Naebody likes Bush

[Betty Boop]

Lets all laugh at Dubya! :faf::faf: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_mnyD8Zv1vY

[wpj]

There wasn't even eye contact half the time and he kept his hands by his sides (something Clinton was unable to do :wink:)
Looking forward to seeing http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sg7vwicPx98
Thank God he's leaving the whitehouse and God help us if anything happens that requires major presidential action between now and January when Obama moves in

[Hibs90]

Has to be trimmed. :agree:

[Betty Boop]

There wasn't even eye contact half the time and he kept his hands by his sides (something Clinton was unable to do :wink:)
Looking forward to seeing http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sg7vwicPx98 Thank God he's leaving the whitehouse and God help us if anything happens that requires major presidential action between now and January when Obama moves in
Can't wait to see that myself looks really good. :agree:

[Gerard]

I quite like Uncle George Bush.
G

[Hank Schrader]

To be honest he didn't look interested in shaking anyones hand either. Looks like a bit of mutual dislike if you ask me.

[Betty Boop]

I quite like Uncle George Bush.
G That disnae surprise me! :duck:

[Removed]

Has to be trimmed. :agree:


:agree: I thought this thread was in response to Chuckie :greengrin

[Gerard]

That disnae surprise me! :duck:

As a Conservative I would never vote for the Democrats.I hope that when the historians right about the Bush era they will see Bush and the government in a good light.
G

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=Gerard;1843671]I hope that when the historians right about the Bush era they will see Bush and the government in a good light.

You must be kidding surely? Bush has been an absolute disaster as US President!:confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I quite like Uncle George Bush.
G


As a Conservative I would never vote for the Democrats.I hope that when the historians right about the Bush era they will see Bush and the government in a good light.
G

Get the pitchforks, peeps...

:wink:

In all seriousness, what could historians (David Irving and Niall Ferguson excluded) possibly use to paint the Bush administration in a good light?

[Gerard]

[QUOTE=Gerard;1843671]I hope that when the historians right about the Bush era they will see Bush and the government in a good light.

You must be kidding surely? Bush has been an absolute disaster as US President!:confused:

President Clinton was the President that ran down the US military during his 8 years as President.On his watch he had to deal with the disaster that was 9/11. The USA and the Western World have to get real with the problem of terrorists. We have seen the attacks on London and Madrid and the attempted attack on Glasgow.......

I would rather see the war on terror being fought in Iraq and Afgahainstan than in our streets.Even the ultra liberal President elect sees the need for more military action in the latter country.

When and if the President elect is installed, let see what he does that will make the USA a better place to live in.

The Republican Party was defeated but not the landslide victory that was expected. Regan in one of his elections won 49 states and almost won the state of the man he ran against(Mr Mondale).......That is a landslide


As The Governator could and would say see The Republicans will be back.
G

[LiverpoolHibs]

[quote=Betty Boop;1843688][b]

President Clinton was the President that ran down the US military during his 8 years as President.On his watch he had to deal with the disaster that was 9/11. The USA and the Western World have to get real with the problem of terrorists. We have seen the attacks on London and Madrid and the attempted attack on Glasgow.......

I would rather see the war on terror being fought in Iraq and Afgahainstan than in our streets.Even the ultra liberal President elect sees the need for more military action in the latter country.

When and if the President elect is installed, let see what he does that will make the USA a better place to live in.

The Republican Party was defeated but not the landslide victory that was expected. Regan in one of his elections won 49 states and almost won the state of the man he ran against(Mr Mondale).......That is a landslide


As The Governator could and would say see The Republicans will be back.
G

So that's approximately zero reasons why the Bush administration has been anything other than an unmitigated failure...

Also, Obama is probably about as liberal and radical as David Cameron.

[Gerard]

[quote=Gerard;1843708]

So that's approximately zero reasons why the Bush administration has been anything other than an unmitigated failure...

Also, Obama is probably about as liberal and radical as David Cameron.

With regard to Obama we will soon the kind of Liberal/socialist policies that he intends to introduce assuming he is installed as the next USA President. I hope that the USA is not attacked again and not during his term as President as I doubt his ability to deal with the situation.

David Cameron is like Tony Blair in the sense that he is desperate to be the next PM. The Conservative Party has lost its identity and that is why I quit as a member.

In the USA concerned citiziens are taking legal action in the Supreme Court to seek where BO was born and for him to show proof of his place of birth.
G

[LiverpoolHibs]

With regard to Obama we will soon the kind of Liberal/socialist policies that he intends to introduce assuming he is installed as the next USA President. I hope that the USA is not attacked again and not during his term as President as I doubt his ability to deal with the situation.

What exactly about Obama, makes you think he is a socialist? If only....


David Cameron is like Tony Blair in the sense that he is desperate to be the next PM. The Conservative Party has lost its identity and that is why I quit as a member.

In the USA concerned citiziens are taking legal action in the Supreme Court to seek where BO was born and for him to show proof of his place of birth.
G

And?! Do you not see anything a little bit worrying about that?

It's like that clip of a McCain rally where some ****-wit says she doesn't trust Obama because 'He's an Arab'. McCain couldn't get in quick enough to say, 'No, no, no. He isn't an Arab', whereas the correct response would be, 'So **** if he's an Arab.'

I think you can rest assured that on Inauguration Day he isn't going to whip out a keffiyah and a kalashnikov and immediately institute sharia law.

N.B. Again you've offered absolutely no defence of GWB...

N.N.B. Urgh I feel slightly compromised defending Obama.

[Gerard]

What exactly about Obama, makes you think he is a socialist? If only....



And?! Do you not see anything a little bit worrying about that?

It's like that clip of a McCain rally where some ****-wit says she doesn't trust Obama because 'He's an Arab'. McCain couldn't get in quick enough to say, 'No, no, no. He isn't an Arab', whereas the correct response would be, 'So **** if he's an Arab.'

I think you can rest assured that on Inauguration Day he isn't going to whip out a keffiyah and a kalashnikov and immediately institute sharia law.

N.B. Again you've offered absolutely no defence of GWB...

N.N.B. Urgh I feel slightly compromised defending Obama.

If Obama was willing to show his birth certificate then that would end the issue of him being qualified to be President of the USA. I would see what happens in the Supreme Court.......

GWB took the tough decision to take action against Iraq and Afghainstan. Saddam H was a tyrant he was rightly removed from office and the Taliban were removed from office In Afghainstan. IMHO this shows that GWB did a good job in foreign policy. The problem is that going to war causes a lot of money and results in death and injury to your armed forces as well as the civilian population where these wars take place.

BO had the support of a clergy man who called white people Devils. BO should have be far stronger in his repulsion for that man ....

