• 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!

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up

I think it is pathetic US is picking and choosing which nations to invade just because of UN resolution.
Did I not already address this? I am pretty sure that I did... it was the failure to comply COUPLED with the inherent danger to America that was the drive.
 
Did I not already address this? I am pretty sure that I did... it was the failure to comply COUPLED with the inherent danger to America that was the drive.

There was no danger! It was paranoia on US's behalf
If we had let the UN do its damn job, it would have confirmed what we found. Nada. Zilch.
 
I think it is pathetic US is picking and choosing which nations to invade just because of UN resolution.
It's overwhelmingly unsound to argue that, since we invaded one country because of UN violations, we are somehow bound to invade them all.

Using your logic, since you painted one room blue because you didnt like the old color, you must then paint blue ALL the rooms that you don't like the old color.
 
There was no danger! It was paranoia on US's behalf
The UN itself described Iraq and his behavior as a threat to the security of the region.
 
...and as I stated, you referred to two wars; I cited 9/11 as the impetus for the Afghanistan war and Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions tied with the threat he posed if he had WMDs.

All of a sudden, the Iraq war is the only war you seem to point out and take the specific cause for the Afghan war as the specific cause for the Iraq war – perhaps you are just confused… or perhaps you are trying to mislead.

Dub-yah took his eye off the prize. Plain and simple. Had he remained focused on the War on Terror in Afghanistan instead of tinkering around in Iraq w/WMDs that just weren't there our troops in Afghanistan would be far more successful today. The man created problems where none existed beforehand. But nobody on the other side of politics wants to admit that. All they can talk about is "if" this or "if" that, but to date NOBODY HAS FOUND WMDs in Iraq - NOBODY!

They've found spent shells, empty labs, warehouses w/conventional weapons, a few documents here and there, but NO WMDs which was the very primus for going to war w/Iraq in the first place. And Liala's right! If I remember the head-count correctly, 8 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq! They didn't use conventional bombs to bring the WTC bldgs down. They used our own commercial planes! You didn't see mustard or sarin gas spew from the ashed. It was dust from pummelled plaster!

Saddam was no more a threat to this country or its national security than Kim Jung Ill (or whoever is N. Korea's president). That doesn't mean that he wasn't a bad man and a terrible leader to his people, and he certainly did threaten smaller nations around him (re: Kuwaitt). But he didn't threaten the U.S. in any way that required going to war. And even if the U.N. believed military force was necessary which many including myself contend they did not, it was still a U.N. issue, not a U.S.A. issue.

Now, I digress...

On this issue of potentially raising taxes on the middle class...key word here "potential"...it hasn't happened yet. So, until it does I really don't think there's anything to get all up in arms about. I do think that if the ecomony doesn't shake loose from it's slumber soon - and all signs indicated that things are starting to slowly turn around - then taxes would have to be raised. It would be a shame, but as an American I'd be willing to pay my fair share, and so should everyone else.
 
The UN itself described Iraq and his behavior as a threat to the security of the region.

US and UK argued differently, Bliar in particular argued there was a imminent danger from WMD.

And lets say Bush was correct (which he weren't) and it was a threat to ME. Was i supposed to care anyway?
 
It's overwhelmingly unsound to argue that, since we invaded one country because of UN violations, we are somehow bound to invade them all.

If US is claiming to use UN violations as a justification for war.

Well, there are alot of UN violators in this world, US should get suited and booted to invade them too :roll:
 
US and UK argued differently, Bliar in particular argued there was a imminent danger from WMD.
How does that change what I said?
You argued that there was no threat from Iraq. The UN, according to the language of its own resolutions, disagreed.

And lets say Bush was correct (which he weren't) and it was a threat to ME. Was i supposed to care anyway?
You not caring doesnt in any way change the validity of the action.
 
If US is claiming to use UN violations as a justification for war.

Well, there are alot of UN violators in this world, US should get suited and booted to invade them too :roll:
Again:
Using your logic, since you painted one room blue because you didnt like the old color, you must then paint blue ALL the rooms that you don't like the old color.
 
How does that change what I said?
You argued that there was no threat from Iraq. The UN, according to the language of its own resolutions, disagreed.

The UN did not complete its own weapons inspection, it left months early unable to confirm and be assured there were WMD's.
Our countries claimed there was a danger to our country posed by WMD's and it was dumb luck, we were running around during the first few months scrapping around factories so determined to get something.
 
