• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

You really have a problem with the war. Do you have any first hand experience on the validity of being in Iraq? As I have stated on a number of forums, I had three family members in Iraq and all said we did the right thing. Why are they wrong?

The fact is that most of the attackers were indeed Saudi's but there is no evidence at all that the Saudis trained them and supported them according to the 9/11 Commission.

Key points in the 9/11 Report

• The Saudi government did not fund the 19 hijackers.
• Relatives of bin Laden were not allowed to fly out of the country until after air traffic was allowed to move freely after it was grounded following the attacks.
• Bush did not know about the specific threat beforehand.

The 9/11 commission report stated there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and the CIA reported that the WMD programs were disbanded after the first gulf war. If you believe there were legitimate reasons to invade Iraq I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. The conflict has resulted in 1 million deaths so far. 1 MILLION! I find it interesting how many people who support the war refer to themselves as Christians. I don't think Jesus would support that war if he were alive today.

And let me add, its very easy to support destruction and death when one is sitting thousands of miles away in the safety and comfort of ones own home.
 
Last edited:
Mohammed Atta trained in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah, FUNDED From IRAQ, Al Qaeda Terrorist Camp in Iraq, but apparently Saddam was simply a VICTIM Of the West's Imperialism, right and not a terrorist?

They TRAINED in the USA......they were brainwashed in Saudi Arabia....
 
The 9/11 commission report stated there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and the CIA reported that the WMD programs were disbanded after the first gulf war. If you believe there were legitimate reasons to invade Iraq I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. The conflict has resulted in 1 million deaths so far. 1 MILLION! I find it interesting how many people who support the war refer to themselves as Christians. I don't think Jesus would support that war if he were alive today.

And let me add, its very easy to support destruction and death when one is sitting thousands of miles away in the safety and comfort of ones own home.

As I pointed out I had three family members serve in Iraq, one was a Marine and two in the Army, two of the three were in the field and one was in military intelligence that had access to some top secret data. What is your expertise in the area? All three said we did the right thing.

I can tell you it is really comfortable it is sitting at home worried whether or not we will get that phone call that no family wants to get so you really don't have a clue what you are talking about as usual.
 
Last edited:
As I pointed out I had three family members serve in Iraq, one was a Marine and two in the Army, two of the three were in the field and one was in military intelligence that had access to some top secret data. What is your expertise in the area? All three said we did the right thing.

I can tell you it is really comfortable it is sitting at home worried whether or not we will get that phone call that no family wants to get so you really don't have a clue what you are talking about as usual.
So you have access to top secret info via a relative? Does he refute the 9/11 commisson findings?
I have had relatives there as well. I doubt that the WMD would or could be kept secret from the public, mostly because Bush wanted to find them and prove to the world that his cause was just, instead of just revenge. It is amazing the level of denial on that issue.
 
As I pointed out I had three family members serve in Iraq, one was a Marine and two in the Army, two of the three were in the field and one was in military intelligence that had access to some top secret data...All three said we did the right thing.

So your source is your family members? Lol. What if during our debates about the Bush tax cuts I said that my family members are accountants and that is how I know the tax cuts were harmful to our economy? You'd laugh at me, call me names and tell me to use a source. Well, my source on this is the 9/11 commission reports and the CIA. You citing your family makes your argument terrible. BTW I have just as much family who served. One is a West Point grad who is in Afghanistan right now. Another is in Iraq right now. The others returned home last year. I know what waiting for calls is like.

What is your expertise in the area?

Currently working on a Master's Degree in Justice Studies with a concentration in Homeland Security. And from what we've learned? All of the supposed reasons for the war were illegitimate. Federal law enforcement, very specific counterterrorism operations, intelligence and diplomacy most adequately suppress terrorism. Dropping bombs on countries with very little if any terrorist affiliations is counter productive, overly broad and extremely expensive.

Again, I ask you, what would Jesus do?
 
