Impeach Obama! Obama lied!

[jarcher]

Originally Posted by craigimass

Hey, remember, I could fire the cruise missile if I felt I needed to in self-defense. That is, if I thought some guy who had my house within range (say within 500 miles) might be mad at me and fire his.

That, of course, is nonsense. Statute and case law governing the use of lethal force in self defense are well developed. If you use lethal force and then claim self defense - essentially asserting an affirmative defense - you had best be prepared to back that up.

That, in short, is the Bush Doctrine. Every use can be construed to be defensive use. Like I said, you may not like me and use your GPS to send your cruise missile this way. Do I need to wait for the smoking gun, the vapor trail or the whistle overhead before I fire mine? I don't think so....

There have been a number of things referred to as the "Bush Doctrine" over the past 8 years, but usually it is used to represent the idea that the US does not need to wait for 3,000 Americans to be killed by terrorists or anyone else before acting to protect our citizens.

If you are asserting that the Bush Doctrine stands for the proposition that the US can fire off an ICBM whenever we feel like it for any reason at all, then you are greatly misrepresenting that concept.

And, is the "Bush Doctrine" really such a new and strange idea?

Do you really believe that FDR would not have acted to stop the attack on Pearl Harbor if he had known and been able to intercede? He should have attached the Japanese fleet and he would have been right to do so.

You rag on President Bush quite a bit. Do you think it is just the Republican presidents who presided over a war? What about the "Truman Doctrine"? That was an effort to contain people though to be a threat. Oh, let't not forget the nuking of Japan.

Then there was that little unpleasantness in Korea, which Truman initially engaged in without consulting congress. Was that an example of the "Bush Doctrine?" At the time North Korea was believed to be a threat the the US.

Cuban missile crisis? Kennedy deployed the US Navy to blockade a sovereign nation because they had missiles that could hit the southeast US. Why is this not an example of the Bush Doctrine? It is.

Vietnam? That was Kennedy and LBJ. Remember the Tonkin Gulf matter? More Bush Doctrine here?

Reagan in Grenada? Sounds like more "Bush Doctrine." That qualifies.

George HW Bush in Kuwait? Probably not bush doctrine, even though is is a Bush, but that was a UN sanctioned action to liberate an allied nation invaded by an aggressive and threatening neighbor. Because GHW Bush declined to send our troops into IRAQ after liberating Kuwait, he was loudly chastised by many Democrats for failing to "finish the job."

Clinton in Somolia? Yes GHW Bush started that but Clinton extended it and it fell apart under him. Clinton in Bosnia? No, that's not Bush Doctrine because the US had no vital interests there and they were no threat to us. We just bombed them because it seemed like the right thing to do.

Which brings us to GW, who consulted the US Senate before attacking IRAQ. They voted to allow the "use of force" against IRAQ. But they claim that this is not a declaration of war. Nooo, of course not, they just wanted to wage war without declaring it. And when things did no go so well initially, it was all Bush! Why go to IRAQ! Bush lied! we were soooo dumb and easily fooled!

And it was the very same people who were loudest about GW going into IRAQ who bitched loudly that GHW Bush did not! And let not forget Harry Reid, who said "the war is lost." And Rep. Murtha, who condemned US marines for their cold blooded murder, for which they were later cleared.

So we have had the "Bush Doctrine" under various presidents for some time now. Obama seems to be getting right on board too. During the campaign he talked about military action against Pakistan and as President he actually did it.

Well, after the 8 year old down the street blew his head apart at the local gun showoff, I have less desire for a full auto. In fact, I own no firearms nor have I ever....but I am a marksman (camp, military school, etc.).....but cruise missiles only need google maps and a GPS, so we are all marksman these days.

Yeah and I am sure that cruise missile control is at the top of yuor legaslative agenda because, if it saves one child...

Hm, but I'll guess that you support letting North Korea and Iran have nukes... because after all, it's only fair since we have them. And why should we have them but then tell other countries they can not have them? right? Then again, we don't go on TV all the time and insist that we are going to push another nation into the sea.

