HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Of course they aren't identical...one is the good cop and the other is the bad cop...but they are the same in their collective agenda that transpires regardless of whether the good cop or the bad cop is in power.
The problem with this analogy is that its conclusions don't hold when the model is scaled down. I agree that voting Democrat often amounts to choosing the lesser of two evils, but the same "good cop/bad cop" situations you're observing occur in politics on nearly every level, from national to local. Are you suggesting that a mayoral election winner in some small town in bumfuck, USA is immediately briefed on protocol relating to the vast political conspiracy that renders partisanship an illusion?
Not to mention that such a conspiracy, being passed down from generation to generation while still maintaining its general integrity, would seem to defy human nature. Conceptualizing such a long-running conspiracy, on such a grand scale, is beyond our abilities.
I know what you're thinking too, the whole plan was actually hatched by aliens!
Conspiracy theorists are the secular version of creationists. Fuckin' politics, how do they work?
How about just voicing your opinion and stop trying to tell me what mine is?
This whole, if I say a. Democrats and Republicans work as a team, then it means it's coming from b. aliens made it so...is you being a jackass and that's it.
But yes, high level Democrat and Republican politicians are members of seemingly different groups with seemingly different agendas. But then many of those same Democrats and Republicans are part of think-tanks and such, including say the Council on Foreign Relations, that obviously trump their allegiences to elephants and donkeys.
One is assigned to talk on one side of the issue, the other is assigned to talk on the other side of the issue...so that a pre-desired synthesis between the 2 is chieved. It's called a Hegelian dialectic. And while it is tricky to pull something off, the degree with which it is done proves that it doesn't take the intelligence of aliens who can readily travel the cosmos to pull it off.
Bush Sr. bombed Baghdad, Clinton bombed Baghdad, Bush Jr. bombed Baghdad, and Obama has bombed Baghdad. Sorry to simplify things rather than make them more complex...but why again are we supposed to believe that any of these dudes have ever been against bombing Baghdad?
Because of empty words????
I'm Jimi Handrix reincarnated. Do you believe that just because I said it?
The Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton was pushed through by a few members of Congress. Clinton was never going to go to war with Iraq. He wasset on containment with sanctions and the no fly zones. They would bomb Iraq when they didn't comply with the U.N. inspections.
At the beginning of the Bush administration it was split in two between people like Colin Powell who wanted to continue on with sanctions and others like Dep. Sec. of Def. Wolfowitz who wanted to overthrow Saddam because of the Gulf War. Nothing happened until after 9/11 when those who wanted to get rid of Saddam convinced Bush of their position.
The current administration just wants to get out.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Clinton's administration bombed Iraq on the regular, regardless of whether war was ever re-declared. Dead bodies, especially when its civilians, equals war way more than any stupid signed piece of paper ever could.
It's amazing how people claim to know with absolute certainty what "would have happened" had Gore won over Bush.
Where do I sign up to get these superpowers? I too would like to be omniscient in all possible timelines.
Lacking omniscience you could always just go on the laws they signed, the votes they cast, the speeches they gave and the bombs they dropped.
Or you could pretend they were meaningless.
I don't have to pretend that the words of politicians are meaningless. I've learned that they ARE meaningless. Until actual actions are taken I don't count on them.
Your certainty about what would have happened in this alternative timeline is the silliest shit I've read this week.
It's amazing how people claim to know with absolute certainty what "would have happened" had Gore won over Bush.
Where do I sign up to get these superpowers? I too would like to be omniscient in all possible timelines.
Lacking omniscience you could always just go on the laws they signed, the votes they cast, the speeches they gave and the bombs they dropped.
Or you could pretend they were meaningless.
I don't have to pretend that the words of politicians are meaningless. I've learned that they ARE meaningless. Until actual actions are taken I don't count on them.
Your certainty about what would have happened in this alternative timeline is the silliest shit I've read this week.
It's not as silly as your parallel universe in which bombing is not an action.
It's amazing how people claim to know with absolute certainty what "would have happened" had Gore won over Bush.
Where do I sign up to get these superpowers? I too would like to be omniscient in all possible timelines.
Lacking omniscience you could always just go on the laws they signed, the votes they cast, the speeches they gave and the bombs they dropped.
