Gov't involvement is why we're in the mess we are in already. The FDA and the AMA (non-gov't, but gov't takes their advice on all things medical) control what procedures and medications are available to the American market. There is more than one doctor who has created a new way to treat cancer and illness without the use of damaging radiation and toxic chemicals who has been shunned and attacked both personally and legally by either group.
Doctors are just basically greedy fucks. We should have recognized it sooner. Hell Monty Python was making jokes about it in the 70's.
Man, the whole state of medical science is a big joke these days. I'll go to my local hippy-dippy herbalist for medicine before I'll go to the doctor. It's cheaper, they actually seem to give a shit about your illness, and the medicine isn't big pharma poison.
Fuck 'em, fuck 'em all with 18 bricks and a hooked bugger-pole.
Anyone that continues to dispute my argument, and in so doing argues against the FACTS at hand, can merely go to my channel comments and take the link there to the law which was passed by Congress and followed by the President which explains in detail the reasons why we went to Iraq. PERIOD. To all leftwingnuts that refuse an education and stubbornly refuse to live in reality - I can't help you. I can only point you in the right direction but YOU have to be willing to accept the truth.
Any reader can simply click on my channel and take the link there to view the law posted by Congress - and in so doing you will see that I have been right all along.
But DO go on and ignore the law. And tell me more about what I already know - repeat how no "formal declaration" of war was made since 1941. Irrelevant. Then argue about how you think the U.N. should place sanctions on the USA (hilarious) for an "illegal war". You brainwashed simpletons on the left are merely regurgitating what you've heard from the left wing pundits during the Bush administration. Your position is duly noted and utterly rejected by myself, a man of learning. Good day to you.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
@Dark Again check the history. The absolute last time America declared war was WW2. I don't know what super con site you're getting your information from, but its an historical fact. Look it up. There's plenty of info on congress authorizing the declaration of war. No one is lying those are the facts. And upon checking on your info thats not a formal declaration of war. It is an authorization of military movement, but not a war declaration. The absolute last country we declared war on was Japan.
@raventakayama As a guy thats been to a few of these undeclared wars. Or if you like police actions. It really does not matter what you call it. Its all the same to those who fight. The dead are no less dead because of a lack of formal declaration. Thus a rose by any other name.
@UtherPendragan Oh ok I understand. Yeah you're right, and no death is more needless than the next, but my comments are aimed at the irrelevance of this latest undeclared war, and how it cost lives without any ounce of justification. I support the troops, but not the undeclared war that landed them over here, for the simple fact that it landed them over there needlessly.
@raventakayama Justification for any war is in the eye of the beholder. As more time passes we tend to forgive mistakes and look at what was acomplished instead of how it was acomplished. The current middle east military actions will not be determined for twenty years. History is written by the winners. In my opinion no war can really be justified while being fought. There is no nice way to kill people and blow stuff up.
@raventakayama Unstable is the norm for the middle east. Atleast for the past few thousand years anyway. It is the crossroads of the world and the historic battleground for every other nation to expand and control more. The only way to fix that part of the world is if everyone else in the world stops using oil. Take away the demand for oil and defund the killing for control.
@UtherPendragan Yeah unstable is the norm, but it was more stable with Saddam. Its like gang warfare. Cops take out the top dog of a particular group and even more radical one takes his place. That's all the US has done...made way for some other nut case who'd ACTUALLY put the US's safety in question. If there was no viable connection to attack them they shouldn't have been attacked. The orchestrators of 9/11 weren't Iraqis, and coupling 9/11 with Iraq was the initial propaganda campaign.
@raventakayama Saddam was an insane dictator. True he did have everyone dancing to his tune inside Iraq, but its hard to do bussness with a crazy person. The U.S.A. was trying to take him out way before 9/11. I was over in the desert back in 1990-1991 with the 101st airborn. Ten years before 9/11/2001 Anyone who is anti-war would have to be anti-Saddam.
@Uther And supposedly they had snipers on Saddam ready to take the shot or something and they called it off at the last minute. But anyways, dictators and tyrants come in many different shapes and sizes and under multiple political banners. Allowing the declaration of hyphenated Americans aka un-Americans and using general disdain for Islam at a time in which Americans were angry and irrational as a propaganda tool is just as bad as manipulated citizens using fear. Tyrannical in its own right.
@raventakayama I am glad Saddam is dead. I would have shot him myself if given the chance. The price we paid to make that happen is too high, it always is.....
I disagree with you that propaganda is just as bad as fear for being manipulated. I must assume you are a preson who has never been is a true state of fear otherwise you would not feel that way.
@Uther Propaganda has caused Americans to view Islam as one entity, with terrorism as their background, which is simply wrong. This type of propaganda is fear mongering plain and simple. A Nazi general once implied that the best way to control a group of people is to make them feel threatened by outside forces. That's clearly the picture that was painted on ALL OF ISLAM on 9/11, and any 1 liner clarification that all Muslims aren't terrorist doesn't stem the overall propaganda.
@raventakayama We are threatened by outside forces. Its not propaganda to say that its reality. Islam is a death cult. All muslims should be suspect. They earned it. Seems to me you need to figure out which side of the cross your on. We need nail drivers not hangers. Muslims need to clean out there own house. When they stop blowing stuff up then I will stop thinking of them as terrorists.
@Uther And the propaganda lies in the depiction of those outside forces. To perpetuate the American belief that Islam is dangerous, and Islam is responsible for 9/11, therefore all Muslim nations are suspect is highly irresponsible. Utilizing the concept that all Muslims should be treated a certain way allows the government to justify a war based on an American emotional outburst, which again is irresponsible.
