US prepares battlefield in Iran

[BrianH]

What makes you think Bush cares if he finishes a war with Iran? You actually think he would not start a war without finishing it within 5 months.

Well, let's just say your side of the argument is arguing about something that HASN'T happened. When tanks roll on Iran during Bush's administration, then you can get on here and say "I told you so."

 

[BrianH]

lol. with bush's track record, you want him making this decision. its like a buddy of mine. he screwed his best friends wife. when I saw him talking to my girl, I punched him in the back of the head.

congress instead will let bush try so mccain is forced to defend that move. we'll see if america wants war with iran.

and I wouldn't put it past bush to pull a mugabi and delay elections because we are in a war. and you would defend that too. treasonist, unamerican, unconstitutional, illegal, corupt, greed, stupid, racist, homophobe, hypocritical...

Typical presumption from you. You're passing judgement and opinion on something that hasn't happened yet. I don't agree with alot of things that Bush has done, but there's one thing that many of you extreme liberal Bush Bashers have in common, the ability to blame a republican for shit that hasn't happened yet.... Oh it's Bushes fault that he might, possibly, one day if he wants to, just to piss the dems of, Invade Iran.

 

[sealybobo]

bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE

the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives. loss on 401k's, $40 you might have made aint what it used to be. seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.

how much did you make?

ps. gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.

 

[jreeves]

bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE

the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives. loss on 401k's, $40 you might have made aint what it used to be. seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.

how much did you make?

ps. gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.

On Thursday, Hugh Hewitt played some clips of Barrack Obama, including one about his desire to raise the Capital Gains tax (At ~31:00). Obama tried to brush it aside as a "phony argument" by saying that it wouldn't affect regular folks, since their 401ks aren't subject to the Capital Gains tax upon withdrawal, and that only the wealthy who own stock will be affected, and besides they "can afford to pay a little bit more".

This whole argument shows great ignorance about the reality of how the market works, and follows the normal liberal economic delusions.

First, not just the wealthy own stocks in this country Mr. Obama. I am hardly wealthy, but I own stock outside of my retirement vehicles.

Second, those regular folk who have IRAs and 401ks *will* be affected by this tax hike. Not by paying the taxes, but by suffering the market losses that will occur when this plan is passed. Not to mention the wider effect on the overall economy.



Charlie Foxtrot: Capital Gains and the Obama Effect
Tell me again how a capital gains tax hike helps the middle class?

 

[sealybobo]

Unless of course some crazed terrorist loosely connected to Iran blows up a major city.

All bets are off after that, huh?

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but recently condi was bucking for more iranian visas. perhaps it'll look suspicious if they helped terrorists take cuts, so they just asked for more visas.

she did lie when she said they never imagined this could happen.

they keep the border unsecure. they aren't making us safer.

read nami klein disaster capitalism.

pnac said they needed a pearl harbor type incident to push the neo agenda. they met in the late 90's.....

in an age where lies become the norm, truth becomes provacative.

 

[jreeves]

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but recently condi was bucking for more iranian visas. perhaps it'll look suspicious if they helped terrorists take cuts, so they just asked for more visas.

she did lie when she said they never imagined this could happen.

they keep the border unsecure. they aren't making us safer.

read nami klein disaster capitalism.

pnac said they needed a pearl harbor type incident to push the neo agenda. they met in the late 90's.....

in an age where lies become the norm, truth becomes provacative.

Do you ever provide proof to your outlandish charges or does the truth actually play second fiddle to your partisanship?

 

[Article 15]

An authorization to use whatever force necessary is shirking the responsibility of declaring war and while you may argue that it is not he same as a declaration of war on paper, it amounts to the same thing in its real-world application.

Except when it comes to GITMO and the Geneva Conventions ... right?

 

[jreeves]

Except when it comes to GITMO and the Geneva Conventions ... right?

When has the geneva conventions been violated by the US in GITMO? Please be specific.....

 

[stivex]

Do you ever provide proof to your outlandish charges or does the truth actually play second fiddle to your partisanship?

