Which side are you on, Obama? - Sentinel & Enterprise

[Elmer Fudd]

oh please just shut up blah blah blah

[Logic]

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>I am surprised that you haven't noticed that Christian wars throughout history managed to destroy roughly one percent of lives and property destroyed by avowed secularists in the Twentieth Century alone. Right now, in fact, Chinese communists are in the umpteenth year of war against the religious culture of Tibet. Tibet is a pretty big place and a venerable culture. Russia held its thumb on the Russian Orthodox Church for how long, seventy years? There is Vietnam, Cambodia, Peru, Sri Lanka, and a million other little wars in which -guess who - secularists are killing religious folk. Of course, the great tragedy is in the Horn of Africa where communist governments created chaos. Those communist governments are mostly gone. Now it is Muslims killing rural Christians and animists.
Bush did not rush into war, but did petition, remonstrate, and otherwise take every reasonable action to prevent its occurrence. However, defensive action was necessary to thwart the aims of a tyrant intent on total surrender of all rights and liberties on unconditional submission by those under his authority. Do you not recall Saddam Hussein’s aim to brutally take over Kuwait and all its oil fields? Do you not recall Saddam Hussein gassing and killing thousands and thousands of Iraq’s?
Jesus himself provided the means and justification for his disciples to defend themselves in Luke 22:36 where the privilege of defense in a wicked world is mandated in addition to spiritual protection:
"Now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Odd that you defend W's behavior by saying that since russian and Chinese totalarians did it, it's ok. Why do you want us to be like the soviets and the red Chinese?

Also, you lied. W did not exhaust all possibilities before invading Iraq. He made the decision to invade before even being sworn in, and would not get approval from the UN even though he was claiming to enforce UN sanctions.

[Stamos]

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
Odd that you defend W's behavior by saying that since russian and Chinese totalarians did it, it's ok. Why do you want us to be like the soviets and the red Chinese?
Also, you lied. W did not exhaust all possibilities before invading Iraq. He made the decision to invade before even being sworn in, and would not get approval from the UN even though he was claiming to enforce UN sanctions.

. Your argument can only be made by ignoring the 12 years of failed diplomacy that led up to the war.
Security Council Resolution 1441 was the culmination of an eleven year effort to use diplomatic means to secure Iraq’s compliance with international law, specifically with the arms control agreements that had constituted the Gulf War truce, which allowed Saddam to stay in power. The Security Council ruled that Iraq had broken the terms of the truce and was in violation of international law.
The ultimatum offered Saddam “a final opportunity” to comply with the truce or face “serious consequences”
Resolution 1441 gave Saddam a 30 day deadline to comply and 12 days after that deadline passed Bush and Blair issued a statement claiming Iraq was in “material breach” of the ultimatum.
Twelve years of defiance and obstruction leading up to and including that deadline had established the fact that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to observe the arms agreement in the resolution.
Even then Bush was prepared to forgo the war if Saddam Hussein and his sons left the country and went into exile, thus allowing the terms of the UN resolution to be met.
That “eve-of war” ultimatum which is universally ignored by your anti-war crowd, was motivated by the administrations belief that Saddam’s defiant behavior made further negations with him futile and regime change was necessary.
The war was approved and justified and was used as a power grab by the Democratic party who have been overcome by the radical left “blame America first” crowd.

[Logic]

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>. Your argument can only be made by ignoring the 12 years of failed diplomacy that led up to the war.
Security Council Resolution 1441 was the culmination of an eleven year effort to use diplomatic means to secure Iraq’s compliance with international law, specifically with the arms control agreements that had constituted the Gulf War truce, which allowed Saddam to stay in power. The Security Council ruled that Iraq had broken the terms of the truce and was in violation of international law.
The ultimatum offered Saddam “a final opportunity” to comply with the truce or face “serious consequences”
Resolution 1441 gave Saddam a 30 day deadline to comply and 12 days after that deadline passed Bush and Blair issued a statement claiming Iraq was in “material breach” of the ultimatum.
Twelve years of defiance and obstruction leading up to and including that deadline had established the fact that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to observe the arms agreement in the resolution.
Even then Bush was prepared to forgo the war if Saddam Hussein and his sons left the country and went into exile, thus allowing the terms of the UN resolution to be met.
That “eve-of war” ultimatum which is universally ignored by your anti-war crowd, was motivated by the administrations belief that Saddam’s defiant behavior made further negations with him futile and regime change was necessary.
The war was approved and justified and was used as a power grab by the Democratic party who have been overcome by the radical left “blame America first” crowd.

Again, you lie.

The UN never approved the invasion, putting Bush in violation of international law. You say it's OK to violate law simply claiming to enforce it?

Saddam actually did offer to go into exile to avert war. That was not good enough for W.

He claimed "political Capitol", and he was going to spend it.

[Stamos]

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you lie.
The UN never approved the invasion, putting Bush in violation of international law. You say it's OK to violate law simply claiming to enforce it?
Saddam actually did offer to go into exile to avert war. That was not good enough for W.
He claimed "political Capitol", and he was going to spend it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middl...