@raventakayama Moron: Click on my profile, scroll to the comments, and look at my latest post. There you will see a link to CSPAN that recorded the congressional law which allows (and explains why) military action in the Iraq war which you claim is illegal. I think perhaps - nay I am 100% certain in fact, that it is YOU that is wrong in your thinking. I've read the law. Clearly you haven't.
@Darkrift Historical fact, the last time congress declared war on a nation was against Japan WWII. Congress did not officially declare war against Iraq or anyone else since WWII. That's history you can't change it. The originally gulf war wasn't officially a war it was a military conflict. Dems didn't support the war just like reps didn't support Clinton's actions in the middle east, so no congress didn't declare war look it up it's easy to find lol or read an old history book its there as well.
@Darkrift777 A declaration of war isn't a law man lol. What are you talking about? Go read... You're clearly wrong and you know it. This is getting redundant and you're pulling a Bill O'Reilly bs tactic. Look up the very last time that congress declared war. And I mean an actually declaration of war, not the pres sending troops to a given area, and not congressional permission to send troops... I mean an actual declaration of war against a specific nation.
@raventakayama Fool, again let me direct you to the link that you didn't read. Don't ask me what I am talking about until you actually take the time to educate yourself first. I clearly know YOU'RE wrong and we BOTH know it. I gave you the link which was a law passed by Congress. The definition of the word "law" is something you are obviously having difficulty understanding as it relates to government legislation. Law - an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation. Now read.
@Darkrift777 darkdingleberry....Pull your mothers dildo out of your fat ass, and stop being a little sissy. Mom is going to flip her wig if she sees your bloody shit all over her favorite dildo. Now stop trying to prove you insanity bs here, you are going from video to video spewing right wing bs. If you don't stop trying to send me videos of you and Mike having gay sex, I am going to have to e-mail you mother again.
@Darkrift777 Dude seriously, congress didn't declare war on Iraq either time. Seriously, that's a historical fact. What's so hard about looking that up? Its all over the net. Again, you have it totally wrong and I know it sucks to be wrong, but you are dude... The End.
@raventakayama I find it highly entertaining that you return to parrot the same ignorance. You still haven't read the law passed by Congress. That much is obvious.
@Darkrift A declaration of war is not a law. Congress last declared war against japan... did you look that up? If you simply refuse to understand the facts of American history whats the point of a conversation dealing mostly with American history? Seriously.
@raventakayama Argue that to Congress then, simpleton. Read the god damn law. Again you return making IGNORANT statements showing me that you did not first educate yourself. What a douchebag you are. Come on, buddy. Read.
@Darkrift777 You're the simple one who doesn't understand the allowance of troop deployment is not the same as a declaration of war. If you're going to continue to be full of shit, then don't bother commenting. You know that congress did not declare war on Iraq. 1941 was the last time congress declared war on a nation.
@raventakayama I can't believe you didn't even read the law. What a complete and utter fool you are. Ignorant and defiant to the last. Quite pathetic. You DO realise that your entire argument is flawed because it is based on the assumption that Congress didn't officially "declare war". READ. THE. LAW.
You are one stupid moron, having Googled "When was the last time Congress declared war" or some such nonsense that you cling to desperately to remain in ignorance.
@Darkrift I don't have to google it. I can just pull out my American Government text book from my freshmen year in college and see it printed there clear as day. You're either trying to pull a Bill-O bs tactic or you don't understand words written in history that don't exactly agree with your statements.
@raventakayama Of course you don't have to Google it, as I've posted the actual link to the law passed by Congress, dimwit. For current hisotical events, you might want to do a bit better than a history book. What a joke.
@Darkrift Yes and I read up on that so-called law, and basically is was congress (NOT ALL OF CONGRESS) consenting to troop deployment to the region. It WAS NOT a declaration of war. Do you not understand that? And considering text books in college are updated usually EVERY SINGLE YEAR, and the war in Iraq was already going on and was actually mentioned in the book...yeah you need to come a little harder with your possible outdated text book allegation.
@raventakayama No, you are lying. You did not read up on the "so-called" law as you wouldn't be referring it to "so-called" if you did, and you surely wouldn't be humiliating yourself further by continuing a pointless argument with me over the course of many days. Now go and ACTUALLY read the law in the link, and stop lying about it. Let me remind you that it was YOU who literally had the "outdated text book allegation" by telling me the words "There was no declaration of war" was in a textbook.
@raventakayama Point being that is was CONGRESS that urged the President to take appropriate military action against Saddam Hussein, not the other way around as liberals like to peddle. Did your text book mention the law at all or did you just skip over that section for personal political reasons? Oh, and text books in college are absolutely NOT updated EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You can't lie to me, son.
@Darkrift Much of congress actually opposed the war... And I do know exactly what you're talking about you are the one who is misunderstanding what exactly it is. It was not a declaration of war. There hasn't been a declaration of war since Japan in 1941. Its damn near common knowledge. Its like me telling you gravity is the reason why things fall to the ground, and you're not believing it because it doesn't support your argument. Face the facts and move on.
@raventakayama You are a fool. Nice attempt at changing the subject though. You still didn't read the law. What an ignorant person you are. Kind of feel sad for you actually.
@Darkrift I'm not changing the subject. We're still on topic. What you're talking about... this so called "law" (I don't think you understand what a law really is) is only a mode of consent given to the president to send troops to a given area, NOT TO CARRY OUT A MILITARY CAMPAIGN. That is because THERE WAS NO DECLARATION OF WAR. How can you feel sorry for me when the rest of the WORLD knows that the last time the US declared war was in 1941 against Japan? You're the one out of the loop.