If I was gonna really collect fringe and semi-legal items, they would probably be stuff that blew my mind as opposed to what blew someone else's body. But to each his own......there must be 100 firearms on my cul-de-sac and I've never seen or heard one. Well, truth be told, we have a gun range down the hill and that thing makes a racket for miles around. Boom Boom Boom Boom..........I'll bet I could measure the sound and shut them down with a noise complaint.....but I am a live and let live guy, and they usually stop before my bedtime. Still, if I was playing rock music that loud - heard for miles around - I'll bet I could not get away with it.

Yes, "to each his own" after you toss out a judgmental and snide slight against those who do collect firearms. Why don't you tell us all your address, so anyone who wants to burglarize a home in your neighborhood will know which one they can invade without the risk of being shot. My guess is that you would not post a big sign on your front door announcing that your home has no firearms inside.

As to the noise, most states exempt shooting ranges from local noise ordinances. If they did not, there would not be many shooting ranges. Gun clubs themselves typically restrict outdoor shooting after dusk, just to be good neighbors.

[craigimass]

>>"Hm, but I'll guess that you support letting North Korea and Iran have nukes..."

Well, being as Bush 100% totally accepted both N. Korea and Pakistan having nukes....in the second case giving them billions and a load of delivery systems (jet aircraft)........and in the first case doing absolutely nothing other than talking to them and saying please....

Your argument runs sort of hollow. But then again, it is what i expect. Watch as something happens for 8 years......and then after the guy you support is out, blame it on the newbie.

As to posting a sign about no firearms - since my houses for the past 30 years have rarely been locked day or night (home or not home), I really am quivering at the thought of break-ins. There really must be two or more Americas, because the only time I ever saw a gun pulled in anger was some nut who did it in Philly over a parking space.

Yes, there is some kind of an tiny chance of someone breaking in my house - but honestly I am MUCH more worried about a lot of other things......like dogs getting be on my bike. I am ready to arm myself (mace) for that one. We have a lot of bears too, although they really don't chase people so I'm not worried about that one.

In our neck of the woods, crime again "the body" is really, really rare. As in most places, the stuff that happens is most often against property, and the violent crime is usually inside jobs and at bars, etc.

As as example....in my last town, which was in "more dangerous" NJ and had 22,000 people....I lived there for 25+ years and there was not ONE time I remember of such a crime - where an innocents house was broken into and force of arms would have helped. There was ONE time when some nut killed his grandmom and then walked out into the woods and ended up shooting a kid on a bike. But I don't think even you support ever pre-teen on a bike arming up for such an occurrence.

My current residences are probably even safer than that one. As a scientific and reasonable man, I believe in calculating my chances and acting in a logical way based on facts and experience.

Now, that does not mean I don't realize that things are different elsewhere. It's just that, given the choice, why would I want to live in such a place?

I agree - those with less choice who have to arm up in fear of their lives and property should do so. So we agree!

I just think that is a sad commentary on the state of things. On one hand the freedom to own a firearm or TOW missile or some good fireworks is not a bad thing. But on the other, the idea of having to live in fear IS a bad thing.

[camaraderie]

Can you guys take this elsewhere. This is the IMPEACH Obama ....Obama Lied thread...not the anything I want to rant about thread.

[craigimass]

Hah haha

So I should start the:

Try Bush for war crimes
thread.....

and other such things.....

Consider it done, my man, thanks for the suggestion.

I wasn't aware that the 668 page thread of another name here was also staying on subject.

[ssneade]

i'm as guilty as any. how about a "we agree to disagree politically" thread.
'cause on this one, you should only say "Obama lied! Impeach Obama" if we impeach him for lying, why didn't we impeach every other politician who ever drew a breath..........
editors note: i think this is rather fun and would like to carry it on, myself.......

[Dick Pluta]

In fact, Government can (and has) created the "garden" where liberty and freedom can prosper and grow. Without it (eskimos aside), there would be anarchy and barbarism. By allowing for everything from disabled access to toilets, and to equal protection under the law, the government waters the tree of liberty.

A little out of context. The full text is "The Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of patriots", not by the largesse of government.

Dick PLuta
AEGEA

[craigimass]

And no patriot was ever in Government?