[Elmer Fudd]

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middl...

their you go again with the worthless links that no one cares to see
Stamos ,...get a life

[Logic]

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middl...

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archive...

[Stamos]

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archive...

I find it amusing how you Liberals like to re-write history. You make a straw man argument – inventing your own reasons why we went to war in Iraq in order to refute them. But why muck up a partisan story line with inconvenient facts? Far easier to ignore the facts and make your case without them.

As is stated in the link you provided,
"UAE officials did not produce any evidence to back up the claim, and they stressed that Saddam's certain cooperation was far from guaranteed."
Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak says in the film that the US had signaled its support for the proposal.
http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/81062/

"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing." George W. Bush
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/000000...

[Logic]

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it amusing how you Liberals like to re-write history. You make a straw man argument – inventing your own reasons why we went to war in Iraq in order to refute them.

I don't need to invent anything. W gave 16 different reasons for invading Iraq. We had a new excuse every month. Which one would you care to defend?

[Bacchus]

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't need to invent anything. W gave 16 different reasons for invading Iraq. We had a new excuse every month. Which one would you care to defend?

The one where Obsama flip=flopped, and had to AGAIN explain "what I meant,
....by what I said"....

Which one tripped him up?

[Daniel P from Long Island]

For those of you who oppose the invasion of Iraq, let me remind you that many liberals said, with good reason, that Saddam was a monstrous murderer comparable to Hitler.

So therefore I take it that since you are opposed to the invasion of Iraq, that you also think that the U.S. was wrong in invading Germany in WWII, since it was Japan that attacked us, and not Germany, correct ?

[Bacchus]

Jim wrote:

Obama is belittling our great nation daily. Stimulis was a joke, health care is a joke, obama flying all over the world is joke, when you can't take care of your own country and wants to give billions of dollars out to countries that hate us, something is wrong. When Obama can show his legal birth certificate, maybe a might look at him a little different. But, I doubt it. He has an agenda, and is trying very hard to get it done quickly, beware-beware-beware. He's a muslim, and alot of people know this to be true---BEWARE,,,Obama raises alot of falsehood.........

Notice how he SAID "you won't SEE your taxes increases",
....and then slipped 20.3 MILLION dollars to Hamas refugees 18 pages into a piece of obscure "legislation"?

http://www.bing.com/search...

lol.....Believe in THAT.
Every time he screws us, his blind supporters blame BUSH....lmao!!!!
I through HOPING for "change"....

[Max Frost]

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>I am surprised that you haven't noticed that Christian wars throughout history managed to destroy roughly one percent of lives and property destroyed by avowed secularists in the Twentieth Century alone. Right now, in fact, Chinese communists are in the umpteenth year of war against the religious culture of Tibet. Tibet is a pretty big place and a venerable culture. Russia held its thumb on the Russian Orthodox Church for how long, seventy years? There is Vietnam, Cambodia, Peru, Sri Lanka, and a million other little wars in which -guess who - secularists are killing religious folk. Of course, the great tragedy is in the Horn of Africa where communist governments created chaos. Those communist governments are mostly gone. Now it is Muslims killing rural Christians and animists.
Bush did not rush into war, but did petition, remonstrate, and otherwise take every reasonable action to prevent its occurrence. However, defensive action was necessary to thwart the aims of a tyrant intent on total surrender of all rights and liberties on unconditional submission by those under his authority. Do you not recall Saddam Hussein’s aim to brutally take over Kuwait and all its oil fields? Do you not recall Saddam Hussein gassing and killing thousands and thousands of Iraq’s?
Jesus himself provided the means and justification for his disciples to defend themselves in Luke 22:36 where the privilege of defense in a wicked world is mandated in addition to spiritual protection:
"Now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

You aren't seriously comparing Chinese Communist
treatment of Tibetans to Fox's ridiculous "War on Christmas"?

On to your Bible quote.
It "justifies" defense, not attacking.
And as much as there we be multitudes of disagreements on this statement, The Bible was written by man, not God. Even if it's inspired by God, the New Testament gospels were written well after the death of Christ. By then, quotes were passed on by memory at best and made up by his followers at worse. Add in the fact that these words needed to be translated many, many times from ancient languages and then modern ones, you get maybe (hopefully) a close version of Jesus' words.

I don't believe for a second that these or any other quotes from Jesus, can be guaranteed to be his actual spoken words.
That doesn't mean they aren't inspirational, just not accurate.
But, I'll give you the benefit that you are a true unquestioning believer, so I'll ask this.
Is that one quote enough for you to feel that Bush was justified to cause as much death and destruction as he did in Iraq?

I wonder why the least religious (myself included), are the least likely to want to harm anyone or anything.
Hiding behind Religion to justify bad behavior,
is what makes this world a dangerous place, not the other way around.