@raventakayama Fool: What is with you about a "formal declaration of war" that is publically announced or mailed to the opposing nation's government? Are you saying that CONGRESS (who is already given the power to declare war) somehow broke their own law by not standing up in front of a camera and stating "We hereby declare war on Iraq"? Is that what you are saying? Because it is ABSURD if you think that formality is important to this discussion. The LAW was voted on and passed by Congress.
@Darkrift777 I'll do more than skim if you take a history lesson or two and realize that the last time a war was declared against another nation was in 1941 against Japan. Seems to me like you don't want to address that. Those are the facts however and its pretty common knowledge.
@raventakayama You would learn more about the operations of our government and the Iraq war by actually reading the law passed by Congress than by taking a history lesson or two. I am not interested in your interpretation of what your textbook tells you, son. The law is what it is, and if your textbook didn't inform you about this then I suggest you find another community college. Learn more about the details of the law, and less about common knowledge.
@Darkrift777 blah blah... my American gov text book is from 2007...hmmm its up to date and its a known fact that we did not declare war on Iraq. Stop playing man lol this is funny, but you can't keep at the same joke.
@Darkrift777 LMAO spoken like someone who hasn't read a text book. About 2 years in the field of Enzymology there was a particular enzyme in salmonella that we thought was the catalyst for many of it's enzymatic reactions. This year's issue shows that its not one, its actually two enzymes. Now science takes A LOOOONG time to update. History....Well not so much. Every time you have new editions its the updated material all the way up to the final writings. It's up to date and common knowledge.
@raventakayama I've read plenty of text books, son. What I'm trying to tell you is that there is information to be gleaned that is found outside of text books, as obviously you are ignorant of the workings of Congress in relation to the Iraq war. Now, son, I am disinterested in your feeble attempt at changing the story to enzymology. This specific law passed by Congress, may very well have been recorded in your text book. Then again, they may have omitted it due to length restraints.
@raventakayama Regardless, the information I provided was not fabricated by myself. It is your choice to remain ignorant on the subject and instead bicker with me for over a week as I urged you to educate yourself further on the matter. The information I've provided to you is not "wrong" in any way. Do you dispute Congress writing the law I posted? How would you know until you take the time to read it, which I am CERTAIN you did not?
In other words....wrong try again. Foolish troll child.
@raventakayama Moron: You continued to refuse to read the Congressional law and therefore accept the reasons for it or its Constitutional legality. That's all that needs to be said. Until you actually read the law, you can't even participate in arguing against it. Stop being dumb. PEACE.
@Darkrift777 Do you take it up the ass fat boy? Do you lube first? How many cocks do you swallow a night? Can I shoot a load of warm cum in your ear? Why do you fat republican dudes like to eat shit out of each others assholes? Darkshit wanted to send me nakey pics of him and his butt plug boyfriend eating shit out of each others corn holes. Of course I turned the offer down, as I like girls not dudes. Stop it faggot.
@SarahPaIinAK Please continue to spam on pages I've posted on, son. That way people can see how foul liberals stalker-trolls are. Thank you! But I still DO feel sorry for you.
@Darkrift777 Dude the WAR ON TERROR is not a declaration of war against ANY OTHER NATION. Its simply a global initiative that states that any PARTY that commits war crimes will be in fact waging war on this nation. That is not a declaration of war against ANY OTHER NATION. Dude, we breathe oxygen in the form of O2. That is a common knowledge fact. We haven't declared war against another nation since JAPAN... That is also a COMMON KNOWLEDGE FACT! Get the fuck outta here... Why are you so stupid?
@Darkrift777 lol Now its just down to name calling? I knew I shouldn't have taken you seriously to start with. Have a great day with your backwards beliefs and your lack of common knowledge.
@Darkrift777 lmao dude the WAR ON TERROR is a global initiative. It's not a declaration of war. Denying a common knowledge fact is the only ignorance being portrayed here...By you. Like seriously dude I don't know where you're from, your level of education, or what form of media you rely on for your info, but this isn't even worth debating. Its like you're saying H2O isn't water. READ THE NEXT SENTENCE CAREFULLY... The last time we declared war was against Japan during WW2. Its a FACT!
@raventakayama I never said it wasn't a global initiative. Judging from your comments, I assume you are an ignorant student. "The last time we declared war was against Japan during WW2." I never denied this. As I said before, the issue is that the Congress decided to start military operations in Iraq, passing the law authorizing the President to take appropriate military action against Saddam's regime. This is a FACT that you want to ignore by simply parroting irrelevant common knowledge.
@raventakayama And for weeks I encouraged you to take initiative and educate yourself by reading the law passed by Congress and the statement as to WHY we continued military operations that was essentially the culmination and much needed end to the Persian Gulf War. It is not an "illegal war" simply if a formal "Declaration of War" was never issued by Congress. I am merely trying to clear up many left wing brainwashing issues you tend to adhere to. I hope, after these many weeks, you understand.
@Darkrift777 Man the entire time I've been saying CONGRESS NEVER OFFICIALLY DECLARED WAR. Therefore without a declaration of war there is no REAL war. Congress can give consent for troop deployment, but it doesn't matter if congress gives that consent or not because the president can station troops wherever. Having congressional support is more symbolic than necessary, but the bottom line to this entire conversation is that the VERY LAST TIME WAR WAS DECLARED WAS AGAINST JAPAN. Period...
@raventakayama But there IS a war in the general sense of the word, son, if you consider the armed conflict that has been going on between the US and Iraq in the past several decades. Point is Congress DID give consent to the Iraq war, regardless of an offical declaration of war against the country of Iraq. Now stop being ignorant and babbling about issues that are common knowledge. Better yet, read the god damned law. Do you need another link to it or what? WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION?
