OutLook On Obama

[SuF]

Good point suf. but honestly. do you really think bush and every one actually wanted them all over there? if it was that easy im sure we would of pulled out a while ago.

people think that we were there for no reason.. we found many atomic weapons. not as much as we thought but still enough that it meant something

We did not find any weapons of mass destruction(Nukes). Bush decided to put more troops in as we were losing the war, and along with the troops surge the military completely changed how they were fighting the war. Due to this, people thought that the troops surge helped WAY more than it did. Bush supports the war, and I am pretty sure Obama does not right now so of course bush would leave them in there and Obama would take them out....

 

[S P 3 3 D Z]

We did not find any weapons of mass destruction(Nukes). Bush decided to put more troops in as we were losing the war, and along with the troops surge the military completely changed how they were fighting the war. Due to this, people thought that the troops surge helped WAY more than it did. Bush supports the war, and I am pretty sure Obama does not right now so of course bush would leave them in there and Obama would take them out....

ummmmmm well first of all. we did find weapons of mass destruction look that up. and we were never ever ever loosing the war. if u look the death ratio its like a 1:100. ANd just because Bush is a republican doesnt mean he supports war... all the past wars in history were led by Democratic Presidents

 

[JSchaffter]

people think that we were there for no reason.. we found many atomic weapons. not as much as we thought but still enough that it meant something

Wait..... what?

And we're there for oil, no real, logical reason.

 

[S P 3 3 D Z]

no we are not there for oil. if we were there just for oil then we would of just bombed them and wiped out the country and gas prices would not of gone up. that is in no means the reason we are there.

 

[xxthebeastxx]

I agree some black people are thrilled that he's black, not his policies. lern2spell.

 

[SuF]

ummmmmm well first of all. we did find weapons of mass destruction look that up. and we were never ever ever loosing the war. if u look the death ratio its like a 1:100. ANd just because Bush is a republican doesnt mean he supports war... all the past wars in history were led by Democratic Presidents

You need to lookup your facts. Bush's father went to war and he is a republican. Bush supports the war, or he would have not have gone in there.

The kill ratio is not even close to that, maybe if you are counting the innocent civilians that the war is killing, then it may be close to that. What I mean by losing is not being in control of the places we were occupying.

And no, we did NOT find ANY weapons of mass destruction. Bush said they had then before the war, but we found none.

 

[S P 3 3 D Z]

ummmm i think you would need to get ur facts straight. I said bush was a republican. and obviously congress backed him up into going there or he would not of been aloud to. and if you count little kids and women with guns INNOCENT then sure but there a bunch of animals that cannot be controlled.

 

[SuF]

ummmm i think you would need to get ur facts straight. I said bush was a republican. and obviously congress backed him up into going there or he would not of been aloud to. and if you count little kids and women with guns INNOCENT then sure but there a bunch of animals that cannot be controlled.

Not everyone in Iraq is a terrorist, in fact very few are. Many innocent people have been killed due to this war.

Bush DID ask congress if they approved of him going in, but he DID NOT have to. Nothing says they must ask for permission, but almost ALL do just to be nice and get advice.

 

[S P 3 3 D Z]

congress does have to give the president permission. the president is limited to few very powers bc we didnt want another dictator/king/ or wutever. most of the stuff he is aloud to do has to be approved by senate. and over in iraq soldiers arent aloud to shoot unless shot upon

 

[JSchaffter]

no we are not there for oil. if we were there just for oil then we would of just bombed them and wiped out the country and gas prices would not of gone up. that is in no means the reason we are there.

Educate yourself. The government created the embodiment of an evil we could all focus on hating, terrorists. They used this as a reason to go and get the black gold they wanted from the middle east. Watch Zeitgeist, then get back to me.

 

[S P 3 3 D Z]

Educate yourself. The government created the embodiment of an evil we could all focus on hating, terrorists. They used this as a reason to go and get the black gold they wanted from the middle east. Watch Zeitgeist, then get back to me.

Ok. so ur saying that 9/11 never happened? trust me if we just went there for oil we easily could of taken them out by now. and zeitgeist is a movie.

 

[SuF]

congress does have to give the president permission. the president is limited to few very powers bc we didnt want another dictator/king/ or wutever. most of the stuff he is aloud to do has to be approved by senate. and over in iraq soldiers arent aloud to shoot unless shot upon

No, if a solider thinks that he needs to shoot he can. The president can do what ever he wants with the military, but congress can pass a law saying that he can not do something if they do not like it, and if the president vetoes it, then congress can vote it in by majority. If they were only aloud to shoot if shot upon, we would have a lot more deaths.

 

[fitz]

Ok. so ur saying that 9/11 never happened? trust me if we just went there for oil we easily could of taken them out by now. and zeitgeist is a movie.

Why would you 'take them out' when you can be incomplete control of the oil (while the people of Iraq are oblivious), with very low collateral (in comparison to annihilation of the Iraqi people)?

And how would you achieve this?

One word; Dept

 

[bensino]

Sarah palen was not dumb. She actually handeled herself very well. The media tried to attack her in any way they could.

She was an airhead, and was more fit to be a soccer mom then a vice president, or essentially a president.

 

[S P 3 3 D Z]

yes sarah palin was a complete airhead.
and yes the president id aloud to PUT soldiers where he wants. but they are not authorized to do anything till CONGRESS agrees on it, bc if that was the case were they cood do wutever the president says then he wood be able to send them anywhere to kill any1

 

[SuF]

yes sarah palin was a complete airhead.
and yes the president id aloud to PUT soldiers where he wants. but they are not authorized to do anything till CONGRESS agrees on it, bc if that was the case were they cood do wutever the president says then he wood be able to send them anywhere to kill any1

Congress does not need to approve that.

Now, I just went and read a shit load of wikipedia. I am going to stop trusting them again, since I found some things that seemed to contradict each other, but... O well.

We are both slightly right, me more than you. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 forces the president to get authorization from congress if he wants to have military forces deployed for more than 60 days, but if it is less than that he does not need to ask congress. He must tell congress 48 before he deploys the military.

So, they can do what ever they want for 60 days, but after that they must have congress to agree, or they must be pulled out...

 

[Phlasko]

I think he will do great, but he will get assasinated imo. He has some balls doing what he's doing and I congragulate him for that.

 

[JSchaffter]

. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 forces the president to get authorization from congress if he wants to have military forces deployed for more than 60 days, but if it is less than that he does not need to ask congress. He must tell congress 48 before he deploys the military.

So... What I was saying the whole time?

 

[SuF]

So... What I was saying the whole time?

I was wrong about the amount of time, and its only abroad.... He can put them where ever in the USA and stuff... That law is regarded by many to be unconstitutional also, and I am agreeing with them after reading a bit...

The main gist of what I got out of your posts was that if the president controlled the army then we lived in a communist dictatorship which i find untrue.

So yes i was wrong, but I do not agree with you on your points, and I consider them wrong, and you only said it in two posts... But this confusion is now resolved.

 

[JSchaffter]

Na I said the president had control over the troops for a short amount of time before he had to get congressional approval. So I was right.