Like Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Jefferson and probably tens of thousand of lesser known people?

Hint: if they did not get into government, they would probably not have had the influence that they all did......

I was not quoting text. I was writing my own interpretation of how I understand government was supposed to work here.

[jarcher]

I guess I'll make this my last off topic post, then...

Originally Posted by craigimass

Your argument runs sort of hollow. But then again, it is what i expect. Watch as something happens for 8 years......and then after the guy you support is out, blame it on the newbie.

Well go back a bit further. Clinton made a treaty with North Korea and then proclaimed a diplomatic victory. Then he and Albright sat by while North Korea cheated. Bush brought China into it, which was a fine idea.

I agree - those with less choice who have to arm up in fear of their lives and property should do so. So we agree!

I just think that is a sad commentary on the state of things. On one hand the freedom to own a firearm or TOW missile or some good fireworks is not a bad thing. But on the other, the idea of having to live in fear IS a bad thing.

On these points we can agree.

[ssneade]

it's ok. maybe they won't wreck the country in two years, then maybe we can do damage control........

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by craigimass

>>"Hm, but I'll guess that you support letting North Korea and Iran have nukes..."

Well, being as Bush 100% totally accepted both N. Korea and Pakistan having nukes....in the second case giving them billions and a load of delivery systems (jet aircraft)........and in the first case doing absolutely nothing other than talking to them and saying please....

Did they totally rewrite the history books while I was out sailing?

No wait, it's a liberal talking....It doesn't have to be true.

Pakistan exploded it's first nuclear weapon in 1998, on Clinton's watch - after having a program that started in 1974, after India exploded one - that was Ford's short period where he had no majority and was a lame duck, then Carter took over and it took him and the Dem's in control FIVE years to stop arms deliveries in 1979.

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Addtionally:
But see, I know how the world works, the president can propose, but can't make a single law, only Congress can.
In the Senate, Dems had a majority from 49 to 81, 87 to 91, and 93 to 95. In the house, they had it in 49 to 51, 55 to 93, and 2007.
Thus in the past 60 years, the Republican party has only had a majority in in place for less than 1/3 of the time in the Senate, and far less than that in the House.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, Pakistan responded to India’s 1974
underground nuclear test by seeking its own nuclear weapons capability. These efforts subsequently led the United States to suspend military aid beginning in 1979. Soon thereafter, following the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. waived its sanctions on assistance to Pakistan in an effort to gain its support for the effort to force the withdrawal of the Soviet miliary from Afghanistan. Early in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the United States sold Pakistan 40 F-16 A/B combat fighter aircraft, an
indication of the Reagan Administration’s view of that country’s potential as a supporter against Soviet Union expansionism in South Asia. Yet in spite of the renewal of U.S. aid and the development of closermilitaryties in the early1980s, manyin Congress remained concerned with Pakistan’s developing nuclear weapons program. In 1985, Congress added Section 620E(e) to the Foreign Assistance Act.

This provision, known as the Pressler amendment, required the President to certifyto Congress that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device during each fiscal year in which the Administration proposed to provide assistance to Pakistan. This placed an important brake on expansion of a defense supply relationship between the United States and Pakistan. With the withdrawal of Soviet military forces from Afghanistan, the nuclear
weapons development program of Pakistan came under intensive U.S.examination again.
Finally, in October 1990, President George H. W. Bush suspended U.S. military
assistance to Pakistan. As a result of this action, the United States stopped the delivery of 28 F-16 fighter aircraft that Pakistan had purchased 1989.

Throughout the 1990s, the United States essentially ended military cooperation and arms sales to Pakistan. It was only after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, that the Bush Administration chose to re-engage with Pakistan in the
area of defense cooperation, and was willing, once again, to consider and approve major weapons sales to that country. It secured authority from Congress, which has been extended annually as required, to waive restrictions on aid to Pakistan

That would be the democratic party led congress that approved it


Now if you want to talk N Korea and soft pedaling, let me save you some time reading here, Clinton, Clinton and Clinton.
Bush's 'doctrine' if he had was was isolationist, Clinton bought N Korea oil and food to help them afford their Nuke building program.