@Darkrift777 No one is denying the fact that a literal war is being waged. But to make the claim that we are continuing a WAR due to the breakage of treaty regulations means that we're talking about war in the official sense. Therefore while this conflict escalated into what is physically, emotionally, and visually, a full scale war, there is ZERO official claims on it. Therefore the notion that an OFFICIAL war is being wage in response to treaty violations from another OFFICIAL war is utter BS.
@raventakayama So essentially what you are ignorantly claiming is that the past few administrations have been in violation for continuing to fight an "illegal war" even though it was voted on by Congress, not opposed by the Supreme Court, and has not stopped under either republican or democrat administrations. I gather from your comments that you don't know your history very well. And you know even less about US government functions. Read what you are typing before you post in the future.
@Darkrift Also the fact that none of our so-called wars since 1941 have been UNOFFICIAL makes you wonder why the UN has yet to do anything about us. No embargoes, no sanctions, nothing at all really. So you're claim that the UN is against America means that you don't understand what's really going on. The UN has had plenty of reason and enough power to do something about the US's actions.
@raventakayama Furthermore, the U.N. is a complete joke. They were unable to prevent Saddam Hussein from continuing his WMD programs, so the USA had to step in and take charge of the situation. The treaty violations committed by Saddam were many, and if you were grown up enough to actually read the law (instead of repeating your same old juvenile nonsense) then you might know that. The fact of the matter is, you don't understand anything whatsoever about government functions; maybe never will.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Darkrift777 How old are you 65? lol Because you clearly have an extremely backwards way of thinking. Fact is you're wrong here man. PERIOD... You know it and I know it and anyone who has read this shit knows it lol.
@raventakayama I'm obviously not wrong. You can't name one thing I've said that isn't 100% factually correct. All you can do is respond with a juvenile statement.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol one I did read your last comments completely because you're spinning this conversation into a different direction. You literally thought the Iraq war was after a congressional declaration of war. You think the war on terror is a declaration of war. You think a declaration of war which never happened links the two so-called Iraq wars, which are in actuality two military conflicts. All of which is wrong. Fact is the war was personal, and Bush relied on false info to go to war. The fuckin' End.
@raventakayama No, I never said that Congress issued an official declaration of war - once again, I said they voted and passed a law that stated why military conflict was necessary and what made it a legal action. Do you deny this taking place? Since you have as of yet refused to actually educate yourself by reading the law which I posted via link, I assume you either don't want to know the truth or you simply don't have the humility to admit it.
@raventakayama Fact is the war was not "Personal" or "Bush's War" as you leftwingnut simpletons like to spew. Bush Sr, Clinton, George Bush, and Obama all had a role to play in the military conflict that is known as the Iraq War. And in fact (once again I point out) it was CONGRESS who urged the President to take action, not the other way around.
co-conspirators, including Cheyney et.al. and the military hackwho, before the UN, repeated baseless lies of WMD,aluminum tubes, etc. to induce mindless fear, long a tool of Republican sychophants who achieve their nefarious ends via lies, frauds,and deceptions of simpletons to hold on to their power in their ongoing attempt to pervert and dissolve our democracy!
@Darkrift777 YEAH republican form of gov't that recognizes inalienable human rights and does not (or at least it isn't supposed to) attempt to regulate such natural rights or let mob rule (a completely democratic act) take those rights from the individual except in cases where it can be proved in a court of law without a shadow of a doubt that said person has knowingly and violently taken away such rights from another. Most notably by murder (the right to life).
@LouistheHedgehog You haven't done your homework, sadly... I suggest you look up the statement Congress issued that named the dozens of treaty violations by Iraq. The threat of WMDs was a small part of that. They never said he HAS them, only that he was actively working towards acquiring them. How you people swallow what you are spoon fed by a deliberately deceitful leftist media...
@Darkrift777 *facepalm* You mean their attempts to acquire uranium from africa which was also a lie? Or those alumnimum tubes, which were actually used for something else? Or the chemical weapons that WE GAVE THEM?!
@raventakayama And once again let me point out that the so-called "false info" was supported by multiple countries - even the UN knew that Saddam Hussein was violating the cease fire agreement. It is all detailed in the statement issued by Congress which is recorded in the law I posted. You are a joke and have dug yourself quite a hole of self degradation, complete with stereotypical left wing ramblings and cliche' spewing nonsense. PERIOD. And you know I'm right.
@Dark No. You're using an argument that wasn't even used by president Bush himself. Which means you're fishing my man. There's another no for the you know I'm right thing, because that was plum retarded. Any time right wingers babble about left wingers I push the mute button, because its just one conspiracy theory after another with the right wingers leading the way. Fact is congress would not have URGED Bush to take action then NOT declare war. Oh and the UN was TOTALLY against military action.
@Darkrift777 We were supporting Sadam during the Iran Iraq War and also Iran. That was when he did all the genocide on the Kurds. No one cared then. We cared when the TV started telling us to care. Congress is bought out anyway. Bush also ran on the platform of "No Nation Building." Dick Cheaney also was Secretary of Defense under Reagan.
@Darkrift777 Well we didn't stop it did we? Rumsfeld was buddies with him. It's really who the Power Elite wants in office. We've put dozens of dictators in power.
@raventakayama Look, I've dealt with your ilk before. I understand completely that you are heavily indoctrinated which led you to the wrong conclusions about the war in Iraq. It is also obvious that you are uneducated about matters of government and its functions as well, which is a dangerous combination - yet your sad condition is common among the fringe radicals of the left. It has also come to my attention that you are a stubborn fool, who is too proud to admit when you are clearly wrong.