Or you could pretend they were meaningless.
I don't have to pretend that the words of politicians are meaningless. I've learned that they ARE meaningless. Until actual actions are taken I don't count on them.
Your certainty about what would have happened in this alternative timeline is the silliest shit I've read this week.
It's not as silly as your parallel universe in which bombing is not an action.
Reagan bombed Libya. He didn't invade Libya.
There's a difference between a few bombs and an actual invasion that sober observers can appreciate.
The Iraq Liberation Act like ALL legislation passed is led by a few people who get it through the proper committees and then get it onto the floor for a vote. When it was finally put up by the House and Senate it had gone through the process, and was a non-controversial bill so there was hardly any partisan politics playing around that would delay it. Most people in Congress agreed Saddam was a bad guy so it was passed overwhelmingly. That doesn't mean "a few members of Congress" didn't push it through.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
There's a difference between a few bombs and an actual invasion that sober observers can appreciate.
Not to those being killed by those few bombs, which can be shot out of bazookas, cannons, tanks, etc. by the way. 50,000 US troops in Iraq aren't just training locals to make hamburgers, I promise.
Plus, all of that depleted uranium is no good for anybody.
The US makes the bombs, the US finds excuses for those bombs to be used, and those bombs kill people. But you want to play political back-and-forth instead of giving a shit. Don't know how you got on this board, but plaese to go away.
One is assigned to talk on one side of the issue, the other is assigned to talk on the other side of the issue...so that a pre-desired synthesis between the 2 is chieved. It's called a Hegelian dialectic. And while it is tricky to pull something off, the degree with which it is done proves that it doesn't take the intelligence of aliens who can readily travel the cosmos to pull it off.
Hegelian dialectic is to partisan politics in the U.S. as Socratic dialogue is to this conversation.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton was pushed through by a few members of Congress.
The vote was 360 for to 38 against with 36 not voting.
The Iraq Liberation Act like ALL legislation passed is led by a few people who get it through the proper committees and then get it onto the floor for a vote. When it was finally put up by the House and Senate it had gone through the process, and was a non-controversial bill so there was hardly any partisan politics playing around that would delay it. Most people in Congress agreed Saddam was a bad guy so it was passed overwhelmingly. That doesn't mean "a few members of Congress" didn't push it through.
In other words, only hold Republican accountable when they vote FOR senseless war, but not Democrats?
That's what I'm hearing at least. An excuse a minute, I swear.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Do I need to start posting photos of Iraqi babies born with severe birth defects due to exposure to depleted uranium in order to attempt to sway any of you into realizing that whether it's by the hands of a Republican or Democrat regime, or in Iraq or Afghanistan that this shit needs to stop?
We're all Americans, right? Well, those babies don't give a fuck who is president here...the unjust wars continue. And here you assjacks are playing apologists for THAT.
Motown, I know that ultimately your heart is in the right place, but not all of us have the patience to deal with excuse after excuse out of Washington on why we have to be murdering people all of the time. And that's really my point...it's not politics anywhere close to it being straight up MURDER that needs to stop YESTERDAY!
Harvey I never said what party pushed through the act that's your own biased reading.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Only bias I have is against senseless war. I criticize and reject Republicans every bit as much as I criticize and reject Democrats. Neither are right and both are wrong on this shit and we gotta quit being fooled into taking petty sides as millions across the world die by the hands of our government/military.
Harvey from what I remember the Clinton administration bombed Iraq only twice, 1996 and 1998. In 1996 it lasted for one day, in 1998 it was for 3 days. Both times they went after military and government targets. In 1998 for example, the Iraqi intelligence building got hit, and I believe it was at nighttime when hardly anyone was in there. Four days worth of bombing during an 8 year administration is not a war. Plus we can talk about what led to each attack, but I'm sure it will not matter to you.
The Iraq Liberation Act like ALL legislation passed is led by a few people who get it through the proper committees and then get it onto the floor for a vote. When it was finally put up by the House and Senate it had gone through the process, and was a non-controversial bill so there was hardly any partisan politics playing around that would delay it. Most people in Congress agreed Saddam was a bad guy so it was passed overwhelmingly. That doesn't mean "a few members of Congress" didn't push it through.