As a person who has been many times to the states and has a great admiration for the USA; I hope that a Conservative Government is returned ASAP.
BO was a young Senator who has not got a record of achievement in his time as a Senator. He is a good communicator and when I think of him he reminds me of Tony Blair a great man for making speeches but only that.

There are many Americans who will soon regret voting Democrat this year.
G

[LiverpoolHibs]

If Obama was willing to show his birth certificate then that would end the issue of him being qualified to be President of the USA. I would see what happens in the Supreme Court.......

Why are you so bothered about where he was born? Has he actually refused to show his birth certificate? I don't think that's likely.


GWB took the tough decision to take action against Iraq and Afghainstan. Saddam H was a tyrant he was rightly removed from office and the Taliban were removed from office In Afghainstan. IMHO this shows that GWB did a good job in foreign policy. The problem is that going to war causes a lot of money and results in death and injury to your armed forces as well as the civilian population where these wars take place.

No ****.

That's frankly the most ridiculous, reductive and simplified description of the war(s) I have ever heard in my life...

Saddam And Taliban Out - Good

Money cost - Bad

Death/Injury To Own Forces (notably a secondary concern) - Bad

Death/Injury To Civilian Population (notably a tertiary concern) - Bad

Is that really the best you can do?


BO had the support of a clergy man who called white people Devils. BO should have be far stronger in his repulsion for that man ....

Link to that please? I assume you are referring to Jeremiah Wright? Obama's dumping of him was utterly obnoxious, though not surprising.


As a person who has been many times to the states and has a great admiration for the USA; I hope that a Conservative Government is returned ASAP.
BO was a young Senator who has not got a record of achievement in his time as a Senator. He is a good communicator and when I think of him he reminds me of Tony Blair a great man for making speeches but only that.

There are many Americans who will soon regret voting Democrat this year.
G

So your defence of Bush is limited to a huge over-simplification of his foreign policy?

[lucky]

If Obama was willing to show his birth certificate then that would end the issue of him being qualified to be President of the USA. I would see what happens in the Supreme Court.......

GWB took the tough decision to take action against Iraq and Afghainstan. Saddam H was a tyrant he was rightly removed from office and the Taliban were removed from office In Afghainstan. IMHO this shows that GWB did a good job in foreign policy. The problem is that going to war causes a lot of money and results in death and injury to your armed forces as well as the civilian population where these wars take place.

BO had the support of a clergy man who called white people Devils. BO should have be far stronger in his repulsion for that man ....

As a person who has been many times to the states and has a great admiration for the USA; I hope that a Conservative Government is returned ASAP.
BO was a young Senator who has not got a record of achievement in his time as a Senator. He is a good communicator and when I think of him he reminds me of Tony Blair a great man for making speeches but only that.

There are many Americans who will soon regret voting Democrat this year.
G

I believe that most of the world are delighted the USA voted Democrat, as for you outing your self as pro Thatcher Tory you probably lost a lot of respect on .net But as with most Thatcherites you cant handle the fact the people of the UK and now the USA want a more center left government which is more for helping the many rather than the few

[Gerard]

[quote=Gerard;1843763]If Obama was willing to show his birth certificate then that would end the issue of him being qualified to be President of the USA. I would see what happens in the Supreme Court.......[//quote]

Why are you so bothered about where he was born? Has he actually refused to show his birth certificate? I don't think that's likely.



No ****.

That's frankly the most ridiculous, reductive and simplified description of the war(s) I have ever heard in my life...

Saddam And Taliban Out - Good

Money cost - Bad

Death/Injury To Own Forces (notably a secondary concern) - Bad

Death/Injury To Civilian Population (notably a tertiary concern) - Bad

Is that really the best you can do?



Link to that please? I assume you are referring to Jeremiah Wright? Obama's dumping of him was utterly obnoxious, though not surprising.



So your defence of Bush is limited to a huge over-simplification of his foreign policy?

I am content with the way that Bush was prepared to take action in the countries mentioned if this is simplistic then so be it.

On the question of Obamas birth certificate....... He has not been prepared to show it and that is why an action has been raised in the SC to resolve the question of him being qualified to be President. The SC would not allow this action to proceed on vexatious grounds.

G

[Gerard]

I believe that most of the world are delighted the USA voted Democrat, as for you outing your self as pro Thatcher Tory you probably lost a lot of respect on .net But as with most Thatcherites you cant handle the fact the people of the UK and now the USA want a more center left government which is more for helping the many rather than the few

If I was the last Conservative to post on the internet and that was to cause people to see me in a lesser light, I would accept that situation as that would be the price to pay for my political beliefs.

In this country the present Government had allowed public and private debt to reach record levels. We will suffer the consequences of this folly for generations to come. The myth of Gordon Brown being prudent is open given the massive deficits that his Government have and are causing.

G

[LiverpoolHibs]

I am content with the way that Bush was prepared to take action in the countries mentioned if this is simplistic then so be it.

On the question of Obamas birth certificate....... He has not been prepared to show it and that is why an action has been raised in the SC to resolve the question of him being qualified to be President. The SC would not allow this action to proceed on vexatious grounds.

G

If you're content with ill-informed, ignorant, poorly argued and oversimplified defences of illegal wars then yeah, so be it...

Got any links that show he has refused to show his birth-certificate? I presume he'd have had to show it to enter the Senate, no?

[Pretty Boy]

If you're content with ill-informed, ignorant, poorly argued and oversimplified defences of illegal wars then yeah, so be it...

Got any links that show he has refused to show his birth-certificate? I presume he'd have had to show it to enter the Senate, no?

Of course he had to, this is desperation action from redneck, dyed in the wool racist nobodies.

As for Gerards other points. Can someone tell me one thing that has got better in Iraq since the war began? The Iraqi people go out everyday fearing suicide bombs, have no jobs, no welfare, no money, no hope; in fact they ave nothing but it's ok because once every 4 years they can put and x on a piece of paper and supposedly change everything.

Bush will be demonised by history and rightly so. A religous fundementalist as president who allowed untold attrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Guantanamo Bay and closer to home in New Orleans. The only good thing i can say about George W. Bush is that he pretty much forced the USA into voting for what is for them a radical candidate. A radical candidate who in Britain would be considered centre right.

[Gerard]

If you're content with ill-informed, ignorant, poorly argued and oversimplified defences of illegal wars then yeah, so be it...

Got any links that show he has refused to show his birth-certificate? I presume he'd have had to show it to enter the Senate, no?

If the war against Iraq and Afghainstan was illegal then the Courts in the USA and GB will have made a legal ruling. No such ruling has been made.

The question of Obama's birth certificate is important as the qualifications for President areQualifications for the Office of President




Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.




PRESIDENTS HOME PAGE

The purpose of this site is to provide researchers, teachers, students, politicians, journalists, and citizens a complete resource guide to the US Presidents.