[Stamos]

For any who are unable to grasp the significance of Mr. Bush’s actions, I offer the following;

To those who cannot or will not regard the reality of the world as it is, I fear for you. You are totally missing the big picture. Extremism has been allowed to grow because of a long-standing lack of political will and backbone. This lack has roots in the indifference of a population more interested in their own little self-serving, constructed world that they for the most part had no hand in creating….. or protecting (whining does not count). Life in a sustained democracy cannot be comprised of endless self indulgence, nose-sniffing high-minded intellectual and moral posturing, or the numbing inability to voice independent thought beyond regurgitating the latest offerings of the high priests of the media, the political manipulations of perception, or the often repeated but always wrong opinions of junk science experts. But I digress.

Extremism has no geographical definition. It is a mental black hole of ignorance that has festered into the abscess and stain on mankind it is today. It is at war with decency and regard for human life. It cannot be reasoned with, it cannot be bought or bribed, and it cannot be overcome with threats or sanctions. Good thoughts and ideals of fair play have no sway. One cannot argue with a madman.

The holes and caves he hides in are numerous and far flung. The battlefield had to be picked. The enemy had to be drawn to a centralized location. And the rules of engagement had to be defined within the context of the enemy’s honor, or lack thereof. Only a fool will prosecute a battle of honor when the enemy will exercise unconscionable levels of depravity and cruelty to attain his goals. Despite the means and methods of our response, I applaud Mr. Bush’s courage. We chose our battlefields. Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the USA.

I ask the high-minded…..assuming you can understand there would never be a way to avoid the cancer of extremism, where would you have wanted the battle fought? Your back yard? Your town or city? Would it be your desire that combatants be treated with your constellation of rights and set free on hair-splitting technicalities so they can roam your streets and bomb your children’s school or the café where loved ones go for a cup of coffee? Would you be ok worrying whether it was safe to go to the market? Would you be so brazen in your indignation that an enemy was made uncomfortable (not hurt mind you) so he gave up information that saved the life of your son or daughter? Or…is the life of your son or daughter a just trade for your sense of fair play? Open your eyes!

It is so easy to second guess; call in plays after-the-fact, to quarterback from the safety of one’s favorite chair. It is not so easy to compellingly identify the probable outcome and grief of allowing the battle to be fought within our own borders. There is a cost for freedom. A high one, an imperfect one. As for the value of our continued fight overseas, the problem is that we can generally identify the cost in American lives along with an accountant’s tally. That cost is easily debated and dissected in hindsight and safety. What is difficult is to put a value on the much greater cost of fighting on our own soil. Not only the cost in the loss of the soldiers who command my eternal respect, but the cost in lost civilian lives, neighborhoods, businesses, money, and freedoms. Yes, freedoms. Imagine the required “adjustments” to civil life to conduct a war in your neighborhood! Identity and innocence lost.

But then maybe that loss of identity and innocence would have restored the collective mindset of a spoiled population and awakened them to the reality of what it really takes to be free.

[Bacchus]

Stamos wrote:

For any who are unable to grasp the significance of Mr. Bush’s actions, I offer the following;
...

Did you say BUSH,.....AGAIN?

Where's thet "change you can believe in"?

Is it hidden 18 pages deep in "executive order",....like the TAX INCREASES "you won't SEE"?

[Bacchus]

OK, maybe I SHOULD have read the whole post.
I'm glad I didn't call you any names, though.
:)

[new york b-boy]

ohRea11y wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, in 2004, Bush wasn't chanting about "change....you can BELIEVE in", and then switch it up in 2005 to "but not THAT fast!"

ok tell me then whos the better president bush or obama...you poepl are blaming obama for what bush left behind and now this man is trying different way to fix the economy all you guys want to do is point fingers at him

[Bacchus]

new york b-boy wrote:

<quoted text>ok tell me then whos the better president bush or obama...you poepl are blaming obama for what bush left behind and now this man is trying different way to fix the economy all you guys want to do is point fingers at him

You people are still talking about Bush like HE sent 20.3 million dollars to Palestine, without TELLING anyone.

You people are acting like Obama DIDN'T promise to "create" less jobs than have been LOST since he took over.

You people act like Obama isn't President yet, because it's only been 7 months.

You people act like everyone is as stupid as you are.

You people make me laugh...

[Daniel P from Long Island]

Obamaniac should be impeached.

NEXT !

[Bob]

Ha Ha Ha, This from the party that chose Micheal Steel to be the republican party head as the Token Black in response to President Obama's win, and them immediately realized that more than half their base are uneducated Hilly Billy racists from the south and as quickly silenced him.
Ha, Ha, Ha, This stuff is better than watching Faux news and seeing that slowly but surely anyone who wants a real career outside the "bubble" world of the rush heads would never go on the network as you are immediately labeled, and very much deserved, as damaged goods...The new tag line on Faux News is "Faux News contributor". The Expert on Family integration, Martha Conelly on July 7th, was a convicted child abuser !!!!!!
I can't wait to hear Rush appear on Faux claiming Micheal Jackson was a low-life considering they both share being drug addicts, Apologies to MJ's family for even being linked to Rush Xanex !!