In other words, only hold Republican accountable when they vote FOR senseless war, but not Democrats?
That's what I'm hearing at least. An excuse a minute, I swear.
The Iraq Liberation Act did not authorize a war.
You could look it up.
Democrats held Hilary Clinton to account in 2008 by not giving her the nomination. Her vote in favor of the war in Iraq was the most important factor in that outcome.
Would Al Gore have been crazy and stupid enough to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq? I can't say for sure and neither can anyone else. Then again I'm not sure 9/11 would have happened if Gore had been elected and we had an Attorney General who was more concerned about terrorism and less concerned about tits on statues.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Harvey from what I remember the Clinton administration bombed Iraq only twice, 1996 and 1998. In 1996 it lasted for one day, in 1998 it was for 3 days. Both times they went after military and government targets. In 1998 for example, the Iraqi intelligence building got hit, and I believe it was at nighttime when hardly anyone was in there. Four days worth of bombing during an 8 year administration is not a war. Plus we can talk about what led to each attack, but I'm sure it will not matter to you.
I don't assume we are told everything. I don't assume that everything that happens in the world is in the newspapers or the internet. But I will say that my memory is that of a lot more bombings than just 2 that were reported by US news sources during Clinton's administration.
Harvey from what I remember the Clinton administration bombed Iraq only twice, 1996 and 1998. In 1996 it lasted for one day, in 1998 it was for 3 days. Both times they went after military and government targets. In 1998 for example, the Iraqi intelligence building got hit, and I believe it was at nighttime when hardly anyone was in there. Four days worth of bombing during an 8 year administration is not a war. Plus we can talk about what led to each attack, but I'm sure it will not matter to you.
I don't assume we are told everything. I don't assume that everything that happens in the world is in the newspapers or the internet. But I will say that my memory is that of a lot more bombings than just 2 that were reported by US news sources during Clinton's administration.
Jeez. Too bad there isn't a magic box available that you could use to look information up to support or debunk what your memory is telling you. 'Cause that would totally come in handy at times like these.
Harvey from what I remember the Clinton administration bombed Iraq only twice, 1996 and 1998. In 1996 it lasted for one day, in 1998 it was for 3 days. Both times they went after military and government targets. In 1998 for example, the Iraqi intelligence building got hit, and I believe it was at nighttime when hardly anyone was in there. Four days worth of bombing during an 8 year administration is not a war. Plus we can talk about what led to each attack, but I'm sure it will not matter to you.
I don't assume we are told everything. I don't assume that everything that happens in the world is in the newspapers or the internet. But I will say that my memory is that of a lot more bombings than just 2 that were reported by US news sources during Clinton's administration.
Jeez. Too bad there isn't a magic box available that you could use to look information up to support or debunk what your memory is telling you. 'Cause that would totally come in handy at times like these.
Oh, he doesn't need that box. He has friends who tell him his facts.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Harvey from what I remember the Clinton administration bombed Iraq only twice, 1996 and 1998. In 1996 it lasted for one day, in 1998 it was for 3 days. Both times they went after military and government targets. In 1998 for example, the Iraqi intelligence building got hit, and I believe it was at nighttime when hardly anyone was in there. Four days worth of bombing during an 8 year administration is not a war. Plus we can talk about what led to each attack, but I'm sure it will not matter to you.
I don't assume we are told everything. I don't assume that everything that happens in the world is in the newspapers or the internet. But I will say that my memory is that of a lot more bombings than just 2 that were reported by US news sources during Clinton's administration.
Jeez. Too bad there isn't a magic box available that you could use to look information up to support or debunk what your memory is telling you. 'Cause that would totally come in handy at times like these.
What difference does it make? What bombs did or didn't do...sanctions took care of. Yay, children don't get to eat or have acces to medicine because some dickhead wants to drive a vehicle that only gets 10 miles per gallon. Millions are dead and you want to argue semantics. Again, buzz off...you are new here and already unwelcomed.
Democrats held Hilary Clinton to account in 2008 by not giving her the nomination. Her vote in favor of the war in Iraq was the most important factor in that outcome.
