Invasion of Iraq: Questions

[Bern80]

Let's have some more fun with numbers shall we? The really interesting thing is that the above is just democrats. This vote was not a case of the Republicans simply overwhelming the democrats. Over half of the democrats in the senate, according to you, are insane, while just short of half in the house are as well.

Now looks at the congress as a whole. There were a total of 534 congressmen than. 271 Republicans and 261 Democrats and 2 independants.
In total 373 congressman voted for the measure and 156 voted against. Less than half (42&#37 disagreed with this decision.

And unfortunately due to the way are government works you are still only half right, because this or any vote is not determined by what the majority of congress says. It is determined by what the majority of two seperate parts of congress say.

 

[maineman]

Let's have some more fun with numbers shall we? The really interesting thing is that the above is just democrats. This vote was not a case of the Republicans simply overwhelming the democrats. Over half of the democrats in the senate, according to you, are insane, while just short of half in the house are as well.

Now looks at the congress as a whole. There were a total of 534 congressmen than. 271 Republicans and 261 Democrats and 2 independants.
In total 373 congressman voted for the measure and 156 voted against. Less than half (42%) disagreed with this decision.

And unfortunately due to the way are government works you are still only half right, because this or any vote is not determined by what the majority of congress says. It is determined by what the majority of two seperate parts of congress say.

Let's have fun with ethics, shall we? I made a statement...it was correct...you claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. I called you a liar...two minutes after I called you a liar, you edited you post to make it seem like you weren't a liar..... so...from MY perspective...not only are you a liar, but you are an unethical chickenshit liar to boot.


how's that work for ya?

 

[maineman]

There were a total of 534 congressmen than. 271 Republicans and 261 Democrats and 2 independants.
In total 373 congressman voted for the measure and 156 voted against. Less than half (42%) disagreed with this decision.

And how many of those 156 were democrats, and how many were republicans? and how many of those 373 are wishing that they had voted the other way?

The fact remains: republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for this war while a majority of democrats were against it.

And America knows that....

and that is why they booted your asses out of the majority in congress this past November...

and that is why they will boot your asses out of the white house in '08.

YOur party has driven the car into the ditch. It is time to take the keys away...it is time to make you all go sit in the corner for a much deserved time out.

 

[Bern80]

Let's have fun with ethics, shall we? I made a statement...it was correct...you claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. I called you a liar...two minutes after I called you a liar, you edited you post to make it seem like you weren't a liar..... so...from MY perspective...not only are you a liar, but you are an unethical chickenshit liar to boot.


how's that work for ya?

Are you upset about something? Cause I really can't tell. Did I catch my error? yes. I even caught it before you posted it (though you won't believe that). I tend to be careful about that kind of thing.

You were correct about your statement, but unfortunately in practical terms it doesn't mean anything, because that is not the way our two bodies conduct business. Did the majority of democratic congressman vote against this? Yes. Did the majority of dem representatives vote against it? yes, again. Did the majority of dem senators? No. Wether you want to admit it or not that fact is important, because of the two bodies, the senate is the more powerful one. And even the house just barely more than half of the dem reps voted against it. It wasn't the landslide you're making it out to be.

 

[Bern80]

And how many of those 156 were democrats, and how many were republicans?

146 dems, 9 reps and 1 independent

The fact remains: republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for this war while a majority of democrats were against it.

by a whopping 6%? Quite the clear, unified opposition.

 

[maineman]

Are you upset about something? Cause I really can't tell. Did I catch my error? yes. I even caught it before you posted it (though you won't believe that). I tend to be careful about that kind of thing.

You were correct about your statement, but unfortunately in practical terms it doesn't mean anything, because that is not the way our two bodies conduct business. Did the majority of democratic congressman vote against this? Yes. Did the majority of dem representatives vote against it? yes, again. Did the majority of dem senators? No. Wether you want to admit it or not that fact is important, because of the two bodies, the senate is the more powerful one. And even the house just barely more than half of the dem reps voted against it. It wasn't the landslide you're making it out to be.

it is what is was...the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support of this war, while a majority of elected democrats were against it.

