherhood(tm) and non-stop Kumbaya choruses are starting already.

Any idiot knows what happens when you elect weaklings.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 11-05-2008, 09:48 PM   #32
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seruzawa View Post
Russian Nationalist Party Chief has stated that Hussein will ruin the USA's international standing, it will become a weak nation and never recover.
Too late for that. Already done.

- cruiz-euro
anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 10:11 PM   #33
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default That nincompoop made the decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by longride View Post
Congress did decide. Without thier approval, there is no war, get it? Their vote allowed The Man On The Wheel to do what they knew he would do. They voted FOR WAR. Even you could possibly figure that out.
Congress only gave the president the powers to do what he sees fit. They had to - US could not have negotitated if Saddam knew everything was only empty talk. Unfortunately that sorry dumbass (sorry to talk like that about your spiritual learder longride) chose to do the most stupid thing of all the possible alternatives.

Its Bush alone who decided to invade Iraq. Not Cheney, not congress, not Powell nobody else. Of course there are still lots of apologists trying to pass the blame. Like you.

- cruiz-euro
anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 04:38 AM   #34
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Wrong again pacifist. There are the reasons they passed the resolution.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


Catch that 'strictly enforce' stuff?? Saddam didn't comply with ANY U.N. resolutions, therefore, according to this resolution, he was bound to enforce them. That means war. Saddam was given clear choice to follow the U.N. resolutions or face war. He chose war and lost. Imagine if the Frenchies would have done the same when Hitler stuffed the Treaty of Versailles up their keester. It could have saved the lives of 50 million people. But of course, the French knew everything then, just like you know everythign now. What Bush did was legal and appropriate and what was expected for non-compliance. We should have finished the turd off the first go-round, but of course, the 'International Community' woudn't hear of it. It was akin to putting the Nazi's back in power after WWII. I'm sure the French would have agreed to that also being the cowards they were. As I have already stated there were NUMEROUS reasons given to take out Saddam. All the simple minds can only remember one. Saddam must have thought he was dealing with Clinton. No such luck for him.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead

Last edited by longride : 11-06-2008 at 04:40 AM.
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 05:02 AM   #35
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anrajala View Post
Congress only gave the president the powers to do what he sees fit. They had to - US could not have negotitated if Saddam knew everything was only empty talk. Unfortunately that sorry dumbass (sorry to talk like that about your spiritual learder longride) chose to do the most stupid thing of all the possible alternatives.

Its Bush alone who decided to invade Iraq. Not Cheney, not congress, not Powell nobody else. Of course there are still lots of apologists trying to pass the blame. Like you.

- cruiz-euro
It's really strange how such a nincompoop has managed to out maneuver all those left wingers with their self-professed superior intelligence and out maneuver them consistently for 8 solid years. He's the most effective lame duck president in US history. Naturally having such limited intellect you will start whining that my statement means that I agree with him. But that's not the case. Still, it's so amusing to watch all those "smart" people demonstrate to the world just how "smart" they are by being unfailingly cold(ocked by a "nincompoop".

Well, there IS a nincompoop in the equation. The real nincompoops are the people who get outsmarted regularly by a "nincompoop".
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 05:12 AM   #36
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longride View Post
Wrong again pacifist. There are the reasons they passed the resolution.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


Catch that 'strictly enforce' stuff?? Saddam didn't comply with ANY U.N. resolutions, therefore, according to this resolution, he was bound to enforce them. That means war. Saddam was given clear choice to follow the U.N. resolutions or face war. He chose war and lost. Imagine if the Frenchies would have done the same when Hitler stuffed the Treaty of Versailles up their keester. It could have saved the lives of 50 million people. But of course, the French knew everything then, just like you know everythign now. What Bush did was legal and appropriate and what was expected for non-compliance. We should have finished the turd off the first go-round, but of course, the 'International Community' woudn't hear of it. It was akin to putting the Nazi's back in power after WWII. I'm sure the French would have agreed to that also being the cowards they were. As I have already stated there were NUMEROUS reasons given to take out Saddam. All the simple minds can only remember one. Saddam must have thought he was dealing with Clinton. No such luck for him.
Never forget that the International Community roundly denounced Vietnam for invading Cambodia in 1979, deposing Pol Pot and stopping the mass murders. The UN and all those "smart" lefties did absolutely nothing to stop the slaughter. Just like they did not do anything in Rwanda. And just like they are doing nothing today in Kenya where Hussein Obama's good buddy, Raila Odinga, is committing genocide as I type this.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 05:29 AM   #37
pplassm
Founding Member
 
pplassm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,875
Default

Ummm. I really like these electric dirtbikes!
__________________
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
pplassm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 05:35 AM   #38
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

What's with the on-topic crap??
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 05:56 AM   #39
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Finally a smart statement. it is already done. We couldn't have picked a better socialist/pacifist even if France hand picked him. They are no longer the biggest cowards in the world. That title will soon belong to us.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 06:22 AM   #40
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longride View Post
Finally a smart statement. it is already done. We couldn't have picked a better socialist/pacifist even if France hand picked him. They are no longer the biggest cowards in the world. That title will soon belong to us.
If people hate things now with the USA acting as the world's policeman just wait until we stop! LOL!
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off