If you would like to suggest a Presidential link, report a broken link, or have any comments please email:


[email protected]

see legal Newsline.com
and FOURWINDS 10.COM
BOTH these websites have information about BO's birth certificate
To be a member of the US Senate, you have to be...



at least 30 years old.
a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate.
a resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate. This is all spelled out in the Constitution.

G

[Gerard]

If you're content with ill-informed, ignorant, poorly argued and oversimplified defences of illegal wars then yeah, so be it...

Got any links that show he has refused to show his birth-certificate? I presume he'd have had to show it to enter the Senate, no?

Of course he had to, this is desperation action from redneck, dyed in the wool racist nobodies.

As for Gerards other points. Can someone tell me one thing that has got better in Iraq since the war began? The Iraqi people go out everyday fearing suicide bombs, have no jobs, no welfare, no money, no hope; in fact they ave nothing but it's ok because once every 4 years they can put and x on a piece of paper and supposedly change everything.

Bush will be demonised by history and rightly so. A religous fundementalist as president who allowed untold attrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Guantanamo Bay and closer to home in New Orleans. The only good thing i can say about George W. Bush is that he pretty much forced the USA into voting for what is for them a radical candidate. A radical candidate who in Britain would be considered centre right.

If the challenge that is being made in the Supreme Court is being made my red neck racists nobodies then the action will be swiflty kicked out.

The American people have voted for Obama but not as a landslide victory. Obama is a young politican and it will be interesting to see what happens in 2 years when the USA will have elections for the Senate.
G

[mickeythehibbee]

[quote=foreverhibs;1843834]

If the challenge that is being made in the Supreme Court is being made my red neck racists nobodies then the action will be swiflty kicked out.

The American people have voted for Obama but not as a landslide victory. Obama is a young politican and it will be interesting to see what happens in 2 years when the USA will have elections for the Senate.
G


If it will just stop you going on about this damn court case then here you go, Obama's birth certificate can be seen here:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

The link to which has been shamelessly taken from this article on Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp


Afraid you're completely grasping at thin air with this one. Particularly since the case you are reffering to was actually dismissed in October and his Birth certificate was released in June! :bye:

[Sylar]

Wasn't a snub at all apparantly - Bush greeted each of the other leaders' prior to the stage photo shoot, whereas the other leaders were meeting each other for the first time of the summit....

Allegedly (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bda_1227291469)

[paullotion]

If the war against Iraq and Afghainstan was illegal then the Courts in the USA and GB will have made a legal ruling. No such ruling has been made.
1441 did not give "Automicity" for going to war, Jack Straw and John D. Negroponte stated before the vote on 1441," that by voting for 1441 it did not give automicity for going to war", that is why is was voted for overwhelmingly.


Plus the US was spying on the Chinese and others, the US knew that Russia, China and France would veto a second resolution authorising the use of force.


We have not seen the legal document that the Attorney General gave to this government, no doubt because it is full of holes.


The allies are also using depleted urainiam 234/235 which is banned, See Here (http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Baby2003.htm) Be warned these pictures are of a graphic nature

[GlesgaeHibby]

Gerard, what you have to remember is that;

A. The war in Iraq was based on false 'evidence'
B. It would never had been needed if George Bush Snr had ordered the army to march on to kill saddam during the gulf war.

So based on the Iraq war he hardly deserves credit.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If it will just stop you going on about this damn court case then here you go, Obama's birth certificate can be seen here:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

The link to which has been shamelessly taken from this article on Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp


Afraid you're completely grasping at thin air with this one. Particularly since the case you are reffering to was actually dismissed in October and his Birth certificate was released in June! :bye:

I await Gerard's response with bated breath. :greengrin

[Bayern Bru]

GWB took the tough decision to take action against Iraq and Afghainstan. Saddam H was a tyrant he was rightly removed from office and the Taliban were removed from office In Afghainstan. IMHO this shows that GWB did a good job in foreign policy.

Birthday card pish, IMHO.

A few points on the "War on Iraq." (I'm an Honours student specialising in Terrorism so hear me out).

Following 9/11, the Bush administration will have been looking for a scape goat to blame for the attacks. As Condoleeza Rice said, "Iraq became part of the insecurity we all feel after 9/11." There was also the suspicion that Hussein was restarting a WMD programme. Furthermore, the 9/11 commission found no compelling evidence of any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Iraq War is an example of the politics of fear dominating America's decision. Bush didn't make a "tough decision," he primarily acted out of fear, fear of a great risk. Bush himself said that "the risk of inaction outweighed the risk of action." So he feared that not acting would have been worse than acting. It's not necessarily a reflection of good foreign policy to fight a war based on insecurity and risk. Last time I looked, being the commander in chief of an army that bombs civilians and hospitals wasn't too great for foreign policy either.



If the war against Iraq and Afghainstan was illegal then the Courts in the USA and GB will have made a legal ruling. No such ruling has been made.

The "War" on Iraq could be seen as legal if it was viewed as a pre-emptive war, which the Pentagon describes as "an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." The question is, was an attack imminent, especially after 9/11? The 9/11 bombers had fulfilled their primary aim - why would there be the need for further action?

Bush in 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq, said "We have to assume the worst and we have a duty to prevent that happening."

A preventive war is "initiated in the belief that military conflict, whilst not imminent, is inevitable and that to delay would involve greater risk." (also from the Pentagon Dictionary of Military terms.) This is NOT legal.
This also seems to reflect the American stance - part of the Iraq invasion was based on the possibility that Hussein had WMDs. A nuclear attack on the USA by Iraq was not imminent or inevitable and there was no immediate threat. However, the Bush administration believed there was and invaded Iraq, hence why many term the "war" on Iraq as preventive, and therefore illegal.

[mickeythehibbee]

Birthday card pish, IMHO.

A few points on the "War on Iraq." (I'm an Honours student specialising in Terrorism so hear me out).

Following 9/11, the Bush administration will have been looking for a scape goat to blame for the attacks. As Condoleeza Rice said, "Iraq became part of the insecurity we all feel after 9/11." There was also the suspicion that Hussein was restarting a WMD programme. Furthermore, the 9/11 commission found no compelling evidence of any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Iraq War is an example of the politics of fear dominating America's decision. Bush didn't make a "tough decision," he primarily acted out of fear, fear of a great risk. Bush himself said that "the risk of inaction outweighed the risk of action." So he feared that not acting would have been worse than acting. It's not necessarily a reflection of good foreign policy to fight a war based on insecurity and risk. Last time I looked, being the commander in chief of an army that bombs civilians and hospitals wasn't too great for foreign policy either.



The "War" on Iraq could be seen as legal if it was viewed as a pre-emptive war, which the Pentagon describes as "an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." The question is, was an attack imminent, especially after 9/11? The 9/11 bombers had fulfilled their primary aim - why would there be the need for further action?