So they gave Hilary a job washing dishes in the White House cafeteria.
Find any good records lately??
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Why don't you look it up then.
Because I clearly remember watching on CNN as the bomb squad removed undetonated bombs as the first recovery act after the Murrah Building exploded in Oklahoma City. That's how the newscasters were clearly describing it and again that's exactly what I watched on a live feed. But after the fact, that bomb squad activity isn't to be found anywhere that I could now look it up. Well, actually that info is on the net but not from any source you would bother to respect. And that's how shit works around here. The whole truth gets diminished more often than people even begin to realize.
I did, section 4(a)(2)) clearly authorizes the use of the military to remove Saddam. Of course I'm sure what they really meant was to just ask him politely to leave office and turn the government over to his enemies whom he had been slaughtering up until that point.
Democrats held Hilary Clinton to account in 2008 by not giving her the nomination. Her vote in favor of the war in Iraq was the most important factor in that outcome.
And you 'know' this how? I guess you did find the key to omniscience after all.
Democrats held Hilary Clinton to account in 2008 by not giving her the nomination. Her vote in favor of the war in Iraq was the most important factor in that outcome.
So they gave Hilary a job washing dishes in the White House cafeteria.
Find any good records lately??
She's doing an excellent job, too, no soapstains.
b/w
Not so many. Dry spell but I haven't been looking too hard.
I did, section 4(a)(2)) clearly authorizes the use of the military to remove Saddam. Of course I'm sure what they really meant was to just ask him politely to leave office and turn the government over to his enemies whom he had been slaughtering up until that point.
Democrats held Hilary Clinton to account in 2008 by not giving her the nomination. Her vote in favor of the war in Iraq was the most important factor in that outcome.
And you 'know' this how? I guess you did find the key to omniscience after all.
I know it because it was the conventional wisdom in a timeline that actually occurred. It's not like I'm making it up.
As for 4 (a)(2) I have to disagree with your notion of "clearly":
"The Act also said that:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Section 4(a)(2) states:
The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations."
This doesn't authorize a war, just limited actions like the above-mentioned 3 day bombing. If it authorized a war Bush wouldn't have needed to go back to Congress for his eventual invasion.
Comments
Lacking omniscience you could always just go on the laws they signed, the votes they cast, the speeches they gave and the bombs they dropped.
Or you could pretend they were meaningless.
I thought it was our freedoms.
How about just voicing your opinion and stop trying to tell me what mine is?
This whole, if I say a. Democrats and Republicans work as a team, then it means it's coming from b. aliens made it so...is you being a jackass and that's it.
But yes, high level Democrat and Republican politicians are members of seemingly different groups with seemingly different agendas. But then many of those same Democrats and Republicans are part of think-tanks and such, including say the Council on Foreign Relations, that obviously trump their allegiences to elephants and donkeys.
One is assigned to talk on one side of the issue, the other is assigned to talk on the other side of the issue...so that a pre-desired synthesis between the 2 is chieved. It's called a Hegelian dialectic. And while it is tricky to pull something off, the degree with which it is done proves that it doesn't take the intelligence of aliens who can readily travel the cosmos to pull it off.
Bush Sr. bombed Baghdad, Clinton bombed Baghdad, Bush Jr. bombed Baghdad, and Obama has bombed Baghdad. Sorry to simplify things rather than make them more complex...but why again are we supposed to believe that any of these dudes have ever been against bombing Baghdad?
Because of empty words????
I'm Jimi Handrix reincarnated. Do you believe that just because I said it?
At the beginning of the Bush administration it was split in two between people like Colin Powell who wanted to continue on with sanctions and others like Dep. Sec. of Def. Wolfowitz who wanted to overthrow Saddam because of the Gulf War. Nothing happened until after 9/11 when those who wanted to get rid of Saddam convinced Bush of their position.
The current administration just wants to get out.
I don't have to pretend that the words of politicians are meaningless. I've learned that they ARE meaningless. Until actual actions are taken I don't count on them.
Your certainty about what would have happened in this alternative timeline is the silliest shit I've read this week.
The vote was 360 for to 38 against with 36 not voting.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml
Not what I would call a 'few'.
When did this happen?