America is aware of this. that is why you are no longer in the majority.

 

[maineman]

146 dems, 9 reps and 1 independent



by a whopping 6%? Quite the clear, unified opposition.

Bush beat Kerry by less than 6% and you all claimed a mandate.

but hell... Bush got BEAT by Gore and you STILL claimed a mandate

 

[Bern80]

it is what is was...the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support of this war, while a majority of elected democrats were against it.

America is aware of this. that is why you are no longer in the majority.

I also think you need to remind yourself that you're viewing this the way many of your back stabbing dem cronies are and that is through the the oh so 'astute' 20/20 lenses of hindsight.

 

[Bern80]

Bush beat Kerry by less than 6% and you all claimed a mandate.

1) I never claimed to be a Republican so you can stop the lumping in.

2) I honestly don't recall that because by definition that is not a mandate.

but hell... Bush got BEAT by Gore and you STILL claimed a mandate

Another example of the system just not working out for the poor dems

 

[maineman]

1) I never claimed to be a Republican so you can stop the lumping in.

2) I honestly don't recall that because by definition that is not a mandate.



Another example of the system just not working out for the poor dems

what goes around comes around.

the "system" is poised to send the republican party to the back of the room.

about time, from my perspective.

 

[maineman]

I also think you need to remind yourself that you're viewing this the way many of your back stabbing dem cronies are and that is through the the oh so 'astute' 20/20 lenses of hindsight.

up yours...I have been vocally against this war from day one. I KNEW that sunnis and shiites in Iraq were gonna get into a bloodbath but nobody listened. I LIVED in the middle east...I WORKED with terrorists from every faction. There was no way in hell that we were gonna establish a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates regardless of the rosy picture the PNAC neocons painted...and I knew this... there is no "hindsight" in play with this fella. I knew all along and I was saying so.

 

[Bern80]

what goes around comes around.

the "system" is poised to send the republican party to the back of the room.

about time, from my perspective.

and your perspective is a dishonest one. Again you are looking at this whole situation based on what you know now the exact same thing all the dems are doing. Not one of them from Hillary on down are taking any responsibility for the fact that they were as much responsible for troops being over there as the President and in fact more responsible because he couldn't have done it w/o their approval.

Do I like being over there knowing what I know now. Not really. What do we know now? I would say it boils down to that Saddam was not quite as immenent a threat as we thought. Our other mistake was thinking that those morons over there could actually get along with each other. But to make it out that the 'all wise' democrats knew better all along is disingenuous.

 

[Bern80]

okay all debating aside you and I need to make an agreement that we will wait a good 20 minutes for a response from other

 

[maineman]

and your perspective is a dishonest one. Again you are looking at this whole situation based on what you know now the exact same thing all the dems are doing. Not one of them from Hillary on down are taking any responsibility for the fact that they were as much responsible for troops being over there as the President and in fact more responsible because he couldn't have done it w/o their approval.

Do I like being over there knowing what I know now. Not really. What do we know now? I would say it boils down to that Saddam was not quite as immenent a threat as we thought. Our other mistake was thinking that those morons over there could actually get along with each other. But to make it out that the 'all wise' democrats knew better all along is disingenuous.

my perspective is an accurate one. I was pissed off at the minority of democrats who voted for the use of force resolution because I KNEW it was stupid...i knew it then and i was right...

and I DID know that those morons would not get along...and said so...over and over again.

 

[Bern80]

up yours...I have been vocally against this war from day one. I KNEW that sunnis and shiites in Iraq were gonna get into a bloodbath but nobody listened. I LIVED in the middle east...I WORKED with terrorists from every faction. There was no way in hell that we were gonna establish a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates regardless of the rosy picture the PNAC neocons painted...and I knew this... there is no "hindsight" in play with this fella. I knew all along and I was saying so.

And in that I would somewhat agree with just leaving the area. We can leave that entire group of adolescent, intolerant children to annihilate each other then we can move in, make it the 51st of the union and call it 'oil'.