Bush in 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq, said "We have to assume the worst and we have a duty to prevent that happening."

A preventive war is "initiated in the belief that military conflict, whilst not imminent, is inevitable and that to delay would involve greater risk." (also from the Pentagon Dictionary of Military terms.) This is NOT legal.
This also seems to reflect the American stance - part of the Iraq invasion was based on the possibility that Hussein had WMDs. A nuclear attack on the USA by Iraq was not imminent or inevitable and there was no immediate threat. However, the Bush administration believed there was and invaded Iraq, hence why many term the "war" on Iraq as preventive, and therefore illegal.

:not worth:not worth Now that is a well structured argument!

Maybe Gerard would do well to take some notes :wink:

[Gerard]

:not worth:not worth Now that is a well structured argument!

Maybe Gerard would do well to take some notes :wink:

An interesting argument.
On the issue of illegality I am not aware of The Bush Government being taken to Court for the Goverment's action in Iraq and Afgahainstan. The government has access to intelligence that we as private citizens do not have. On that basis there may have been evidence that the governments of these countries were either planning terror attacks on The West or were funding terrorists to attack Western Countires.

On a general point regarding the bombing of Hospitals and Homes that would appear to be callous and perhaps evil. If however, these places are being used by terrorists as bases then their is a dilemma whether to allow terrorists to use them with immunity.

When the history of this period is written about this era of history your description of these events may be shown to be the right one.
Gerard

[Gerard]

Gerard, what you have to remember is that;

A. The war in Iraq was based on false 'evidence'
B. It would never had been needed if George Bush Snr had ordered the army to march on to kill saddam during the gulf war.

So based on the Iraq war he hardly deserves credit.

From memory There was no mandate to do this from the UN. The mandate was to get the Iarqi army out of Kuwait.
G

[LiverpoolHibs]

An interesting argument.
On the issue of illegality I am not aware of The Bush Government being taken to Court for the Goverment's action in Iraq and Afgahainstan. The government has access to intelligence that we as private citizens do not have. On that basis there may have been evidence that the governments of these countries were either planning terror attacks on The West or were funding terrorists to attack Western Countires.

Seriously, at least try to argue your position. This is just laughable.

Using your logic, any conflict which hasn't (or doesn't) resulted in an administration being brought before a court of law is legal?

[Gerard]

I await Gerard's response with bated breath. :greengrin

The action was thrown out of the Philadelphia Federal Court in October but the case was appealed to The Supreme Court of America and that appeal will take place in December. I can't find a link but have been able to paste this information



aboNo. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.

Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of
certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

——————————————————————————–

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. Berg

Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

ut the present legal situation.
Will Barack Obama throw America into a Constitutional Crisis by denying the Supreme Court’s order of proof of citizenship?


Justice Souter of the Supreme Court has ordered President Elect Obama to produce a ‘vault’ copy of his birth certificate by Dec 1st 2008. This is the same document that up until now the Obama legal team has fought showing to the American public. It is widely rumored that Obama was born in Kenya and his vault copy of his birth certificate will say this. Hence his legal maneuvering to not let the public see it. The Supreme Court will not let this go.

From Atlas Shrugs:

“I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution. see article

Will Obama tell the Supreme Court that he doesn’t need to prove his citizenship? Only time will tell now. America awaits.

Thus far he has used every legal trick in the book to have this case dismissed. He is doing everything to not have to show the Supreme Court his birth certificate.

Just as a simple question of his integrity, why would he be fighting it? He won the the vote after all and is set to be sworn in in January. How on earth can anyone say that he doesn’t need to show the Supreme Court his birth certificate? He can not and the Court as well as the Electoral college can see to it that he is not sworn in on Constitutional grounds.

For details in this case see


Supreme Court to Hear Most Important Case in American History




It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rule on this appeal.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The action was thrown out of the Philadelphia Federal Court in October but the case was appealed to The Supreme Court of America and that appeal will take place in December. I can't find a link but have been able to paste this information

Which is from where?

[Gerard]

Seriously, at least try to argue your position. This is just laughable.

Using your logic, any conflict which hasn't (or doesn't) resulted in an administration being brought before a court of law is legal?

The argument that I have tried to advance is that the various intelligence agencies don't post on the internet their intelligence findings. There may be intelligence that we are not aware of that would suggest that the actions taken by the Bush Government were justified. If the source of that intelligence was made public it could put at risk the source of the intelligence. In time history may prove this to be the case.

In this case there are no legal actions seeking the criminal prosecution of Bush and members of his Government. I would suggest that until a Court of law has proven guilt and all aveneues of appeal have been taken that the action taken by Bush and his Government is not illegal.
G

[Gerard]

Which is from where?

I found this on Earth Frisk blog. I would love to be able to post a link but are still trying to find out how to post links. I would love to know how to do this.
Gerard

[Sir David Gray]

I have less of a problem with the action in Afghanistan than I do with the action in Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan was really the start of the "war on terrorism" and from that point of view, if the action that is being taken is preventing certain groups of people from planning acts of mass murder on our streets then it is a good thing.

Of course many British troops are losing their lives and innocent Afghans are also being killed and that is awful but it is unfortunately one of the consequences of any war.

The war in Afghanistan has also resulted in the removal of the Taleban from power. Again that can only be described as a great thing as they were and still are, a brutal and evil group of people who were closely linked to Al Qaeda members in the country.

However, the justification for the Iraq war was mainly based on the intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could utilise them within 45 minutes. Both claims have since been found to be false.

Again it must be said that removing a brutal tyrant, such as Saddam Hussein, from power is a good thing. I don't believe he posed much of a threat to the outside world but he was evil towards his own people. He faced justice, Iraqi style, and met his ultimate fate. He and his supporters may argue that he did not get a fair trial. At least he got one. Many of the poor souls that dared to so much look at him the wrong way were murdered without a second thought.

The only thing I don't get is why America and Britain invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and not other places.

Of the nineteen hijackers on September 11th, fifteen of the **** were from Saudi Arabia. Why were they not targetted? I think we know the answer to that one.

There are loads of Al Qaeda members and sympathisers in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden is reportedly hiding in a remote area on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Again, why no action? Probably due to the Pakistani government being Pro-American.

Iran is probably the single biggest danger to world peace. Their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not afraid to make his feelings on America and the West in general be known and some of the comments he has made regarding Israel are quite frankly, shocking. His views on the Holocaust are also beyond belief. I can probably understand why no action has been taken against Iran as it really could turn nasty as they are obviously developing a nuclear program and although they deny it, I don't believe for one second that this doesn't involve developing nuclear weapons.