It is no surprise at all.

However, I am sure it comes as great shock to Dear Leader's deluded disciples who believed he could work miracles, turn water into wine, walk on water, heal the sick, make the blind see, raise the dead, and tell really funny jokes on the Tonight Show.

(The last bit is why he's often referred to as Prez Doofus);)

Some will wake up. Many will ignore or dismiss it. What is bliss again?
 
Again:
Using your logic, since you painted one room blue because you didnt like the old color, you must then paint blue ALL the rooms that you don't like the old color.

Colours/wars does not mix.

Try something else.
Either US is using UN violations as a cause for war and if it is, there are more countries afterwards to invade.
If not, then get another argument.
 
Colours/wars does not mix.
The logic is -exactly- the same -- it either works for them both or it doesn't work for either.

Fact is, the logic is unsupportable. Get a new argument.
 
There was no danger! It was paranoia on US's behalf
If we had let the UN do its damn job, it would have confirmed what we found. Nada. Zilch.
If "WE would have let the UN do its damn job?" Are you serious? Was it the US that told Saddam not to comply or was it Saddam that did not comply?

What is it about liberals, that they seem to always look to blame America first... yet, ironically, are among the first to psuh for bigger government?
 
The UN did not complete its own weapons inspection, it left months early unable to confirm and be assured there were WMD's.
And even so, it described Iraq as a threat.
You dont have to like it, but you really DO need to accept the fact that it wasnt just the US and UK that thought Iraq was a threat.
 
What is it about liberals, that they seem to always look to blame America first... yet, ironically, are among the first to psuh for bigger government?

Blame US for everything?
No ofc not
I blame Blair, the dumb ****tard who dragged us along and lied to us with US into a war that didn't need to be fought.

What does big govt. have to do with liberals blaming US?
 
If "WE would have let the UN do its damn job?" Are you serious? Was it the US that told Saddam not to comply or was it Saddam that did not comply?
Until it was clear that GWB was actually going to do something about it, there was never any question from anyone as to the threat that was Iraq.

So, the UN "doing its job" consists wholly of passing resolutions and doing nothing to back them up.
 
So, the UN "doing its job" consists wholly of passing resolutions and doing nothing to back them up.

US seems to be making up a new threat every couple of years. Russia, Cuba, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Syria seems to be the new focus

UN is weak because of a number of reasons, it was never designed to police the world. Infact that is the one thing countries did not want UN to do hence the veto.

NATO is supposed to do it.
 
US seems to be making up a new threat every couple of years. Russia, Cuba, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Syria seems to be the new focus
Aside from the fact that your post does nothing to address what I said...

Yes -- the US makes these things up from whole cloth, w/o any substantiation whatsoever.

:doh

If the US is the biggest problem the world has, the world is in pretty good shape.
 
If the US is the biggest problem the world has, the world is in pretty good shape.

Ofc US is not the biggest problem.

God, quit with the inferiority complex.
No matter how much we dislike some of US's actions. We all know we'd be ****ed without it.
 
Dub-yah took his eye off the prize. Plain and simple. Had he remained focused on the War on Terror in Afghanistan instead of tinkering around in Iraq w/WMDs that just weren't there our troops in Afghanistan would be far more successful today.
Really, how many men does it take to find a needle in a haystack? Moreover, Obama has sent more troops… and the result is ostensibly the bloodiest month, in terms of casualties for, us in Afghanistan [hmm, one wonders why the press is not covering the loss of so many casualties now that Obama is in office?]

The man created problems where none existed beforehand.
Wow, you make it seem as if poor Saddam was complying completely with the UN and big, bad America attacked out of the blue for no reason whatsoever. Unfortunately, for you, this is not the way things were. Saddam was not complying and that represent a threat.

But nobody on the other side of politics wants to admit that. All they can talk about is "if" this or "if" that, but to date NOBODY HAS FOUND WMDs in Iraq - NOBODY!
That is because that is irrelevant– what you know AFTERWARDS does not in any way affect what you knew BEFORE.

As I pointed out in the analogy with the criminal with the empty gun – the officer did not know that the gun was empty and the criminal was not complying. Thus, the police officer did not know BEFORE that the criminal did not have any bullets and was thus not a real threat – but, you, and those like you, keep arguing that the gun was empty. In the end, the criminal could have complied with the officer, just like Saddam had numerous opportunities to comply with the UN, but the criminal, like Saddam, chose not to comply.