Last edited:
So your source is your family members? Lol. What if during our debates about the Bush tax cuts I said that my family members are accountants and that is how I know the tax cuts were harmful to our economy? You'd laugh at me, call me names and tell me to use a source. Well, my source on this is the 9/11 commission reports and the CIA. You citing your family makes your argument terrible. BTW I have just as much family who served. One is a West Point grad who is in Afghanistan right now. Another is in Iraq right now. The others returned home last year. I know what waiting for calls is like.



Currently working on a Master's Degree in Justice Studies with a concentration in Homeland Security. And from what we've learned? All of the supposed reasons for the war were illegitimate. Federal law enforcement, very specific counterterrorism operations, intelligence and diplomacy most adequately suppress terrorism. Dropping bombs on countries with very little if any terrorist affiliations is counter productive, overly broad and extremely expensive.

Again, I ask you, what would Jesus do?

I ask you again what is your experience regarding what was going on in Iraq. Your "opinion" about Iraq comes from what you read, mine came from people that were there. I will take personal experience over your opinions any time. I can post quotes from the Democrat leadership prior to Bush taking office and after but it really doesn't matter today. You aren't going to change.

It serves no purpose to continue this discussion as it really has nothing to do with the thread topic. Nothing is going to change your mind nor is anything going to change mine. It is the past. "Your" President continued to the Bush Iraq policy. If you want to go down this route again then start another thread.
 
So you have access to top secret info via a relative? Does he refute the 9/11 commisson findings?
I have had relatives there as well. I doubt that the WMD would or could be kept secret from the public, mostly because Bush wanted to find them and prove to the world that his cause was just, instead of just revenge. It is amazing the level of denial on that issue.

There were many reasons for going to war as the resolution passed in October 2002 stated, but yes there was a WMD program in Iraq and ready to be reconstituted. More importantly was the support for terrorism and the brutal oppression of his own people. The mass graves uncovered, the physical abuse of his citizens, and the brutal rape and incest by his sons were examples of that brutal regime. Troops did find WMD but not to the level that intelligence indicated, but according to my nephew the abuses alone and the murder of his people, the threat of reconstituting that program, the support he gave terrorists was justification for removing him. Obama has taken a victory and is turning it into a defeat, JMO.
 
So right now, today, under those cuts, we have high tax revenues? Is that what you're saying?

what I am saying is that your scheme for punishing the rich should be termed what it is and your pathetic attempts to justify class warfare in the guise of claiming deficit reduction are specious
 
What does "yearly" cost of a war have to do with it? All of the money spent in Iraq was wasted. How conservative is that?
We have issues at home that are more important than yet another futile effort to bring democracy to some sand pit in the middle east. Besides, there already is democracy there, in Israel, and it doesn't impress the Arab world one bit.
While we rebuild what we destroyed over there, our own infrastucture is suffering. We need to employ OUR people in OUR country taking care of our own needs..

wasted? that is a silly claim unless you can see the landscape of the middle east 20-30-40- years down the road. But we know what the Great SOciety did. It created more and more dependent suckers of the public teat who breed at high rates and create more and more and more dependent addicts to government handouts. Many of those people are creating most of those doing hard time in our prisons as well. So the dependency mentality has created an ever growing cancer that costs more and more money
 
So your source is your family members? Lol. What if during our debates about the Bush tax cuts I said that my family members are accountants and that is how I know the tax cuts were harmful to our economy? You'd laugh at me, call me names and tell me to use a source. Well, my source on this is the 9/11 commission reports and the CIA. You citing your family makes your argument terrible. BTW I have just as much family who served. One is a West Point grad who is in Afghanistan right now. Another is in Iraq right now. The others returned home last year. I know what waiting for calls is like.



Currently working on a Master's Degree in Justice Studies with a concentration in Homeland Security. And from what we've learned? All of the supposed reasons for the war were illegitimate. Federal law enforcement, very specific counterterrorism operations, intelligence and diplomacy most adequately suppress terrorism. Dropping bombs on countries with very little if any terrorist affiliations is counter productive, overly broad and extremely expensive.

Again, I ask you, what would Jesus do?