@raventakayama Therefore, it is obvious that you will continue to post simplistic childish retorts and elementary bits of irrelevant common knowledge that nobody disputes as if that somehow validates your silly position. It doesn't. The bottom line of the discussion was not about a formal declaration of war, but the reasons for it. It was about the fact that a vote was indeed cast by Congress (which is all that is needed) making the Iraq war perfectly legal - and they state the reasons why.
@raventakayama "So called law" - So, AGAIN, you speak from ignorance, having A) not fully educated what a law means in respect to Congressional legislation, and B) not taking the time to familiarize yourself with that law. You are such a fool. Now, instead of waiting 3 days to say the same ignorant things in response, TAKE SOME TIME to actually READ THE LAW.
@raventakayama You have had days to educate yourself in this matter, but you have shown yourself to be a classic stereotype of an uneducated and indoctrinated liberal buffoon. Tell me, what is your aversion to taking 5 minutes and reading the law? Afraid you'd be wrong? Or is it that you are just simply afraid to admit that you are wrong? It's like I'm trying to explain the legislative process to a 5 year old. All you can do is claim I'm "full of shit" in response to me citing Congress! LOL
ya know why are people scared of health care reform it's almost the same thing instead off giving your money to a profit organization that will try top deny you for any reason you give it to the government that's not making a for profit system so that they can treat you and lose money and thats okay and really your schools , police force, library's, army, and many more things are government controlled things and just to say i live in a medium high income family
@Darkrift777 I explained this to someone else earlier but here we go. Multiple Myeloma cases are some of the the least insurance covered health care problems in America. Even though the disease is fatal without treatment it is hard to get a company to coverage said treatment because most MM treatments are deemed experimental. Many patients have to get on a waiting list for clinical trials in order to sneak by insurance companies and get treated. That's one disease of many. I have an entire list.
@Darkrift777 cont' And I work as a public heath researcher, my primary focus is health disparities and one of my topics is the disparity in health caused by the uninsured or those who have experienced coverage decline. It happens its a reality, just visit any of the lower income housing projects or lower middle to middle-middle class families. The number of people who are denied coverage is staggering to say the least.
@Darkrift777 Considering the fact that universal healthcare would provide healthcare coverage for everyone... Yes, its a great solution to the problems faced by the uninsured or the declined. How it's funded is a totally different issue, but hey if the Brits can do it and prosper why can't we? Oh wait, if we had true universal healthcare the special interest groups and insurance companies would lose TONS of money... so I guess its not that good of an idea anymore right? lol
@raventakayama No, universal healthcare would not provide healthcare coverage for everyone for every little thing as you are clearly pretending that it would. Medicare is currently denying more people coverage than any private company and I see no reason why that would change with Obamacare. Medicare is also going bankrupt so Obamacare is like borrowing from one credit card to pay the debt off of another. Brits CAN'T do it. Their quality of care is minimal AND they are going broke too!
@Darkrift Medicare isn't universal healthcare and neither is so-called Obamacare. But we got Obamacare because cons were blocking the idea of universal healthcare at all costs. Western Europe has provided universal healthcare for years upon years and even in their economic down turn its still going strong enough to provide everyone with healthcare. Like I told someone else we are ranked 37 in healthcare because of our healthcare system. Opposed to France #1 who also have a high rate of obesity.
@raventakayama Obamacare needs to be repealed at all costs. It would kill the medical industry as we know it, making it as poor as, say, Canada. Hopefully this November elections will provide the much needed change to do so.
@Darkrift777 Well I'm not a fan of Obamacare because its a lot less than I thought was going to happen. But it doesn't matter who we elect ALL politicians are in it for their careers and they need the support of the corporations therefore they are corporate America's puppets. Even those so-called tea party candidates. And Canada is actually ranked higher than the US in healthcare lol, sucks considering how great this nation should be.
@Darkrift777 You mean the WHO...The world health organization, which is one of a number of UN branches that has each and every country on the list as a member. I mean what kind of bias could be there? lol. The ranking is based on statistics, if the US is a member of the W.H.O. why would they go for listing themselves below a number of other countries? I mean what kind of logic is that?
@Darkrift777 Well considering P5 nations pretty much dictate most of what happens in the UN and America is apart of those P5 nations there really isn't much bias at all. The UN has always supported the US when the US was justified. They elected not to support the US in Iraq, but they did support the US in Afghanistan. Why? Because one war wasn't justified and the other was. There's no bias there. Everyone doesn't hate us and we are among the 5 biggest voices at the UN so again what bias?
@raventakayama No, the UN supported Obama's position because he is a globalist socialist, as I believe most on the UN council are. War in Afghanistan to capture one man? Alrighty then.
@Darkrift777 However the war in Iraq had no clear cut evidence for a preemptive strike. Therefore it was unjustified. You should never just guess and go to war, while neglecting the fact that North Korea around that same time was supposedly starting up a nuclear program. We also neglected to aid Kenya, a once stable nation in Africa during their outbreak of civil war, but we somehow had the man power to fight in Iraq for no good reason. hmmm...
@raventakayama FALSE. Review the speeches President Clinton gave regarding the need to invade Iraq. In fact, there were many many politicians (both left and right wing) that went on TV explaining the need to invate Iraq, and they presented valid arguments to do so. Keep in mind this was throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. Clinton ordered airstrikes and therefore began the hostilities long before the ground invasion.
@Darkrift777 The so-called need to invade Iraq does not supersede the fact that no evidence of Iraqi wrong doing was found. It also doesn't explain how the initial propaganda campaign for the war had WMDs as its headline and was later changed to Iraqi freedom. Funny how there's tons of nations that are viewed as allies of the US that could use some liberating but they were ignored. And why was North Korea ignored when their nuclear program was revealed? Answer that please.