And Liala's right! If I remember the head-count correctly, 8 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq!
Lol, even she admitted that she was wrong… LMAO and you consider yourself a moderate – LOL!!

Again, she argued that Bush was responsible for starting two wars and I pointed out that the impetus for the Afghanistan war was 9/11 while Iraq’s causes had more to do with Saddam’s failure to comply with the UN coupled with the threat he posed. Lol, moderate… objective voice, lol.

Saddam was no more a threat to this country or its national security than Kim Jung Ill (or whoever is N. Korea's president).
Actually, in a way [that you did not intend] you are right, they are both threats, but since Clinton dropped the ball – it is too late to deal with Kim Jong Ill in a safe manner, since he is now nuclear. However, America had to act before Saddam went nuclear… believe it or not, sometimes it is better to stop a cancer BEFORE it goes critical – not after.

But he didn't threaten the U.S. in any way that required going to war. And even if the U.N. believed military force was necessary which many including myself contend they did not, it was still a U.N. issue, not a U.S.A. issue.
I disagree on both counts. By not complying with the UN and making it seem as if he had/was developing WMDs he was making himself a threat to the US. He could have easily given WMD to terrorists for example, if he had them or was allowed to develop them.

In regards to the UN, I would never put my family’s life or the lives of my countrymen in the hands of the UN for in the end; the UN does not have my family’s, nor the lives of my countrymen, best interest.

Ultimately, the UN is ineffective because every country will only act in THEIR own best interests, but not always the best interest of everyone or even the common good. Despite the fact that the many countries in the UN recognized the threat Saddam posed, they could not act, because it only takes one vote to stop any tangible action… and Saddam had at least two votes in his pocket [Russian and France.] Make no mistake, the UN did not act, not because they believed Saddam was no threat, but rather because they could not act – and that is a big difference.

On this issue of potentially raising taxes on the middle class...key word here "potential"...it hasn't happened yet. So, until it does I really don't think there's anything to get all up in arms about.
Actually, it was already has… but, in a more insidious way – for example, Obama raised taxes on tobacco which affects millions of working class families far more than the wealthy. The wealthy, can afford to buy cigarettes abroad, but the poor cannot and thus they are stuck paying for the cost.

I do think that if the ecomony doesn't shake loose from it's slumber soon - and all signs indicated that things are starting to slowly turn around - then taxes would have to be raised. It would be a shame, but as an American I'd be willing to pay my fair share, and so should everyone else.
Lol, how nice of you, but many Americans rightly believe that the government is wasting money at an unprecedented rate and I, as an American, do not want to have my hard earned tax money wastefully spent finding ACORN for example.
 
What does big govt. have to do with liberals blaming US?

Ahh, you are in London... I see. Liberals here, in the states, profess to distrust their governement so much that some even argue that 9/11 was done by America to America... ironically, many of these same fools, support liberal politicians who want expand the government - which they, of course, distrust.
 
Last edited:
Ahh, you are in London... I see. Liberals here, in the states, profess to distrust their governement so much that some even argue that 9/11 was done by America to America... ironically, these many of these same fools, support liberal politicians who want expand the government.

That is one thing i never pay attention to.
We have the same nuts here, 7/7 was planned. Yeah right, Government can't even do healthcare right and we expect them to mastermind a terrorist plot? Hah
 
Blame US for everything?
No ofc not
I blame Blair, the dumb ****tard who dragged us along and lied to us with US into a war that didn't need to be fought.
Hmm, "a war that didn't need to be fought..." This same argument could have been made if the US and the UK would have acted against Hitler BEFORE he was fully remilitarized.

Would their actions have been right? Based on what we know today, yes. The same could apply to Saddam; if Saddam was allowed to develop and have WMD's... who knows what path history would have taken.

In the end, this is a dangerous game to play since no one can know for certain what would have happened if an opposite decision was made - that is why the fact that Saddam did not have WMD's does not carry any weight with me. For me, it was enough that he was not complying and that he posed a real potential threat.
 
Last edited:
That is one thing i never pay attention to.
We have the same nuts here, 7/7 was planned. Yeah right, Government can't even do healthcare right and we expect them to mastermind a terrorist plot? Hah
Lol, we agree on something!!
 
Back
Top Bottom