Hard rock, you've got a rocket in your pocket against GWB.
The "weapons of mass destruction" issue was some really bad intelligence. No doubts now. BUT it was reasonable at the time. It is a matter of HISTORICAL FACT that Iraq used those gas weapons agains Iran 20+ years ago. It is a matter of HISTORICAL FACT that Iraq used those weapons against the northern Kurdish tribes. It is a matter of HISTORICAL FACT that Iraq committed an act of aggression against the very peaceful nation of Kuwait. So if you intelligence that says "They've got more WMD and are preparing to use them again" - and at the time, you don't have IMMEDIATE reasons to doubt the intelligence, are you going to WAIT and let them have their way against their weaker neighbors?
Go read deeper into history. Those who ignore aggression face aggression all too soon. Look at the lessons of Nazi Germany. Everybody ignored what they were doing. Until suddenly war erupted and tore apart much of Europe.
Go read about Saddam's sons and how they liked little girls. About 12 years old, maybe 13, but DEFINITELY had to be virgin. They went away little girls. Came back women. Tell me you don't care about the atrocities committed against whole familis. Tell me your hatred is so deep that you don't care about the victims of Saddam's oppression.
One of my neighbors, now deceased, showed me her tattoo - it was her concentration camp number. She also told me something that I still remember. "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
2007-12-13 02:29:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by The_Doc_Man 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
i think of Obama basically cares approximately Congress while it helps what he needs to do. in the event that they do no longer help what he needs, he will do it besides and in simple terms declare it replaced into an Emergency. previous court docket judgements have desperate that a president in his place as Commander-in-chief of the militia, can use stress to safeguard the rustic for as much as 3 months without congressional approval. a ways too in lots of cases in present day many years, Congress has abdicated their accountability to declare conflict to the president. maximum presently replaced into the authorization to apply stress in Iraq. It replaced into very nearly a assertion of conflict, yet in certainty it replaced into Congress asserting, we don't elect the accountability, we are going to depart it to the president. And ever considering that Korea, the rustic has gotten familiar with accepting undeclared wars. So I doubt you are able to desire to muster sufficient braveness in Congress to countermand a President's use of stress. Obama knows this, so he will do exactly what he needs and dare congress to objective to stop him. the only ingredient they are able to do is impeach him, and that takes 2/3 of the Senate to conform to do away with him from place of work. he's quite specific all the democrats are in his pocket, so he can forget on the subject of the Republicans.
2016-10-11 05:02:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because Congress believed the cooked intel and gave full authorization to the White House to do whatever they wanted to with no checks and balances. The republican majority in the past congress rolled over and played dead (and so did some of the democrats).
2007-12-13 02:25:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael B 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
We aren't.
The American people are represented, by their representatives in Congress.
The president can't go to war without the authorization from the American people, via their congressional representatives.
Congress voted for the war. If anyone deserves criticizing, it is Congress, for not representing the will of the people, as is their job.
2007-12-13 02:20:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ricky T 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
The President can't declare war, the House of Representatives can only declare war.
The President executes the war, and decides when it is completed.
The Congress funds the war, and can stop funding it anytime they choose.
2007-12-13 02:32:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by ROIHUNTER 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I have no idea, and it is basically the same in UK (even to changing the law as and when it suits the government of the day)and there is very little the ordinary person can do about it.
2007-12-13 02:38:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because we elected these same people to speak on our behalf 8 years ago and then again 4 years ago.. The BLAME falls back on us.. Theres a new election coming up thats where WE speak.
2007-12-13 02:27:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ditka 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Perhaps some of the American people believe that it's the President's responsibility to protect us from foreign powers that want us dead merely because we don't believe in their ludicrous religion.
2007-12-13 02:59:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Simple answer: the US is a Republic. Democracy ends when you drop your vote in the ballot box. After that you are merely a spectator.
2007-12-13 02:33:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's the same line with you time after time You need a job and make some money for your self
2007-12-13 02:22:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