Thread: Dear Mr. Obama

Originally Posted by painter33

George W. Bush never really "served" in the military. He just hid from the draft, drank a lot (drugs?), went AWOL, and was an embarrassment to his family and to the country. He then took the country into the most ill-advised war in our history, gave Al Qaeda recruiting fodder forever, and ruined our standing in the world through torture and rendition. Oh, and he has also taken us into the deepest debt and the most precarious economic straits since 1929. Let's not forget his draft-dodging partner Cheney and other chicken-hawks in this sordid administration. I'll take a smart, thoughtful person who has never served in the military if it means avoiding all of that. Obama has been a United States Senator, so there are many ways of serving one's country, as John McCain points out (by saying he's served all of his life). Get over this "never served in the military" thing. It's from another time (WWII) since most people have never done anything for our country, not even shared any sacrifice after 9/11 when it would have been appropriate. Instead, Bush said to go shopping.

There you go again, Joe, doggone it, looking to the past instead of the future. What GWB did or didn't do doesn't mean beans.

Why is it that Democrats always bring up GWB instead of attacking McCain? I mean really now, c'mon. Like McCain has said, if Obama wanted to run against GWB he shoulda done it 4 years ago.

btw, welcome to srp.

Originally Posted by mhailey

My analogy: I'm walking down the street with my family, and I have my handgun with me. A person, who is know is violate due to past personal experience approaches me, and makes threatening gestures/statements. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out what I think is a gun. I pull my gun, and warn him that I will shoot if he proceeds with his current course of action. He fails to comply and I shoot him dead. Upon closer inspection, the "handgun" he pulled out from his pocket is a cell phone. The fact that he did not have a gun does not make my shooting wrong. It was still a righteous and justified shooting.

I see your analogy and rise you a parable: A small country are doing what all other countries do and have all kinds of weapons on them. Another country, who is known to have more powerful weapons than any other one and is the only one to ever use them approaches the first one and makes threatening gestures/statements. The small country thinks the big one has stepped way over what is decent and ought to mind its own business instead of bullying around whoever is their favorite pick at the moment. Small country also happened to be a friend of the big country before their relationship went sour. The big country tries to gather other countries grant its intervention legitimacy and most of the ones that could stand up to it refuse, while some powerless countries join it.
So the big country goes over the small country and takes over without much effort, but gets enough bruises that when another of the strong countries beats up one of the bully's friends the big country can't help because they're getting stitches in the ER.

The moral(s) - if somebody stronger than you picks a fight, you should expect to lose it. Don't try to be too smart and expect that they will consider the consequences of the bruises they'll take.
If you want to look really smart you should push somebody else fight with the bully and while the later is recovering you can give them the few mild kicks you always craved. At all times keep in mind that if you push it too hard you may get shot.

Originally Posted by freebird

There you go again, Joe, doggone it, looking to the past instead of the future. What GWB did or didn't do doesn't mean beans.

I think what Bush did or didn't do, and the Republican reaction/complicity, is exactly why the election appears so lopsided now. If the party moved to reign in Bush, things would look a lot different now. Just watch how far Obama runs away from Pelosi to keep the government moderate.

Where was the US in 1988 when Saddam used Chemical Weapons on the Kurds, where was the US when they were used in the Iran-Iraq War, oh yea the US was Saddam's buddy at the time and having dinner with Rumsfeld. The fiction that has been sold to an ignorant American public that hungers for blood and red meat is BS, and a fiction made up to cover their incompetence. If you want to know why the US is still there watch Dick Cheney's interview as to why they didn't go to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. Colin Powell had it right it's the Pottery Barn rule, you break it, you bought it. It's probably one of the few things that John McCain was right about, the US will need to be there for a hundred years.

There are lots of scumbag leaders in the world is the US going after all of them?

Originally Posted by freebird

There you go again, Joe, doggone it, looking to the past instead of the future. What GWB did or didn't do doesn't mean beans.

Why is it that Democrats always bring up GWB instead of attacking McCain? I mean really now, c'mon. Like McCain has said, if Obama wanted to run against GWB he shoulda done it 4 years ago.

btw, welcome to srp.

Yea you shouldn't look to the past with Republican activity that borders on if not actually criminal, but focus on past minor associations that Obama had with some individuals.

Bush should have been impeached for knowingly lying to get the US into a war, the real crime is that he will get away with it.

George W. Bush is the sitting President, a member of the Republican Party so his actions over the last eight years are as relevant as they have been in every other election. I seem to remember the Republicans talking about Bill Clinton during 2000, 2004 and even now. So guess what Obama is running against GWB's record and rightfully so, personally I think he should be running on it more. I haven't even heard him bring up al the failures of that failed administration.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Personally I agreed with going into Iraq when we did. It is a fact that Saddam had WMD's and that he used them in the past. Bush gave Saddam the option of disclosing the WMD's, if destroyed, when, if the has them, where are they and destroy them. Saddam was a sadistic SOB. Saddam did not make any statements regarding the WMDs known to be in his possession, and he chose to risk the invasion.

The US had to right to invade a sovereign country without just cause.
The inspectors told everyone there were no WMD.
The US later had to admit their evidence was fake.
There was NO reason to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted by mhailey

My analogy: I'm walking down the street with my family, and I have my handgun with me. A person, who is know is violate due to past personal experience approaches me, and makes threatening gestures/statements. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out what I think is a gun. I pull my gun, and warn him that I will shoot if he proceeds with his current course of action. He fails to comply and I shoot him dead. Upon closer inspection, the "handgun" he pulled out from his pocket is a cell phone. The fact that he did not have a gun does not make my shooting wrong. It was still a righteous and justified shooting.