@raventakayama You are so out of touch with reality that it is really humorous carrying on a conversation with you. There was absolutely evidence of Iraq covering up WMD research programs. I didn't need to read past the first sentence of your paragraph to determine you are grossly misinformed or out of your mind.
@Darkrift777 While there was speculatory evidence of Iraq covering up WMD research programs there was a definite nuclear program being built in North Korea AND lets not forget that Israel was under fire for supposedly having a nuclear program as well... Why didn't we do anything there? Why did we single out Iraq... didn't find any evidence then attacked them based on Iraqi freedom? Answer please.
@raventakayama To answer your simple question - the reason we went to Iraq is because Saddam Hussein had proven that he was perfectly fine with using WMDs against civillian populations, as he had already done so killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. North Korea had done no such thing.
@Dark You mean when he used that nerve agent that we gave him to combat soviets lol. So now we're going to blame a man for using a tool THAT WE GAVE HIM, because he later used it against his own set of enemies (Kurds) and not the mutual enemy? If this was an act of keeping Soviets out of the middle east the US wouldn't have done a thing. So obviously we're ok with chemical weapon usage as long as you use them in the way that we see fit. That argument throws Bush's Iraqi freedom propaganda out.
@raventakayama While I don't think its ever ok to give anyone WMDs (regardless of them being our current allies or not) you cannot blame the US for how people use the weapons. It's the same concept with gun control. In the hands of responsible people, there is nothing to fear. As for "Bush's Iraqi freedon propaganda" I'm scratching my head saying "What the fuck are you talking about?" "Freedom Propaganda"??
@Darkrift777 You're missing the point that we gave them the weapons to use against a mutual enemy. Which is a fact that the US wanted to keep on the hush if you read the events of that era. What's the difference between them using chemical weapons against Soviets and using them against the Kurds? You seem to believe the US was right in their invasion of Iraq, it seems to me like we were trying to cut off our own right hand that kept pulling the trigger. You can't justify US involvement.
@raventakayama Has North Korea used WMDs against their enemies? You asked a simple question, and I gave you the answer. I don't know why you are trying to put an idiotic propaganda spin of your own as your reply.
@Darkrift And NK has made plenty of threats, and the initial planning for the Iraqi invasion was a preemptive strike to prevent carrying out of a threat. So despite what you may think about the Kurds it was the so-called threat of WMD usage that sparked the Iraqi war. Fact is Kurds were killed in Iraqi in a form of genocide. Well that's been happening in South Africa for some time now and it was happening to Kenya OUR ALLY before the Iraq war. Why didn't we jump it that?
@Darkrift Before the Iraq war they never proved Iraq was breaking any UN treaties or resolutions of any kind. That's why the UN didn't back the US in that war and France OUR ALLY spoke out against it. There was no conclusive proof to send troops to die, and the fact that Saddam committed acts of genocide isn't enough to go to war. Because if that were the case we'd be at war with half of Sub-Saharan Africa. No one can seem to rightfully justify this war without neglecting commonsense.
@raventakayama They sure as hell did prove that Iraq WAS breaking UN treaties, fool. I am no longer stunned by liberal ignorance/lies. You guys must rewrite history in your own minds to justify your wingnut ideology. Moron, the reason why the US doesn't stop genocide in South Africa is because WMDs aren't involved. You asked me the same question about North Korea, dummy.
@Darkrift LOL Ok you're the ignorant one if you can't even see your own country's agenda. The us has used any excuse to dwell within the middle east. You're talking about I'm rewriting history, you don't even know it. NK has tested several long rang missile systems and they have all worked! Meaning that they're close enough to strike the west coast of the US and they are much more of a threat than any middle eastern nation. Saddam had skud missiles that WE GAVE HIM once again...
@raventakayama Dunce, anything about North Korea is moot, as I've told you time and time again that Kin Jong Il never used them against his enemies, and we are not at war with him. The situation in Iraq was never resolved since the Persian Gulf War. Saddam never surrendered, only his standing army did. Under the treaty of the cease fire, Saddam had to abide by certain restrictions (UNLIKE NORTH KOREA, dunce) which he violated.
@Darkrift Yes and those restrictions also applied to Sudan because they all fell under human rights violations. However there wasn't even an investigation in Sudan over allegations (2005 - 2006) of them using chemical weapons, no attempt to aid Kenya (an ally), and only a threat from China towards NK after they launched what appeared to be a long range rocket of some sort. Point is there was plenty of stuff going on and most of it got ignored for the sake of a personal plight in Iraq.
@Darkrift How is it irrelevant? Are you simply dodging? I remember asking why Bush went into Iraq... I also remember stating that there was a lot of shit going on during that period and Iraq getting that much attention was somewhat fishy. So how is my comment irrelevant? You can't explain why Bush ignored all the other incidents during that time to seek out a long shot in Iraq.
@raventakayama How is it irrelevant, you ask? It is clear. We were talking about the unique situation in Iraq concerning the ongoing and unresolved Persian Gulf war and you launch into a monologue about the Sudan, Kenya, Israel and North Korea. Apples to oranges - all irrelevant and we've been over why already several times. What "all other incidents" did Bush supposedly ignore to "seek out a long shot" in Iraq", whatever that means?
@Darkrift777 We were talking about the reasoning behind going into Iraq and upon bringing up Iraq I listed other events that could have easily gotten America's attention. However, propaganda, the un-American campaign, and ignorance (anti Muslim attitude from many Americans) fueled support for the invasion of a nation that did the same exact things the Sudanese were accused of doing. So the relevance is within the fact that one situation was ignored while a similar situation was handled.
@raventakayama We went into Iraq because of the violations of the treaty established during the cease fire of the Persian Gulf war. It's just that simple. There is no connection whatsoever to the Sudan, to North Korea, or to anything other than the temporary truce between Iraq and the US.
