U.S. Troops Are Dying, So That Bush Can "Save Face!"

[epxroot]

what war has not been based on lies? lies are the only thing that most governments are any good at, a perfect example of the old saw "practice makes perfect". governments lie to each other, they lie to their people, they even lie to themselves. why should this point in time be any different than the rest of recorded history and why is it that so many are so willing to jump on this bandwagon and get all pissed off about what is essentially business as usual?

in case you have forgotten, people die in wars. these deaths are not directly ordered by their superiors. they are, in fact, contrary to the wishes of anyone but the enemy and the sad by-product of man's inability to be content with anything less than everything. war is seldom a one sided affair.

gandalf has quite patiently tried to explain the meaning of this word to you and you seem to be unable to grasp the concept. i would suggest you somehow acquire a dictionary and understand the meanings of the words you use before you go shouting such inanities from the rooftops.

this seems to be the crux of the matter. it's all about what you allow yourself to hear, what you believe despite any evidence to the contrary. this is the same dangerous mentality that fed the decades long cold war, the same blindness that allows this foolhardy drug war to destroy the lives of millions waste the resources of the nation. it's not that there might not be valid reasons for our iraqi incursion, it's that you won't even listen to that side of the story. this is the myopic cancer of the fanatic and no amount of reason will ever fill the empty space that fanaticism fills.

Just because most wars are based on lies does not mean we have to continue to accept it as something that just happens. Maybe people are getting tired of being lied to? I don't understand the willingness to just bow down to them because, well its just the way things work. I also say he is guilty of TREASON, among other crimes as well.

trea·son Pronunciation[tree-zuhn]
â??noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

I would say he is guilty of all three...

[mfqr]

Just because most wars are based on lies does not mean we have to continue to accept it as something that just happens. Maybe people are getting tired of being lied to? I don't understand the willingness to just bow down to them because, well its just the way things work. I also say he is guilty of TREASON, among other crimes as well.

trea·son Pronunciation[tree-zuhn]
â??noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

I would say he is guilty of all three...

Right on. And yes, Bush is trying to kill America's sovereignty, via the NAU.

[eg420ne]

Treaason...ohhh noooo! i said treason now will bg and the rest accuse y'all of something.....this place needs a real MOD

[birdgirl73]

There's your real rmodding, EG420ne. Frankly, compared to the way P4B feels about you, I'm your best friend. The comment above and in your whining thread were the last straws in combination with your two middle-finger symbols in your former avatar and signature. Enjoy your time away. The rest of us certainly will!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Just because most wars are based on lies does not mean we have to continue to accept it as something that just happens. Maybe people are getting tired of being lied to? I don't understand the willingness to just bow down to them because, well its just the way things work.

i would agree that political thoughts and actions are in most cases a crime, but a crime only in the broadest sense of the word. lies, half-truths and misrepresentations are far too common and wield far too much power, but they always have. to suggest that any political animal unilaterally abandon their deceit would be to suggest that they also abandon all hope of power and position. that is the nature of politics and politics has invaded every facet of our lives. piss and moan all you like about those lying politicians, but unless you are willing to totally discard the concept of government lies will always be the grease that enables the world to wobble unsteadily onward.

I also say he is guilty of TREASON, among other crimes as well.

trea·son Pronunciation[tree-zuhn]
â??noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

I would say he is guilty of all three...

#1 and #2 are a matter of opinion and those that believe them to be true are in the extreme minority. though the constitution may have been stretched to its limits, its laws have not been broken. as the duly elected representative (not just once, but twice), bush has every right to declare war and his acts have in no way undermined the sovereignty of the nation. as for #3, it is totally beside the point. it is outside of the legal definition of treason and is more of a moral judgment than a legal one. baby bush may be an inept bumbling idiot and an anachronistic fool blindly following his own outdated ideologies and dogma, but accusing him of the crime of treason is nothing more than an over zealous attempt to vent your frustration with and an administration whose actions you vehemently oppose.

[PharmaCan]

#1 and #2 are a matter of opinion and those that believe them to be true are in the extreme minority. though the constitution may have been stretched to its limits, its laws have not been broken. as the duly elected representative (not just once, but twice), bush has every right to declare war and his acts have in no way undermined the sovereignty of the nation. as for #3, it is totally beside the point. it is outside of the legal definition of treason and is more of a moral judgment than a legal one. baby bush may be an inept bumbling idiot and an anachronistic fool blindly following his own outdated ideologies and dogma, but accusing him of the crime of treason is nothing more than an over zealous attempt to vent your frustration with and an administration whose actions you vehemently oppose.

Bush took an oath to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

In the simplest terms, he has breached his oath of office by allowing our country to be invaded by Mexico. Does this rise to treason? I suppose it would take a lawyer to answer that. Is it treacherous? I think it is quite clear that it is.

PC :smokin:

[Psycho4Bud]

Bush took an oath to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

In the simplest terms, he has breached his oath of office by allowing our country to be invaded by Mexico. Does this rise to treason? I suppose it would take a lawyer to answer that. Is it treacherous? I think it is quite clear that it is.

PC :smokin:

That's been going on since before the days of Reagan, so how is it Bush's fault?

Have a good one!:s4:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....i probably should reply

Bush took an oath to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

In the simplest terms, he has breached his oath of office by allowing our country to be invaded by Mexico. Does this rise to treason? I suppose it would take a lawyer to answer that. Is it treacherous? I think it is quite clear that it is.

PC :smokin:

though he may indeed intend to aid the reconquista movement, he has committed no act that could be seen as furthering that cause. even if you could manage to make that case, you'd have to make room for most of both houses of congress in the adjoining cells. the only reason the amnesty bills haven't passed is the unprecedented public outcry opposing them. it's almost enough to make me believe that american democracy is working. almost, but not quite.

That's been going on since before the days of Reagan, so how is it Bush's fault?

Have a good one!:s4:

speaking of reagan. we probably could make a case for treason with that bastard. his '86 irca paid lip service to enforcement and set the stage for the amnesty battles we are going through today. i kinda wish hinckley's aim had been a little better.

[yokinazu]

something i would like to point out here, bush CAN NOT declare war. that takes an act of congress. the president can however dictate other military actions, and petition congress to declare war. that is why vietnam was never declared war but a police action.

(tha caps are for emphasis not yelling)