OMG is this hilarious. I just read your little mantra at the bottom of your post and that sort of says it all

a student who is studying what? Justice? LOL, and whatever school you are at needs to give you a refund based on clear bias
 
There were many reasons for going to war as the resolution passed in October 2002 stated, but yes there was a WMD program in Iraq and ready to be reconstituted. More importantly was the support for terrorism and the brutal oppression of his own people. The mass graves uncovered, the physical abuse of his citizens, and the brutal rape and incest by his sons were examples of that brutal regime. Troops did find WMD but not to the level that intelligence indicated, but according to my nephew the abuses alone and the murder of his people, the threat of reconstituting that program, the support he gave terrorists was justification for removing him. Obama has taken a victory and is turning it into a defeat, JMO.

Sorry, can't agree with you...by those criteria we should have gone after Pol Pot, we should be in North Korea, etc.
As for being there, do you think that those of us who served in Vietnam knew what was going on? Most senior officers didn't even know. The top brass knows, or think they know, based on what the politicians tell them....
Ask Zumwalt if he knew that Agent Orange would take his son's life...
As for your anti-Obama statement, Iraq was never a victory, not the way we fight. Taking out their leader, their military was easy compared to the stated goal of bringing democracy to the Iraqi citizens. They don't want it enough. And the only thing they like more than killing each other, is killing infidels who dare trespass on their country...
 
I ask you again what is your experience regarding what was going on in Iraq. Your "opinion" about Iraq comes from what you read, mine came from people that were there.

Since when did the 9/11 commission report become my "opinion" lol. You seem to be so big on facts and government documents when you argue taxes, but when you argue war now the proper source is family members? Wow. I think I've had enough.
 
OMG is this hilarious. I just read your little mantra at the bottom of your post and that sort of says it all

a student who is studying what? Justice? LOL, and whatever school you are at needs to give you a refund based on clear bias

I thought one of the rules of the forum was that posters had to post something that adds to the debate and weren't allowed to write one-liner condescending remarks?

I understand you want to stick up for your fellow conservative, but I've debated with you before Turtledude and you're too smart to tie yourself up into an argument that uses family members as sources over the 9/11 commission report. As for the Jesus comment, its because Conservative considers himself a devout Christian and I've always been curious how Christians can be so pro-war. I think you already know that though. Stick to the debate instead of just talking **** and writing condescending remarks.
 
The first casualty of war is truth....Gen. Sherman, I think.....
anybody claiming to have full knowledge of what is going on in war is suffering from delusions..
 
There were many reasons for going to war as the resolution passed in October 2002 stated, but yes there was a WMD program in Iraq and ready to be reconstituted. More importantly was the support for terrorism and the brutal oppression of his own people. The mass graves uncovered, the physical abuse of his citizens, and the brutal rape and incest by his sons were examples of that brutal regime. Troops did find WMD but not to the level that intelligence indicated, but according to my nephew the abuses alone and the murder of his people, the threat of reconstituting that program, the support he gave terrorists was justification for removing him. Obama has taken a victory and is turning it into a defeat, JMO.

The two main reasons in the resolution concerned WMDs and ties with Alqaeda. Government documents now state the WMD program ended in 1991 and the 9/11 commission report states that Iraq had no ties to Alqaeda prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. As for human rights violations, the United States military is funded and staffed for the purposes of protecting our country from danger. The United States military is not an international police force that whose purpose is to go around the world and suppress regimes that conduct human rights violations. This is not what American tax dollars are to go towards, that is a form of international wellfare. I thought you conservatives were against spending money on poor people?
 
Sorry, can't agree with you...by those criteria we should have gone after Pol Pot, we should be in North Korea, etc.
As for being there, do you think that those of us who served in Vietnam knew what was going on? Most senior officers didn't even know. The top brass knows, or think they know, based on what the politicians tell them....
Ask Zumwalt if he knew that Agent Orange would take his son's life...
As for your anti-Obama statement, Iraq was never a victory, not the way we fight. Taking out their leader, their military was easy compared to the stated goal of bringing democracy to the Iraqi citizens. They don't want it enough. And the only thing they like more than killing each other, is killing infidels who dare trespass on their country...