Trutherists rarely provide credible evidence. They all seem to follow the same pattern as those given in the DaVinci Code. It goes like this:

If it is not impossible, then it is not improbable. Therefore, it cannot be considered implausible.

That is all the proof they need to justify their faith in their beliefs. Anyone questioning this logic is close-minded, apparently.

 

[BrianH]

bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment.[/QUOTE

the gains certainly are gobbled up by the negatives. loss on 401k's, $40 you might have made aint what it used to be. seniors on fixed incomes, debt doubled, companies paying less, unions disappearing, insurance costs, college more expensive and home worth less.

how much did you make?

ps. gop saying millions will be affected if we mess with capital gains, but they are counting 401kers and we don't pay capital gains.

Yeah, we just have it SOOOO bad....

 

[sealybobo]

Kirk, for you I'm sure conjecture is proof but for most reasonable minded people they need a little more than coincidences to believe something occured.

I guess oj didn't do it then?

for years you said we didn't have proof the justice dept had been politicized and your side said we couldn't prove bush lied us int iraq. even after we found there were no wmd's you were sucker enough to believe they just moved them to syria. how many times do we need to PROVE anything to you? trust us, you think truth is fiction and you only believe lies.

you and your buddy can laugh off my conspiracy theories as one by one they turn out to be true.

I just can't figure out if you are dumb or do you know how corrupt the gop is and just chose to make excuses for treason & high crimes.

 

[Article 15]

When has the geneva conventions been violated by the US in GITMO? Please be specific.....

An excerpt from the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld syllabus.

The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by
any congressional Act. Quirin held that Congress had, through Article
of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions to try offenders
or offenses against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 28. UCMJ
Art. 21, which is substantially identical to the old Art. 15, reads: “The
jurisdiction [of] courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving
military commissions . . . of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders
or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried
by such . . . commissions.” 10 U. S. C. §821. Contrary to the Government’s
assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a
sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions
whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognized that
Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution
and the common law of war, the President already had to convene
military commissions—with the express condition that he and those
under his command comply with the law of war. See 317 U. S., at
28–29. Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific,
overriding authorization for the commission convened to try
Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President’s war powers,
see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances,
see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF’s text or legislative
history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter
the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21. Cf. Ex parte Yerger, 8
Wall. 85, 105. Likewise, the DTA cannot be read to authorize this
commission. Although the DTA, unlike either Art. 21 or the AUMF,
was enacted after the President convened Hamdan’s commission, it
contains no language authorizing that tribunal or any other at Guantanamo
Bay. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most
acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military
commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution
and laws, including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional
authorization, this Court’s task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide
whether Hamdan’s military commission is so justified. Pp. 25–
30.
4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because
its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the
four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49–72.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Read the entire PDF. Interesting stuff. There's a whole lot of smackdown being layethed on the Administration.

 

[Paulie]

I'll agree to that, but I'm not sure I would believe that Bush is planning to invade Iran. Unless the Bush admin. is planning on a 5 month invasion and success, then I see know reason why the Bush admin. would even plan this if they didn't plan on it continuing into the next administration.

But a war can start and be continued by the next admin. What do you think Obama is going to do with Iraq? You don't really think he's going to pull out just because he says so, do you?

Basically, a current war can easily be handed off to the next president. But I don't see Bush's admin drawing up plans for an invasion/occupation, and then not going through with it, only to hand it off to Obama or whoever.

If it's going to happen, I think it's going to happen before Bush leaves office. But that's completely my opinion, and nothing more.

 

[BrianH]

But a war can start and be continued by the next admin. What do you think Obama is going to do with Iraq? You don't really think he's going to pull out just because he says so, do you?

Basically, a current war can easily be handed off to the next president. But I don't see Bush's admin drawing up plans for an invasion/occupation, and then not going through with it, only to hand it off to Obama or whoever.

If it's going to happen, I think it's going to happen before Bush leaves office. But that's completely my opinion, and nothing more.