I don't think the history books will look back too fondly on George Bush's time as US President. There is no doubt that the man is a bit dumb and I really have no idea how he got re-elected for a second term. The two wars will be, by far, the main criticism of him, although I think his lack of response to the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was shameful and he is rightly criticised for that.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I found this on Earth Frisk blog. I would love to be able to post a link but are still trying to find out how to post links. I would love to know how to do this.
Gerard

you should have asked in the tech forum, that's what it's for :wink: here ya go >>>>> http://nontechnamaste.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-to-copy-and-paste-url-with-your.html

just left click on the link above and it should open a new page in your browser.

the URL is the writing in your browser's address bar gerard, for example if you look up at your address bar viewing this you will see this in the address bar


http://www.hibs.net/message/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1846266 (minus the newreply)

[mickeythehibbee]

The action was thrown out of the Philadelphia Federal Court in October but the case was appealed to The Supreme Court of America and that appeal will take place in December. I can't find a link but have been able to paste this information



aboNo. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.

Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of
certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

——————————————————————————–

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. Berg

Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

ut the present legal situation.
Will Barack Obama throw America into a Constitutional Crisis by denying the Supreme Court’s order of proof of citizenship?


Justice Souter of the Supreme Court has ordered President Elect Obama to produce a ‘vault’ copy of his birth certificate by Dec 1st 2008. This is the same document that up until now the Obama legal team has fought showing to the American public. It is widely rumored that Obama was born in Kenya and his vault copy of his birth certificate will say this. Hence his legal maneuvering to not let the public see it. The Supreme Court will not let this go.

From Atlas Shrugs:

“I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution. see article

Will Obama tell the Supreme Court that he doesn’t need to prove his citizenship? Only time will tell now. America awaits.

Thus far he has used every legal trick in the book to have this case dismissed. He is doing everything to not have to show the Supreme Court his birth certificate.

Just as a simple question of his integrity, why would he be fighting it? He won the the vote after all and is set to be sworn in in January. How on earth can anyone say that he doesn’t need to show the Supreme Court his birth certificate? He can not and the Court as well as the Electoral college can see to it that he is not sworn in on Constitutional grounds.

For details in this case see


Supreme Court to Hear Most Important Case in American History




It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rule on this appeal.

While i agree it would be if he hadn't produced any birth certificate as shown previously in my links there is no case to answer. He has produced it and the case'll be thrown out. The fact it hasn't is just due to the necessity to provide a process of appeal to all.

This is all IMHO of course :wink:, but if Obama doesn't become president i'll eat my own arm! :greengrin

[Gerard]

While i agree it would be if he hadn't produced any birth certificate as shown previously in my links there is no case to answer. He has produced it and the case'll be thrown out. The fact it hasn't is just due to the necessity to provide a process of appeal to all.

This is all IMHO of course :wink:, but if Obama doesn't become president i'll eat my own arm! :greengrin
I hope that you dont eat your own arm but if you do a small symbolic nibble,perhaps served with baked beans
G

[mickeythehibbee]

I hope that you dont eat your own arm but if you do a small symbolic nibble,perhaps served with baked beans
G

Touche sir. Made me Lol!
:faf:

[paullotion]

The argument that I have tried to advance is that the various intelligence agencies don't post on the internet their intelligence findings. There may be intelligence that we are not aware of that would suggest that the actions taken by the Bush Government were justified. If the source of that intelligence was made public it could put at risk the source of the intelligence. In time history may prove this to be the case.

In this case there are no legal actions seeking the criminal prosecution of Bush and members of his Government. I would suggest that until a Court of law has proven guilt and all aveneues of appeal have been taken that the action taken by Bush and his Government is not illegal.
G


There is no hard evidence then or now that Iraq had WMD.

The only agent(so-called)the allies had was a liar and a alcoholic going by the codename curveball, in fact Condolence Rice said prior to the war with Iraq that all the information on Iraq WMD would be made public, we are still waiting for it. http://www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/dod-staffers-notes-from-911-obtained.html

And who exactly went to Iraq on behalf on American arms companies in the eighties to sell Saddam WMD, including nerve gases.

[aberhibsfc]

I don't mind Bush, but as in football, ye cannie beat a Brazilian.

[paullotion]

I have less of a problem with the action in Afghanistan than I do with the action in Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan was really the start of the "war on terrorism" and from that point of view, if the action that is being taken is preventing certain groups of people from planning acts of mass murder on our streets then it is a good thing.

Of course many British troops are losing their lives and innocent Afghans are also being killed and that is awful but it is unfortunately one of the consequences of any war.

The war in Afghanistan has also resulted in the removal of the Taleban from power. Again that can only be described as a great thing as they were and still are, a brutal and evil group of people who were closely linked to Al Qaeda members in the country.

However, the justification for the Iraq war was mainly based on the intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could utilise them within 45 minutes. Both claims have since been found to be false.

Again it must be said that removing a brutal tyrant, such as Saddam Hussein, from power is a good thing. I don't believe he posed much of a threat to the outside world but he was evil towards his own people. He faced justice, Iraqi style, and met his ultimate fate. He and his supporters may argue that he did not get a fair trial. At least he got one. Many of the poor souls that dared to so much look at him the wrong way were murdered without a second thought.

The only thing I don't get is why America and Britain invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and not other places.

Of the nineteen hijackers on September 11th, fifteen of the **** were from Saudi Arabia. Why were they not targetted? I think we know the answer to that one.

There are loads of Al Qaeda members and sympathisers in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden is reportedly hiding in a remote area on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Again, why no action? Probably due to the Pakistani government being Pro-American.

Iran is probably the single biggest danger to world peace. Their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not afraid to make his feelings on America and the West in general be known and some of the comments he has made regarding Israel are quite frankly, shocking. His views on the Holocaust are also beyond belief. I can probably understand why no action has been taken against Iran as it really could turn nasty as they are obviously developing a nuclear program and although they deny it, I don't believe for one second that this doesn't involve developing nuclear weapons.

I don't think the history books will look back too fondly on George Bush's time as US President. There is no doubt that the man is a bit dumb and I really have no idea how he got re-elected for a second term. The two wars will be, by far, the main criticism of him, although I think his lack of response to the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was shameful and he is rightly criticised for that.


The problem i have for the Afghanistan war, is why is Bin Laden not wanted by the FBI for the attacks on 9/11. Why are some of the so-called hijackers still alive today and have received an apology from the State Dept. and yet their name and faces are still on the wanted poster.

Were those that carried out these attacks really extremist Muslim`s, they were so extreme that they drank alcohol, went to strip bars, snorted cocaine, paid for prostitutes and used stolen credit cards, does not sound like extremist to me.

There is so much wrong with the official story and so many unanswered questions, there are people within the intelligence community that want to come forward and tell us what really happened on that day, but they are afraid for themselves and their families

[Gerard]

There is no hard evidence then or now that Iraq had WMD.

