|
Post by crustyoldssg on Feb 2, 2016 20:03:26 GMT
Probably the only thing close to an unpopular opinion I have is to think capital punishment should stay legal (almost impossible to go forward with, but legal). Also I think guns should remain legal (more emphasis on pistols and hunting rifles), although that's not exactly an unpopular belief in my country. Shall not be infringed.That debate was settled in 1775
|
|
|
Post by ToixStory on Feb 4, 2016 4:49:59 GMT
I think Trump is pretty funny. I've decided to vote for Cruz though. well,when both the democrat and republican wings of the democratic party are attacking Cruz,that tells me he is our guy I'd think the brutal homophobia and desire to take away the rights of LGBT citizens would tell you otherwise...
|
|
|
Post by crustyoldssg on Feb 4, 2016 20:45:20 GMT
I think self-determination should be accepted and that territorial integrity, when it conflicts with self-determination, should be chucked. I think that the Iraq War was prima facie illegal, numerous leaders knew Iraq did NOT have WMD but went to war anyway, and those who did are war criminals and should be treated as such. (This also includes those who launched Desert Fox in 1998.) I think balanced budgets are important most times. I think the EU should be dissolved or reformed to end the forced austerity policies. How was it "illegal"?It was duly authorized by the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998,passed by congress and signed into law by one Wililam Jefferson Clinton
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Feb 4, 2016 22:11:26 GMT
- If Trump wins the GOP nomination (I missed the deadline to register for the Primary in my state), he's got my vote this November for sure. - I'm a Social Conservative. - I'm mildly Pro-Russia and Putin to an extent, with a major point being as long as they leave Eastern Europe alone (I'm a big supporter of Poland, Hungary, and such).
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 5, 2016 1:47:43 GMT
I think self-determination should be accepted and that territorial integrity, when it conflicts with self-determination, should be chucked. I think that the Iraq War was prima facie illegal, numerous leaders knew Iraq did NOT have WMD but went to war anyway, and those who did are war criminals and should be treated as such. (This also includes those who launched Desert Fox in 1998.) I think balanced budgets are important most times. I think the EU should be dissolved or reformed to end the forced austerity policies. How was it "illegal"?It was duly authorized by the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998,passed by congress and signed into law by one Wililam Jefferson Clinton Well, as Duelfer and Kay documented (and Hussein Kamil said), the WMD programs were destroyed by the time said law was passed. (BTW, that means the 2003 invasion AND Clinton* & Blair's Desert Fox were both waged under false premises.) Saddam was not backing Al-Quaida (though thanks to the bombing, AQ got to spread out very well). * The bombing just happened to begin in the middle of Clinton's impeachment hearings.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Feb 5, 2016 2:54:15 GMT
How was it "illegal"?It was duly authorized by the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998,passed by congress and signed into law by one Wililam Jefferson Clinton Well, as Duelfer and Kay documented (and Hussein Kamil said), the WMD programs were destroyed by the time said law was passed. (BTW, that means the 2003 invasion AND Clinton* & Blair's Desert Fox were both waged under false premises.) Saddam was not backing Al-Quaida (though thanks to the bombing, AQ got to spread out very well). * The bombing just happened to begin in the middle of Clinton's impeachment hearings. Except for the fact Saddam failed to get rid of around 5,000 chemical weapons in violation of UN Resolution 687 (Which mandated they had to destroy all of them), and was providing shelter to Ansar al-Islam (Now apart of ISIS). By the way, those guys in Ansar al-Islam had a WMD production plant at Sargat that our boys paid a visit to, and confirmed traces of ricin and botulinum.
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 5, 2016 5:47:19 GMT
Well, as Duelfer and Kay documented (and Hussein Kamil said), the WMD programs were destroyed by the time said law was passed. (BTW, that means the 2003 invasion AND Clinton* & Blair's Desert Fox were both waged under false premises.) Saddam was not backing Al-Quaida (though thanks to the bombing, AQ got to spread out very well). * The bombing just happened to begin in the middle of Clinton's impeachment hearings. Except for the fact Saddam failed to get rid of around 5,000 chemical weapons in violation of UN Resolution 687 (Which mandated they had to destroy all of them), and was providing shelter to Ansar al-Islam (Now apart of ISIS). By the way, those guys in Ansar al-Islam had a WMD production plant at Sargat that our boys paid a visit to, and confirmed traces of ricin and botulinum. Those aforementioned shells? They were PRE-1991, and had been lost or discarded, not in stockpiles. They were corroded, and while damaging when used as IED, they were far from potent enough to cause the damage as, say, the Sarin used on Ghouta or Khan-al-Asal in Syria...or even Tokyo. Ansar-al-Islam? They were based in northern Iraq, near the border with Iran. They were outside of Saddam's control, and were effectively surrounded by Kurdistan. (In fact, US forces and Kurdish Peshmerga were the ones that raided the lab*. Colin Powell later stated that there was no evidence that they were connected with Saddam. * Of course, the ability of Ansar-al-Islam to have a chemical weapons lab shows that it's not just nation states that have the capability for chemical weapons (Since people are forgetting Aum Shinrikyo). Further, given the use of chemical weapons against Syrian government forces in Khan-al-Asal, and how the Sarin found there was identical to the Sarin used in Ghouta, it's likely that the Sarin was from rebel stocks, not Syrian. (Which means that the Obama Administration lied- aided by the fact that nobody brought down Bush or Clinton for their lies over WMD.)
|
|
|
Post by crustyoldssg on Feb 5, 2016 6:33:08 GMT
that does not explain how a military operation passed by congress and signed into law by POTUS was "illegal"
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 6, 2016 20:50:39 GMT
that does not explain how a military operation passed by congress and signed into law by POTUS was "illegal" Being passed into law and signed by the President does not make it legal. There is, of course, international law (which is considered to be on the level of the Constitution, per Article III, Section 2), which disapproves of wars of aggression. (The Kellogg-Briand pact is still in force.) Further, if someone gives false information to Congress, it's still a crime under the False Statements Act. Given how many of the statements from both the Clinton and Bush White Houses were demonstrably false, the officials who made those statements violated the law.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Feb 7, 2016 4:30:05 GMT
Those aforementioned shells? They were PRE-1991, and had been lost or discarded, not in stockpiles. They were corroded, and while damaging when used as IED, they were far from potent enough to cause the damage as, say, the Sarin used on Ghouta or Khan-al-Asal in Syria...or even Tokyo. Doesn't matter if they were Pre-1991, the UN Resolution called for the destruction of WMDs period. And as yahoo shows here there were indeed stockpiled: Ansar was a Sunni group, so their location being near Iran doesn't seem to mean anything (Unless I am misunderstanding here). Next, Saddam had nearly two years at the least to do something about them and didn't even attempt, which combined with his aid of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and response to the attacks suggests he at least mildly approved of them at the least. The fact the Kurds assisted us (Re: brought the numbers in and did a lot of heavy lifting) and the Brits in bashing the snot out of them is also another point on which I don't understand what you're trying to get at. He was part of the same administration that ordered what was essentially a cover up of the Chemical weapons, so he's not a credible source. In total agreement to the letter on this. For the record, I didn't like Bush's tenor either but firmly feel Iraq was justified.
|
|