@Darkrift lol so intense. What you're saying doesn't explain the situation at all, because many of the things Saddam did were done by others and those others didn't receive any attention from the US. To carry on the Gulf War as if old Bush was in office is 1. unprofessional, and 2. unnecessary and 3. irresponsible and 4 a waste of life in a needless war with NO grounds. If he had grounds for the war he wouldn't have changed the reason why we were fighting. 1st it was WMDs then Iraqi freedom lol.
@Darkrift And the fact that I think Bush had his own agenda makes that statement from Bush rather irrelevant in proving your point lol. If you had an agenda of sorts you'd say what needed to be said. Fact is there was no viable reason to launch a preemptive strike, which are usually launched to prevent attack on one's own country, not to prevent attack on un-allied nations in a foreign land. There's no grounds for the Iraq war and you know it.
@raventakayama "You know it"? Its been explained to you why the Persian Gulf war had to be settled with the end of the rule of Saddam Hussein and yet here you are pretending to be ignorant. And you have the audacity to say "I" know there is "no grounds for the Iraq war"?? You simpleton. Perfectly happy to sit in your little cocoon and parrot left wing bullshit, not knowing ANY relevant facts whatsoever. The "Iraq war" is merely the inevitable END of the Persian Gulf war, and now YOU know it.
@Darkrift If it was simply the violation of a treaty proposed at the end of the Gulf war there would have been many other avenues taken before war. To be part of the UN is to show a level of diplomacy. Bush neglected any and all other options and didn't even state that the war treaty was his reason. He claimed WMDs then he claimed Iraqi freedom. He didn't even give the reason you gave. You're fishing man.
@raventakayama The war was still going on, dunce! A temporary cease fire was all there was - as long as Saddam Hussein respected the agreement, which he didn't. What, are you saying the Persian Gulf war was a "needless war with NO grounds"? What you fail to understand is the reasons for resuming the Persian Gulf war. Hussein violated the cease fire agreement multiple times. Freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein gives the Iraqi people a chance at freedom. They are all related reasons, fool.
@Darkrift777 LMAO! Uh no my friend now you really are fishing. Bush didn't even use that excuse he had that much common sense at least. And there wasn't even a formal congressional declaration of war against Iraq lmao. You're the fool my dumbass friend. You can't find an excuse to support a needless war, which was technically a conflict, and you're fishing. When you're wrong, you're wrong no one's going to judge you... Much.
@raventakayama Sorry my simple-minded friend, the historical facts I've presented are available for all to see. No "fishing" required. Of course there wasn't a "formal declaration of war against Iraq. And why? Because it was merely the end of the Persian Gulf war that had been going on (albeit postponed) for years and years. Don't try to deflect the fact that you are an ignorant buffon with repeated accusations of "fishing". LOL
@Darkrift777 No there was never a formal declaration of war in either war lol. And New Bush was under fire because there wasn't a declaration of war. Old Bush faced the same political pressure. New Iraq war has been referred to as Vietnam, due to the futility of the war efforts and the lack of congressional consent. So the war wasn't even a war in the 1st place, how can you carry on a non-war lol. So how am I dumb when your dumb ass can't understand that there was never a war!
@raventakayama You couldn't be any more misinformed. The bottom like is that you are simply a delusional idiot. That was all that remains to be said and now it has been. A completely brainwashed partisan wingnut. Have a great one, idiot.
@raventakayama Let me try to educate your stupid ass again, all right? War was already declared during the Persian Gulf war under Bush Sr. We both know that the conflict was never resolved, (you DO know that, right?) as Hussein never surrendered power. I think the reason why Bush Sr didn't push the invasion further is because he hoped that crushing the bulk of Iraq's military would be enough and the Iraqi people would rise up in revolt against Saddam which would be better for everyone.
@Darkrift777 Congress only declared war a few times in American history. The last time being WW2. Everything else were military conflicts... All of which had the support of the UN accept Vietnam which had mixed support and The 2nd Iraq war which virtually had no support. One war started as a covert intervention against communism, and the other war was some personal vendetta or something.
@raventakayama But unfortunately, the Iraqi people were too disheartened and too terrified of Hussein to do that on their own. During the cease fire of the Persian Gulf war, Hussein violated the agreement of the cease fire numerous times as is documented within the presidential archives that you are able to view online. Any one of those violations allowed for the continuation of the Gulf war, or the "illegal war" as you wingnuts love to ignorantly claim. Still with me, child?
@raventakayama As far as being a "needless" war, please educate yourself as to why the Persian Gulf war was fought in the first place, and then get back with me so you can revise your asinine statement. Also, you DO know that the formal declaration of war was made by Bush Sr at the beginning of the Gulf War, don't you? "Technically a conflict"?? LMFAO You are such a foolish child. Read a news paper or something.
Gov't involvement is why we're in the mess we are in already. The FDA and the AMA (non-gov't, but gov't takes their advice on all things medical) control what procedures and medications are available to the American market. There is more than one doctor who has created a new way to treat cancer and illness without the use of damaging radiation and toxic chemicals who has been shunned and attacked both personally and legally by either group.
dlstb 2 months ago
Doctors are just basically greedy fucks. We should have recognized it sooner. Hell Monty Python was making jokes about it in the 70's.
Man, the whole state of medical science is a big joke these days. I'll go to my local hippy-dippy herbalist for medicine before I'll go to the doctor. It's cheaper, they actually seem to give a shit about your illness, and the medicine isn't big pharma poison.