The only agent(so-called)the allies had was a liar and a alcoholic going by the codename curveball, in fact Condolence Rice said prior to the war with Iraq that all the information on Iraq WMD would be made public, we are still waiting for it. http://www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/dod-staffers-notes-from-911-obtained.html

And who exactly went to Iraq on behalf on American arms companies in the eighties to sell Saddam WMD, including nerve gases.


This is the problem about intelligence as you are never sure that the intelligence that you are given is correct. The problem is that we as members of the public will never know where government get their information from and even when you read a source from the internet that has some been said to be a government source...... the problem is that all governments lie and that soucre given may be a cover to protect the real source of information.

SH was given weapons to make sure that Iran would not be able to invade Iraq. As you may recal Iran and Iraq fought a very bloody war in the 80s and to contain Iran the Western countries sold arms to Iraq.

In hindsight Bush1 should have taken the decision to remove SH during the 1st Gulf War and give the Iraqi people the ability to choose their own President.The situation in Iraq would not have been what it is today. As the Western countries are in Iraq they have a moral responsibility to try and help the Iraqi people to deal with the terroists problem.

The Iraqi people are brave as we often hear of suicide bombings killing Iraqi people who are queuing to join the police and armed forces.The western countries will leave Iraqi eventually and then it will be about to the Iraqi people to deal with the terrorist problem.

G

[Bayern Bru]

9/11 itself is full of conspiracy theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Foreknowledge

I know it's wikipedia, but it pretty much covers a lot of the theories. It's fascinating reading actually.

[paullotion]

This is the problem about intelligence as you are never sure that the intelligence that you are given is correct. The problem is that we as members of the public will never know where government get their information from and even when you read a source from the internet that has some been said to be a government source...... the problem is that all governments lie and that soucre given may be a cover to protect the real source of information.

SH was given weapons to make sure that Iran would not be able to invade Iraq. As you may recal Iran and Iraq fought a very bloody war in the 80s and to contain Iran the Western countries sold arms to Iraq.

In hindsight Bush1 should have taken the decision to remove SH during the 1st Gulf War and give the Iraqi people the ability to choose their own President.The situation in Iraq would not have been what it is today. As the Western countries are in Iraq they have a moral responsibility to try and help the Iraqi people to deal with the terroists problem.

The Iraqi people are brave as we often hear of suicide bombings killing Iraqi people who are queuing to join the police and armed forces.The western countries will leave Iraqi eventually and then it will be about to the Iraqi people to deal with the terrorist problem.

G


There is no evidence to support the view that Iraq had WMD, the US/UK had no agents on the ground as Saddam had thrown them out, some were using the UN as cover.

We did not just give Iraq arms and intelligence, we also gave it to Iran, when Saddam found out that is when he stopped being our good-guy. As for Iran who put the Shah of Iran in power in the 50s, he was a dictator who murdered thousands, the people of Iran had elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, but because he wanted to nationalise their oil industry, the US/UK plotted against him, all in the interest of making more money, this is why Iran does not trust the west, would you. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

True, the Iraqi people may well have to deal with the terrorist problem in their country(if you see them as terrorist), yet prior to us being their, there was none.

[Betty Boop]

There is no evidence to support the view that Iraq had WMD, the US/UK had no agents on the ground as Saddam had thrown them out, some were using the UN as cover.

We did not just give Iraq arms and intelligence, we also gave it to Iran, when Saddam found out that is when he stopped being our good-guy. As for Iran who put the Shah of Iran in power in the 50s, he was a dictator who murdered thousands, the people of Iran had elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, but because he wanted to nationalise their oil industry, the US/UK plotted against him, all in the interest of making more money, this is why Iran does not trust the west, would you. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

True, the Iraqi people may well have to deal with the terrorist problem in their country(if you see them as terrorist), yet prior to us being their, there was none. :agree: Al Quaeda did not exist in Iraq prior to ther invasion.

[Darth Hibbie]

9/11 itself is full of conspiracy theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Foreknowledge

I know it's wikipedia, but it pretty much covers a lot of the theories. It's fascinating reading actually.


Hey LH is that the terrorist studies at St Andrews. Was looking at the e-learning stuff for the certificate, looks like interesting stuff to me.

Sorry for the :hijack:

Back on the topic Dont really like bush himself and I think BO has potential to do a decent job but I will reserve any judgment until he has actually started to make some decisions.

[Bayern Bru]

Hey LH is that the terrorist studies at St Andrews. Was looking at the e-learning stuff for the certificate, looks like interesting stuff to me.

Sorry for the :hijack:

Back on the topic Dont really like bush himself and I think BO has potential to do a decent job but I will reserve any judgment until he has actually started to make some decisions.

It is yeah. It's not all I'm doing; but what I'm actually studying in relation to terrorism is called "Globalisation and the War on Terror," which basically examines the strategic context and how the war on Iraq has been waged so far. It is fascinating stuff. I'm also doing an internship within the university called "Varieties in Counter Terrorism Approaches and Strategies in Different Countries and their Effectiveness."

I've always been interested in terrorism, since the IRA, and ETA and now the 9/11, London and Madrid bombings so it made sense to study it.

[Darth Hibbie]

It is yeah. It's not all I'm doing; but what I'm actually studying in relation to terrorism is called "Globalisation and the War on Terror," which basically examines the strategic context and how the war on Iraq has been waged so far. It is fascinating stuff. I'm also doing an internship within the university called "Varieties in Counter Terrorism Approaches and Strategies in Different Countries and their Effectiveness."

I've always been interested in terrorism, since the IRA, and ETA and now the 9/11, London and Madrid bombings so it made sense to study it.

Absolutley if you want to defeat something then it i important to have an understanding of it. The reality after 9/11 was that nobody really had a clue about mid eastern terrorists or how to combat it (apart from blow everything up that may have been related).

Must admit it is something that really interests me to and I am waiting to hear if my company will partially fund the course (in the interests of further education) before I make my final decision.

My bosses exact words where can you not finish the course you are on before you start another one. :greengrin

[Bayern Bru]

Absolutley if you want to defeat something then it i important to have an understanding of it. The reality after 9/11 was that nobody really had a clue about mid eastern terrorists or how to combat it (apart from blow everything up that may have been related)

Must admit it is something that really interests me to and I am waiting to hear if my company will partially fund the course (in the interests of further education) before I make my final decision.

My bosses exact words where can you not finish the course you are on before you start another one. :greengrin

Or invade an unrelated country on the pretense of looking for WMDs...
:devil:

I really hope your company does decide to partially fund it because it is led by the leading lecturers in the field and i've got so much out of it in just 9 weeks or so.

Best of luck.