We just need to agree to disagree. I believe we did the right thing, you don't. Both positions aren't relevant today. We went into Iraq and whether or not you agree with it or disagree doesn't change that reality. We have a radical Muslim problem in the world today and it doesn't do any good to ignore it or try to appease it. Iraq was and remains part of that war whether or not they were supporting al Qaeda or not. They supported terrorism. All this is a diversion from the mess we have in D.C. today. It is all about ideology and philosophy and Obama isn't doing anything to promote the American Ideology.
 
The two main reasons in the resolution concerned WMDs and ties with Alqaeda. Government documents now state the WMD program ended in 1991 and the 9/11 commission report states that Iraq had no ties to Alqaeda prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. As for human rights violations, the United States military is funded and staffed for the purposes of protecting our country from danger. The United States military is not an international police force that whose purpose is to go around the world and suppress regimes that conduct human rights violations. This is not what American tax dollars are to go towards, that is a form of international wellfare. I thought you conservatives were against spending money on poor people?

There were 22 reasons and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. They brought the resolution up and voted 76-23 to support it. That is fact just like the rhetoric of the Democrats that supported it. To say differently is what liberals do, try to change history.
 
The first casualty of war is truth....Gen. Sherman, I think.....
anybody claiming to have full knowledge of what is going on in war is suffering from delusions..

I prefer the experience of those that were there and the overwhelming support of the Military for GW Bush that continues today. There is always going to be disagreements in a country that was built on freedom of speech, but you always support the mission of our troops and you cannot do that by tearing down the Commander in Chief during that mission and that is what happened. Any time our troops go into battle it has to be done to win, and not fight a PC war. It is ok to debate the reasons for going to war AFTER the war is over but not before.

There is a reason that the Democrats didn't pursue impeachment changes against Bush. Most will deny it but the Democrats didn't want their quotes supporting the war prior to Bush taking office and afterwards posted all over the country as they preferred the issue to win political points and that worked.
 
I thought one of the rules of the forum was that posters had to post something that adds to the debate and weren't allowed to write one-liner condescending remarks?

I understand you want to stick up for your fellow conservative, but I've debated with you before Turtledude and you're too smart to tie yourself up into an argument that uses family members as sources over the 9/11 commission report. As for the Jesus comment, its because Conservative considers himself a devout Christian and I've always been curious how Christians can be so pro-war. I think you already know that though. Stick to the debate instead of just talking **** and writing condescending remarks.

The 9/11 report was specificly about 9/11, not the war in Iraq. That is where the focus was, not a war that started 1 1/2 years later. Obviously you picked and chose the parts of the 9/11 report that you believe suits your argument when the reality is the total 9/11 report vindicates GW Bush and of course we cannot have that.
 
There were 22 reasons and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. They brought the resolution up and voted 76-23 to support it. That is fact just like the rhetoric of the Democrats that supported it. To say differently is what liberals do, try to change history.

What does this have to do with Republicans and Democrats? American tax dollars aren't to spent on providing police services to third world foreigners. That is a form of international wellfare.
 
What does this have to do with Republicans and Democrats? American tax dollars aren't to spent on providing police services to third world foreigners. That is a form of international wellfare.

nor were tax dollars intended to be redistributed to buy dem politicians votes. the constitutional foundations for war are far more sound than welfare. and I agree that lots of the defense budget is wasted. But at least its not per se illegitimate
 

Al Qaeda wasn't the reason we went into Iraq but don't let that get in the way of your rants. Terrorism was and there are terrorists other than al Qaeda.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
 
What does this have to do with Republicans and Democrats? American tax dollars aren't to spent on providing police services to third world foreigners. That is a form of international wellfare.

Your lack of understanding of the enemy we face is staggering.
 
Your lack of understanding of the enemy we face is staggering.

You stated that one of the reasons for the war was Saddams treatment of his people. That has nothing to do with protecting Americans from an enemy.
 
Back
Top Bottom