 

[maineman]

And in that I would somewhat agree with just leaving the area. We can leave that entire group of adolescent, intolerant children to annihilate each other then we can move in, make it the 51st of the union and call it 'oil'.

there were enough of us who had lived over there telling anyone who would listen that sunnis and shiites in Iraq were spoiling for a fight, just like they were in Lebanon..... but the PNAC crowd would have none of it.

 

[sitarro]

there were enough of us who had lived over there telling anyone who would listen that sunnis and shiites in Iraq were spoiling for a fight, just like they were in Lebanon..... but the PNAC crowd would have none of it.

I always thought Bully was the most obnoxiously negative poster on this board but in your short time here you have easily overtaken him on a number of levels.

I used to threaten to join the Navy when I wanted to piss off my dad years ago. He, a decorated U.S. Air Force fighter pilot of 29 years, told me he would disown me if I did. If you represent the United States Navy, I now understand.

 

[Bern80]

there were enough of us who had lived over there telling anyone who would listen that sunnis and shiites in Iraq were spoiling for a fight, just like they were in Lebanon..... but the PNAC crowd would have none of it.

You see we can agree on something. I will be the first to admit that I was of the mindset that as soon as they get a taste of freedom everything will work out. I mean who's not for freedom? Well apparently they aren't and I just game them too much credit.

What I have come to realize is that we are dealing with the most intolerant culture in the world, yes even more so than old white guys. So, intolerant that certain groups believe they need to kill anyone who doesn't think the way they do. So what do we do about that? I don't think it something to be passive about because as Churchill once said all that does is reflect the hope that you get attacked last.

I don't know maybe Bush knew exaclty what you knew, but was able to see a few steps farther in that given their intolerance it was only a matter of time until they attack Western society en masse. Instead of allowing them to keep bring the war to us like on 9/11, he decided the theatre would be over there instead of on our soil. Draw them all there instead of here.

 

[maineman]

I always thought Bully was the most obnoxiously negative poster on this board but in your short time here you have easily overtaken him on a number of levels.

I used to threaten to join the Navy when I wanted to piss off my dad years ago. He, a decorated U.S. Air Force fighter pilot of 29 years, told me he would disown me if I did. If you represent the United States Navy, I now understand.

so...you can insult at a mediocre level. what else ya got?

the fact is: I have been against this war since before it started and I have always said that the idea of a jeffersonian democracy in Iraq was a total fairy tale. I was right...you and your pissant president were wrong.

too bad.

 

[maineman]

You see we can agree on something. I will be the first to admit that I was of the mindset that as soon as they get a taste of freedom everything will work out. I mean who's not for freedom? Well apparently they aren't and I just game them too much credit.

What I have come to realize is that we are dealing with the most intolerant culture in the world, yes even more so than old white guys. So, intolerant that certain groups believe they need to kill anyone who doesn't think the way they do. So what do we do about that? I don't think it something to be passive about because as Churchill once said all that does is reflect the hope that you get attacked last.

I don't know maybe Bush knew exaclty what you knew, but was able to see a few steps farther in that given their intolerance it was only a matter of time until they attack Western society en masse. Instead of allowing them to keep bring the war to us like on 9/11, he decided the theatre would be over there instead of on our soil. Draw them all there instead of here.

I think you give Bush way too much credit...hell, by some accounts, he was unaware that islam had different sects.

I believe we have an enemy: radical extreme islam. that enemy needs to convince the arab street that it has their best interests at heart. Saddam was a bad bad guy but, like it or not, he did a few things better than we have been able to do and we would be better off today if we had let him keep doing them: 1. he kept those same islamic extremists from gaining a foothold in Iraq (we have failed at this) 2. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering each other (we have failed at this, and many middle eastern leaders feel that the carnage we have set in motion in Iraq may very well spread to Lebanon and the palestinian territories in a very short period of time....ooops) 3. He kept Iran in check vis a vis their aspirations for regional hegemony and dominance. (we have failed at this as well, and the mess with hezbollah in lebanon is proof of the growing influence of Iran in the region now that Saddam is gone). With Saddam gone, we have lost on several fronts and radical islam - and Iran - have been the benefactor of our fuckups.