[HibsMax]

As a Conservative I would never vote for the Democrats.I hope that when the historians right about the Bush era they will see Bush and the government in a good light.
G
WTF? A good light? You HAVE to be taking the piss.

[HibsMax]

GWB took the tough decision to take action against Iraq and Afghainstan. Saddam H was a tyrant he was rightly removed from office and the Taliban were removed from office In Afghainstan. IMHO this shows that GWB did a good job in foreign policy. The problem is that going to war causes a lot of money and results in death and injury to your armed forces as well as the civilian population where these wars take place.
OMG, it keeps getting better. We had NO right to invade Iraq and it doesn't matter how terrible Saddam Hussein was we had no right to hunt him down and execute him. What was the justification for doing so? Oil. Oops, sorry, I mean "weapons of mass destruction". Another problem with war is it makes people around the world hate you. It gives terrorists more reasons to try and harm you. You lose face in the world community.


As a person who has been many times to the states and has a great admiration for the USA; I hope that a Conservative Government is returned ASAP.
As a person who lives in the USA, I hope not.


There are many Americans who will soon regret voting Democrat this year.
G
Really? You think that people may sit back and think, "Damn, I wish I voted for Mcain / Palin"? No way. This country has spiralled out of control during W's tenure. Time for a change.

[Gerard]

OMG, it keeps getting better. We had NO right to invade Iraq and it doesn't matter how terrible Saddam Hussein was we had no right to hunt him down and execute him. What was the justification for doing so? Oil. Oops, sorry, I mean "weapons of mass destruction". Another problem with war is it makes people around the world hate you. It gives terrorists more reasons to try and harm you. You lose face in the world community.


As a person who lives in the USA, I hope not.


Really? You think that people may sit back and think, "Damn, I wish I voted for Mcain / Palin"? No way. This country has spiralled out of control during W's tenure. Time for a change.

I am a perosn who wants Conservative values and political policies being carried out, It will be interesting to see what kind of America that BHO wants to create. You say the people want change and I am sure that BHO will be a very different President than Bush was.

I look forward to see what BHO 's kind of change is
G

[HibsMax]

I am a perosn who wants Conservative values and political policies being carried out, It will be interesting to see what kind of America that BHO wants to create. You say the people want change and I am sure that BHO will be a very different President than Bush was.

I look forward to see what BHO 's kind of change is
G
Do you think that invading Iraq was justified?
Do you think that "we" were within our rights to execute Saddam Hussein? I know he was a terrible man but why are "we" not removing all the other tyrants from power?

I look forward to Obama's change as well. This country has taken a beating over the past few years, both domestically and in the eyes of the world community. We NEED this change.

[Gerard]

Do you think that invading Iraq was justified?
Do you think that "we" were within our rights to execute Saddam Hussein? I know he was a terrible man but why are "we" not removing all the other tyrants from power?

I look forward to Obama's change as well. This country has taken a beating over the past few years, both domestically and in the eyes of the world community. We NEED this change.

I see the World as a Conservative and because of that I want a Conservative agenda. I have lost no sleep after the death of SH. The next time that I have a chance to ask 'Uncle George Bush' I will ask him why he did not remove other tyrants from power:wink:

One interesting thing is depsite the fact that America is fighting 2 wars and the economy is in a recession, BO only won 53% of the vote compared to JC's 47%. I would argue that BO has to take account of that fact when the Democrats are in power.

I see that you stay in Boston, a very nice city but too liberal for my tastes. Next trip to the USA will see me going South
G

[Betty Boop]

I see the World as a Conservative and because of that I want a Conservative agenda. I have lost no sleep after the death of SH. The next time that I have a chance to ask 'Uncle George Bush' I will ask him why he did not remove other tyrants from power:wink:

One interesting thing is depsite the fact that America is fighting 2 wars and the economy is in a recession, BO only won 53% of the vote compared to JC's 47%. I would argue that BO has to take account of that fact when the Democrats are in power.

I see that you stay in Boston, a very nice city but too liberal for my tastes. Next trip to the USA will see me going South
G Ooh Gerard you are awful! :blah:

[Gerard]

[/B] Ooh Gerard you are awful! :blah:

Thanks:thumbsup::wink::hnet::devil::duck::boo hoo:
G

[HibsMax]

I see the World as a Conservative and because of that I want a Conservative agenda. I have lost no sleep after the death of SH. The next time that I have a chance to ask 'Uncle George Bush' I will ask him why he did not remove other tyrants from power:wink:

One interesting thing is depsite the fact that America is fighting 2 wars and the economy is in a recession, BO only won 53% of the vote compared to JC's 47%. I would argue that BO has to take account of that fact when the Democrats are in power.

I see that you stay in Boston, a very nice city but too liberal for my tastes. Next trip to the USA will see me going South
G

I don't actually live in Boston but that's the closest big city I live close to. The town I live in is pretty conservative. LOL.

You didn't say whether or not you thought the invasion of Iraq was justified though. ;) I haven't lost any sleep over SH's demise either but I still think the way it was handled was well out of order. We, the Brits and the Yanks, would be pretty pissed if other countries waded in uninvited and decided to "fix our problems" for us. Nobody elected us to police the world.

[Gerard]

I don't actually live in Boston but that's the closest big city I live close to. The town I live in is pretty conservative. LOL.

You didn't say whether or not you thought the invasion of Iraq was justified though. ;) I haven't lost any sleep over SH's demise either but I still think the way it was handled was well out of order. We, the Brits and the Yanks, would be pretty pissed if other countries waded in uninvited and decided to "fix our problems" for us. Nobody elected us to police the world.

I have no problems with the military action taken in Iraq and would have no problems with a new goverment in Iran. I think that the situation in Iran is worrying given the comments about Iran attacking Israel with Nuclear weapons.

America is a super power with many interests over seas and these interests need protecting. As we in the UK enjoy a special relationship with the US, we would do well to develop and maintain this SR.
G

[HibsMax]

I have no problems with the military action taken in Iraq and would have no problems with a new goverment in Iran. I think that the situation in Iran is worrying given the comments about Iran attacking Israel with Nuclear weapons.

America is a super power with many interests over seas and these interests need protecting. As we in the UK enjoy a special relationship with the US, we would do well to develop and maintain this SR.
G
You have no problems with the military action taken in Iraq? OK. Can you justify these actions? I believe in defending your interests but I am not sure what interests we were defending in this instance. And let's not go down the WMD road because I think we all know that that story is a crock...even though no government has been brought up on any charges of war crimes. Like that's ever gonna happen.

It's not our decision who rules other countries. It doesn't matter if we like the ruler or not, it's not our concern UNLESS that ruler starts doing crazy ***** like invading other countries (Poland, Kuwait, etc.). Saddam was a terrible person but he wasn't doing anything to us. If we're going to start weeding out all the terrible leaders in the world then we have to do it fairly and it would be sensible to have the full support of the world community. A lot more Americans have died since the war started than if we never invaded, sorry, "liberated", Iraq in the first place. And for what?