Yes, it does. killing someone without a good reason is murder or manslaughter.
Thinking you are under attack is not enough reason to retaliate. You have to know you are under attack. Otherwise you are just a trigger happy gunner. Incidentally, this is exactly why you had no international support for the war in Iraq, as opposed to the one in Afghanistan, which was justifiable.
Iraq did not attack the US, and did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda. There was NO valid reason to invade.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Saddam was a violent and sadistic individual, and would support any organization that was intent on doing harm to the US. He had WMDs and had used them in the past on his own people. It is not a far stretch of the imagination that he would support any terrorist organization opposed to the USA. He was in blatant violation of multiple resolutions imposed upon him by the UN. The UN required that he disclose the location of the WMDs he had, or, if they were destroyed, prove that they were destroyed. He did not. He was warned of invasion if he did not comply, and he still failed to comply. He was then invaded. All based upon UN resolutions and blessings.

Ehrm. Excuse me? The US went in on its own without anyone's blessing. Kofi Anan called the war illegal.
It was Bush who made threats. Not the UN. Your statement makes it look as if the UN sanctioned the war, but it didn't.
United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Hutch

Yea you shouldn't look to the past with Republican activity that borders on if not actually criminal, but focus on past minor associations that Obama had with some individuals.

Bush should have been impeached for knowingly lying to get the US into a war, the real crime is that he will get away with it.

George W. Bush is the sitting President, a member of the Republican Party so his actions over the last eight years are as relevant as they have been in every other election. I seem to remember the Republicans talking about Bill Clinton during 2000, 2004 and even now. So guess what Obama is running against GWB's record and rightfully so, personally I think he should be running on it more. I haven't even heard him bring up al the failures of that failed administration.

I don't know, maybe I'm an odd duck, but I don't vote based on the party, I vote based on whom I believe will do the best job, and as such I listen to what both have to say then make my decision.

If we associate each with their party, then I have no further to look than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Joe Biden to tag Obama.

Originally Posted by freebird

I don't know, maybe I'm an odd duck, but I don't vote based on the party, I vote based on whom I believe will do the best job, and as such I listen to what both have to say then make my decision.

If we associate each with their party, then I have no further to look than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Joe Biden to tag Obama.

Suppose we assume for a second that guilt by association is valid. Your problem with them is precisely what? Please be specific.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Suppose we assume for a second that guilt by association is valid. Your problem with them is precisely what? Please be specific.

j

Take for example Barney Frank, who said this in response to a Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac overhaul plan in 2003:


“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Barney Frank 2003

Now he's saying it's the Republicans fault. Seems there's too much party line politics and not enough people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The US had to right to invade a sovereign country without just cause.

I will post a list of all of the UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq, most of which they violated.

The inspectors told everyone there were no WMD.
which ones? the ones that Iraq kick out, in violation of the UN resolutions?

The US later had to admit their evidence was fake.

Mistaken is not fake.

There was NO reason to invade Iraq.

Right, lets have the UN pass another resolution condemning Iraq's violation of the previous resolutions, and threatening that if Iraq violates more resolutions, the UN will pass another resolution.



Yes, it does. killing someone without a good reason is murder or manslaughter.
Thinking you are under attack is not enough reason to retaliate. You have to know you are under attack. Otherwise you are just a trigger happy gunner. Incidentally, this is exactly why you had no international support for the war in Iraq, as opposed to the one in Afghanistan, which was justifiable.
Iraq did not attack the US, and did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda. There was NO valid reason to invade.

So you would wait until he killed your wife, or would you wait until he killed your wife and your kid. But then you are not under attack. he was after your wife and child. Since you were not under attack, you can't do anything to stop him. Your wife could, but she is now dead. The fact that he had a cell phone does not negate the threats he made toward you, and the ominous position he took toward you.



Ehrm. Excuse me? The US went in on its own without anyone's blessing. Kofi Anan called the war illegal.
It was Bush who made threats. Not the UN. Your statement makes it look as if the UN sanctioned the war, but it didn't.
United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so the following resolutions don't mean anything?? Or shall we threaten more resolutions if these resolutions are not followed.



1483 (22 May 2003)

• Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
• Recognizes Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development Fund for Iraq
• Summaries and analysis can be found on pages 10-13 of the Open Society Institute paper "Reconstructing Iraq: a guide to the issues", and in this article from the American Society of International Law. A Parliamentary research paper (2 June 2003) provides a British government perspective.
• Initial US-UK draft (9 May)
• Revised US-UK-Spain draft (15 May)
• The Open Society Institute criticized aspects of this resolution, and suggested changes to allow greater supervision of the occupying powers

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

• Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
• Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
• States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

• 
  
• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
  
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
  
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
  
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

• 
  
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
  
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

• 
  
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

• 
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

• 
  
• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
  
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

• 
  
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

• 
  
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

• 
  
• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

• 
  
• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

• 
  
• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
  
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
  
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

• 
  
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

• 
  
• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
  
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
  
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
  
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
  
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
  
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

• 
  
• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
  
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
  
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

• 
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
  
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
  
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
  
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
  
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
  
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
  
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

• 
  
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
  
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
  
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

• 
  
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
  
• Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions
Additional UN Security Council Statements


In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website. The list of statements includes:

• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
• UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

I guess I have to type something down here to post this response.

Matt