That's what I'm saying as well. I'm sure it's a possiblity, but I don't see the point of beating a dead hourse that doesn't exist, if you catch my drift. I don't think Obama will pull out just because he says so, among other things. But I personally don't think Bush will invade Iran with the little time left in his presidency. His goal is to improve his ratings before he's done IMO... based on the already decrease in support from anyone. I'm not trying to say I KNOW what's going to happen--I, as you do, have my own opinion....however, some on these threads seem to post their messages as if they're %100 fact. They're already condemning Bush for invading Iraqn---which is something that hasn't happened yet.

I can understand people speculating the outcome, and/or stating their opinion about their disagreement with an invasion of Iran...but see no point in blaming someone for something that hasn't happened yet.

What I forsee, is him pulling out Osama Bin Laden from a secret prison... But I won't pass judgement yet...lol.

 

[Reality]

The libs and the press don't mind one bit selling out the Country when it is a republican Administration.

And then we have EOTS and others claiming the Government pulled off the 9/11 attacks in secret.

Do you mean like Kissinger reporting to Nixon what was happening in Johnson's negotiations w/ the Vietcong in France?

 

[Reality]

In your delusional world I am sure it was spot on. You get your news from Air America and you expect the mainstream media to present the news as they do?

Well its widely reported Clinton had the chance to kill Bin Laden after terror attacks and he refused to do so. Maybe you should redirect your rants towards Clinton.

No true. He tried to kill him w/ cruise missiles. It failed. He rejected an offer from Sudan to turn him over because, in the administration's view, what the hell where they going to do w/ him. Put him on trial where exactly?

 

[Reality]

Thank you, President Bush, for focusing on attacking the biggest Bin Laden ally and the biggest threat to Israel, Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil list. First we do another Shock and Awe, then do a pincer attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. As for North Korea, I trust our President has made a wise decision in removing North Korea from our list of Axis of Evil, although it's a highly classified secret.

ROFL!!! Bin Laden sees Khomeinei as the ultimate infidel. But do rant on.

 

[sealybobo]

just wait and see how easily obama solves the iraq quagmire. of course that will mean blackwater won't be able to rape the treasury anymore, but that's chaneys problem.

and I can't wait to hear you second guess him when you toed the gw line for all thse yrs. just like you deny clintons greatness.

lie about a war and about politicizing the justice dept, no problem. lie about sex and LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN.

PS here is a new rumor. charlie christ, gov of florida is growing a beard, I mean getting married. dude, he's another gay gop.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

just wait and see how easily obama solves the iraq quagmire. of course that will mean blackwater won't be able to rape the treasury anymore, but that's chaneys problem.

and I can't wait to hear you second guess him when you toed the gw line for all thse yrs. just like you deny clintons greatness.

lie about a war and about politicizing the justice dept, no problem. lie about sex and LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN.

PS here is a new rumor. charlie christ, gov of florida is growing a beard, I mean getting married. dude, he's another gay gop.

I feel sorry for boobs like you. If Obama wins you are either going to be so disappointed we need to put you on suicide watch or so delusional you won't care when Obama does none of the things you think he will do.

 

[BrianH]

just wait and see how easily obama solves the iraq quagmire. of course that will mean blackwater won't be able to rape the treasury anymore, but that's chaneys problem.

and I can't wait to hear you second guess him when you toed the gw line for all thse yrs. just like you deny clintons greatness.

lie about a war and about politicizing the justice dept, no problem. lie about sex and LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN.

PS here is a new rumor. charlie christ, gov of florida is growing a beard, I mean getting married. dude, he's another gay gop.

You're funny...Solve? It's easy to solve something when someone else has done 5 years of the dirty work. I'm sure when the main objective in Iraq is completed, you'll all give props to Obama because it was his idea to invade Iraq... Let me give you some adivce genius...you have a bad habit of predicting futuristic events and either condemning people for them or worshipping the crap out of them. Do you realize how stupid you are? You're giving props to Obama for solving the Iraq "problem" when Obama is, currently, not the president, and obviously (at the moment) not the future president. But just wait, you'll be sorry when Huckabee wins in 2020...