[Gerard]

You have no problems with the military action taken in Iraq? OK. Can you justify these actions? I believe in defending your interests but I am not sure what interests we were defending in this instance. And let's not go down the WMD road because I think we all know that that story is a crock...even though no government has been brought up on any charges of war crimes. Like that's ever gonna happen.

It's not our decision who rules other countries. It doesn't matter if we like the ruler or not, it's not our concern UNLESS that ruler starts doing crazy ***** like invading other countries (Poland, Kuwait, etc.). Saddam was a terrible person but he wasn't doing anything to us. If we're going to start weeding out all the terrible leaders in the world then we have to do it fairly and it would be sensible to have the full support of the world community. A lot more Americans have died since the war started than if we never invaded, sorry, "liberated", Iraq in the first place. And for what?

I believe that the USA and her allies have the right to defend the economic interests of all these countries. Iraq has a vast resource of oil and oil is still an essential part of our countries. We have a duty to help the people of Iraq to develop their country as a democratic state.


The USA military has suffered the majority of KIAS and wounded military personal and these losses must not be in vain.


The Western powers must show that we will not accept a country like Iran developing nuclear weapons as the leader of this country recently said that he would like to destroy Israel by nuclear weapons.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon and dentonates it in a Western City the loss of life would be very hard to accept and even imagine.

The World is full of many evil Goverments and I hope that ASAP these wicked Governments will be removed. The next should be Iran. I would lose no sleep if Mr Mugabe was removed from office and would suspect that the people of Zimbabwe would be happy with his removal.
G

I see the 'United Nations' as being a talking shop and a waste of time and money

[Arch Stanton]

The argument that I have tried to advance is that the various intelligence agencies don't post on the internet their intelligence findings. There may be intelligence that we are not aware of that would suggest that the actions taken by the Bush Government were justified. If the source of that intelligence was made public it could put at risk the source of the intelligence. In time history may prove this to be the case.


I'd sure as hell would be interested to know what exactly the intelligence agencies were looking at when they reported that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[Bayern Bru]

Essentially, the Bush administration needed a scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks.
The American public was desperate for action to be taken, so the Americans invaded Iraq, despite there being little or no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

By invading Iraq and attempting to maintain popular support, Bush neglected operations in Iraq and thus Al Qaeda were not the primary target of the American and allied forces, which in turn added to the lengthening of the "war" on terror.

Oh, and another thing: It really pisses me off that every anti-Obama person seemingly refers to him as Barack Hussein Obama.

****** off back to your comfort of 19th Century Fox news and misguided assumptions that Obama is a terrorist plotting to destroy America from the inside.

[Hibbyradge]

Essentially, the Bush administration needed a scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks.
The American public was desperate for action to be taken, so the Americans invaded Iraq, despite there being little or no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

By invading Iraq and attempting to maintain popular support, Bush neglected operations in Iraq and thus Al Qaeda were not the primary target of the American and allied forces, which in turn added to the lengthening of the "war" on terror.

Oh, and another thing: It really pisses me off that every anti-Obama person seemingly refers to him as Barack Hussein Obama.

****** off back to your comfort of 19th Century Fox news and misguided assumptions that Obama is a terrorist plotting to destroy America from the inside.

Absolutely. :agree:

(It would be good if he was though :duck: )

[HibsMax]

I believe that the USA and her allies have the right to defend the economic interests of all these countries. Iraq has a vast resource of oil and oil is still an essential part of our countries. We have a duty to help the people of Iraq to develop their country as a democratic state.
No we do not have a duty to do any such thing. We are in NO position to tell another country how they should govern themselves. PERIOD. The vast oil resources that are within Iraq's borders "belongs" to Iraq. It doesn't matter who needs it. Should Iraq be allowed to invade the US, install a dictator and decide where our oil goes?



The USA military has suffered the majority of KIAS and wounded military personal and these losses must not be in vain.
If we didn't invade Iraq in the first place, there wouldn't be any KIAs.



The Western powers must show that we will not accept a country like Iran developing nuclear weapons as the leader of this country recently said that he would like to destroy Israel by nuclear weapons.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon and dentonates it in a Western City the loss of life would be very hard to accept and even imagine.
Whereas it's OK for us, the US, the ONLY country to have a history of actually using nuclear weapons against another country.....it's OK for us to have a program? LOL. And why are you talking about Iran? Don't we have enough blood on our hands?


The World is full of many evil Goverments and I hope that ASAP these wicked Governments will be removed. The next should be Iran. I would lose no sleep if Mr Mugabe was removed from office and would suspect that the people of Zimbabwe would be happy with his removal.
G
You know, some people thing that the US and UK have wicked governments. I assume you would see no problem in some country taking out our President or Prime Minister? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Hypocrisy? Naaaaaaaaaaah. ;)

[Gerard]

No we do not have a duty to do any such thing. We are in NO position to tell another country how they should govern themselves. PERIOD. The vast oil resources that are within Iraq's borders "belongs" to Iraq. It doesn't matter who needs it. Should Iraq be allowed to invade the US, install a dictator and decide where our oil goes?



If we didn't invade Iraq in the first place, there wouldn't be any KIAs.



Whereas it's OK for us, the US, the ONLY country to have a history of actually using nuclear weapons against another country.....it's OK for us to have a program? LOL. And why are you talking about Iran? Don't we have enough blood on our hands?


You know, some people thing that the US and UK have wicked governments. I assume you would see no problem in some country taking out our President or Prime Minister? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Hypocrisy? Naaaaaaaaaaah. ;)

I do not see us being able to reach any consensus about the situation in Iraq and why this country and the USA took action there. I see the USA as a super power who like the British Empire were able to make political policy on the basis that they were Super powers and were able to do so.

The USA have only used Nuclear weapons to end a war and have never used them since. They could have used them during the Vietnam War to defeat the Viet Kong. They accepted a humiluating defeat.

The people of Iraq will be paid for their oil. The USA and her allies are not taking the oil without payment. We are not Communists

The USA and her allies have a lot of enemies that would be prepared to use nuclear weapons against us if they had the opportunity to do so.

Imagine a British ir American City being destroyed by a small nuclear device or an attack of our friends in Israel.

As I see the situation; BHO has said that he sees Afghanistain as being a theatre of conflict that requires a greater deployment of military assets and will continue to support the Pro Western state of Israel.

In many ways US policy will not change in regard to foreign policy. I also would be surprised if there was a major withdrawal of military asstes in Iraq, any time soon.

In conclusion I see the interests of the USA and her alllies as being the primary objective. I suspect that we shall never see consensus in this matter.
Gerard