It would be big news.
It's not as silly as your parallel universe in which bombing is not an action.
Reagan bombed Libya. He didn't invade Libya.
There's a difference between a few bombs and an actual invasion that sober observers can appreciate.
The Iraq Liberation Act like ALL legislation passed is led by a few people who get it through the proper committees and then get it onto the floor for a vote. When it was finally put up by the House and Senate it had gone through the process, and was a non-controversial bill so there was hardly any partisan politics playing around that would delay it. Most people in Congress agreed Saddam was a bad guy so it was passed overwhelmingly. That doesn't mean "a few members of Congress" didn't push it through.
Not to those being killed by those few bombs, which can be shot out of bazookas, cannons, tanks, etc. by the way. 50,000 US troops in Iraq aren't just training locals to make hamburgers, I promise.
Plus, all of that depleted uranium is no good for anybody.
The US makes the bombs, the US finds excuses for those bombs to be used, and those bombs kill people. But you want to play political back-and-forth instead of giving a shit. Don't know how you got on this board, but plaese to go away.
Hegelian dialectic is to partisan politics in the U.S. as Socratic dialogue is to this conversation.
In other words, only hold Republican accountable when they vote FOR senseless war, but not Democrats?
That's what I'm hearing at least. An excuse a minute, I swear.
We're all Americans, right? Well, those babies don't give a fuck who is president here...the unjust wars continue. And here you assjacks are playing apologists for THAT.
Motown, I know that ultimately your heart is in the right place, but not all of us have the patience to deal with excuse after excuse out of Washington on why we have to be murdering people all of the time. And that's really my point...it's not politics anywhere close to it being straight up MURDER that needs to stop YESTERDAY!
The Iraq Liberation Act did not authorize a war.
You could look it up.
Democrats held Hilary Clinton to account in 2008 by not giving her the nomination. Her vote in favor of the war in Iraq was the most important factor in that outcome.
Would Al Gore have been crazy and stupid enough to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq? I can't say for sure and neither can anyone else. Then again I'm not sure 9/11 would have happened if Gore had been elected and we had an Attorney General who was more concerned about terrorism and less concerned about tits on statues.
I don't assume we are told everything. I don't assume that everything that happens in the world is in the newspapers or the internet. But I will say that my memory is that of a lot more bombings than just 2 that were reported by US news sources during Clinton's administration.
Jeez. Too bad there isn't a magic box available that you could use to look information up to support or debunk what your memory is telling you. 'Cause that would totally come in handy at times like these.
Oh, he doesn't need that box. He has friends who tell him his facts.
What difference does it make? What bombs did or didn't do...sanctions took care of. Yay, children don't get to eat or have acces to medicine because some dickhead wants to drive a vehicle that only gets 10 miles per gallon. Millions are dead and you want to argue semantics. Again, buzz off...you are new here and already unwelcomed.
So they gave Hilary a job washing dishes in the White House cafeteria.
Find any good records lately??
Because I clearly remember watching on CNN as the bomb squad removed undetonated bombs as the first recovery act after the Murrah Building exploded in Oklahoma City. That's how the newscasters were clearly describing it and again that's exactly what I watched on a live feed. But after the fact, that bomb squad activity isn't to be found anywhere that I could now look it up. Well, actually that info is on the net but not from any source you would bother to respect. And that's how shit works around here. The whole truth gets diminished more often than people even begin to realize.
I did, section 4(a)(2)) clearly authorizes the use of the military to remove Saddam. Of course I'm sure what they really meant was to just ask him politely to leave office and turn the government over to his enemies whom he had been slaughtering up until that point.
And you 'know' this how? I guess you did find the key to omniscience after all.
She's doing an excellent job, too, no soapstains.
b/w
Not so many. Dry spell but I haven't been looking too hard.
I know it because it was the conventional wisdom in a timeline that actually occurred. It's not like I'm making it up.
As for 4 (a)(2) I have to disagree with your notion of "clearly":
"The Act also said that:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Section 4(a)(2) states:
The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations."
This doesn't authorize a war, just limited actions like the above-mentioned 3 day bombing. If it authorized a war Bush wouldn't have needed to go back to Congress for his eventual invasion.