Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/25/2002 8:56:28 PM EDT
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61040-2002Aug25.html[/url]
Link Posted: 8/25/2002 9:08:46 PM EDT
Without a doubt, Saddam needs to go. It does not take the old "hey diddle diddle right up the middle" approach to accomplish his removal either. We just need to put a few cracks in is inner circle and let the pressure do the rest.
Link Posted: 8/25/2002 9:28:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DPeacher: We just need to put a few cracks in is inner circle and let the pressure do the rest.
View Quote
VERY well said! I like that.
Link Posted: 8/25/2002 11:35:02 PM EDT
Yeah Saddam has to go. But anyone who even thinks about launching a major invasion of another country without the approval of Congress is on crack.. Bush needs to sit on some of his younger staffers. Foreign support is negotiable, the support of the US Congress is NOT.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 12:55:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Yeah Saddam has to go. But anyone who even thinks about launching a major invasion of another country without the approval of Congress is on crack.. Bush needs to sit on some of his younger staffers. Foreign support is negotiable, the support of the US Congress is NOT.
View Quote
I don't see a problem at all. The sheeple are clamoring all over each other to take a huge steaming dump on the Constitution to show their patriotism in support of the war on terrorism. This is a democracy after all and what the majority says, goes.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 1:00:31 AM EDT
...and everyone knows that the majority is always right...
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 1:22:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DPeacher: Without a doubt, Saddam needs to go. It does not take the old "hey diddle diddle right up the middle" approach to accomplish his removal either. We just need to put a few cracks in is inner circle and let the pressure do the rest.
View Quote
This is the exact philosophy that has made a giant mess of foreign policy in recent years. 'Let's be involved, but no commitments and no perminant presence'... Yeah right... That will just result in Saddam being replaced by 'Evil Dictator II', whoever that is. We have a chance here, with Iraq, to make our own 'domino effect' (see Vietnam era) in the middle east, except spreading democracy not communisim. We need to do to Iraq what we did to post-surrender Japan, namely convert it from military dictatorship to civil democracy. Anything else is a waste of time, as it will result in another rag-hat dictator just as bad as (or worse than) Saddam. But to do this, we must invade, and after the invasion we must occupy Iraq for 5-10 years, gradually building a democratic system (starting with insituting civil law, then a constitution, then an elected government. Done properly, this could go a long way towards repairing the ME (if such a thing is possible). As for the US consitution, it places NO LIMITS on what the president can do with his power of 'Commander in Chief', other than Congress must authorize a declared war (all attempts to restrict this have been struck down). No one has said that this will be a declared war (as you only need to declare war to invoke alliances, and we won't be needing that kind of support here (although it would be nice, and we'll proably ask (And get Israel & the UK only)...). So there's nothing wrong with not consulting congress. After all, the President is CinC, not congress.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 2:30:27 AM EDT
Every President has said that, even if they criticized other Presidents for military action without congressional support before they became President...
Top Top