Fuck 'em, fuck 'em all with 18 bricks and a hooked bugger-pole.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
Fuck Americans. Hope they all die.
mirabilo 4 months ago
@mirabilo right back at yah! :) Have a nice day. (:
dlstb 2 months ago
it probably is a communist plot
dandowning83 4 months ago
Anyone that continues to dispute my argument, and in so doing argues against the FACTS at hand, can merely go to my channel comments and take the link there to the law which was passed by Congress and followed by the President which explains in detail the reasons why we went to Iraq. PERIOD. To all leftwingnuts that refuse an education and stubbornly refuse to live in reality - I can't help you. I can only point you in the right direction but YOU have to be willing to accept the truth.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any reader can simply click on my channel and take the link there to view the law posted by Congress - and in so doing you will see that I have been right all along.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 5
But DO go on and ignore the law. And tell me more about what I already know - repeat how no "formal declaration" of war was made since 1941. Irrelevant. Then argue about how you think the U.N. should place sanctions on the USA (hilarious) for an "illegal war". You brainwashed simpletons on the left are merely regurgitating what you've heard from the left wing pundits during the Bush administration. Your position is duly noted and utterly rejected by myself, a man of learning. Good day to you.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 6
"Therefore without a declaration of war there is no REAL war."
That statement really made me laugh by the way. You are a joke, kid.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
9 people are insurance tycoons.
Forestimp45 1 year ago
Comment removed
Forestimp45 1 year ago
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Dark Again check the history. The absolute last time America declared war was WW2. I don't know what super con site you're getting your information from, but its an historical fact. Look it up. There's plenty of info on congress authorizing the declaration of war. No one is lying those are the facts. And upon checking on your info thats not a formal declaration of war. It is an authorization of military movement, but not a war declaration. The absolute last country we declared war on was Japan.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama A rose by any other name.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan Uh how poetic?
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama As a guy thats been to a few of these undeclared wars. Or if you like police actions. It really does not matter what you call it. Its all the same to those who fight. The dead are no less dead because of a lack of formal declaration. Thus a rose by any other name.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan Oh ok I understand. Yeah you're right, and no death is more needless than the next, but my comments are aimed at the irrelevance of this latest undeclared war, and how it cost lives without any ounce of justification. I support the troops, but not the undeclared war that landed them over here, for the simple fact that it landed them over there needlessly.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Justification for any war is in the eye of the beholder. As more time passes we tend to forgive mistakes and look at what was acomplished instead of how it was acomplished. The current middle east military actions will not be determined for twenty years. History is written by the winners. In my opinion no war can really be justified while being fought. There is no nice way to kill people and blow stuff up.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan You're right, but look where this war has us. An unstable middle east, and plenty of people dead.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Unstable is the norm for the middle east. Atleast for the past few thousand years anyway. It is the crossroads of the world and the historic battleground for every other nation to expand and control more. The only way to fix that part of the world is if everyone else in the world stops using oil. Take away the demand for oil and defund the killing for control.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan Yeah unstable is the norm, but it was more stable with Saddam. Its like gang warfare. Cops take out the top dog of a particular group and even more radical one takes his place. That's all the US has done...made way for some other nut case who'd ACTUALLY put the US's safety in question. If there was no viable connection to attack them they shouldn't have been attacked. The orchestrators of 9/11 weren't Iraqis, and coupling 9/11 with Iraq was the initial propaganda campaign.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Saddam was an insane dictator. True he did have everyone dancing to his tune inside Iraq, but its hard to do bussness with a crazy person. The U.S.A. was trying to take him out way before 9/11. I was over in the desert back in 1990-1991 with the 101st airborn. Ten years before 9/11/2001 Anyone who is anti-war would have to be anti-Saddam.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@Uther And supposedly they had snipers on Saddam ready to take the shot or something and they called it off at the last minute. But anyways, dictators and tyrants come in many different shapes and sizes and under multiple political banners. Allowing the declaration of hyphenated Americans aka un-Americans and using general disdain for Islam at a time in which Americans were angry and irrational as a propaganda tool is just as bad as manipulated citizens using fear. Tyrannical in its own right.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama I am glad Saddam is dead. I would have shot him myself if given the chance. The price we paid to make that happen is too high, it always is.....
I disagree with you that propaganda is just as bad as fear for being manipulated. I must assume you are a preson who has never been is a true state of fear otherwise you would not feel that way.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@Uther Propaganda has caused Americans to view Islam as one entity, with terrorism as their background, which is simply wrong. This type of propaganda is fear mongering plain and simple. A Nazi general once implied that the best way to control a group of people is to make them feel threatened by outside forces. That's clearly the picture that was painted on ALL OF ISLAM on 9/11, and any 1 liner clarification that all Muslims aren't terrorist doesn't stem the overall propaganda.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama We are threatened by outside forces. Its not propaganda to say that its reality. Islam is a death cult. All muslims should be suspect. They earned it. Seems to me you need to figure out which side of the cross your on. We need nail drivers not hangers. Muslims need to clean out there own house. When they stop blowing stuff up then I will stop thinking of them as terrorists.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@Uther And the propaganda lies in the depiction of those outside forces. To perpetuate the American belief that Islam is dangerous, and Islam is responsible for 9/11, therefore all Muslim nations are suspect is highly irresponsible. Utilizing the concept that all Muslims should be treated a certain way allows the government to justify a war based on an American emotional outburst, which again is irresponsible.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama "Super con site"? Look up the resolution number, ignoramus.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift I did lol its not what you think.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Moron: Click on my profile, scroll to the comments, and look at my latest post. There you will see a link to CSPAN that recorded the congressional law which allows (and explains why) military action in the Iraq war which you claim is illegal. I think perhaps - nay I am 100% certain in fact, that it is YOU that is wrong in your thinking. I've read the law. Clearly you haven't.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift Historical fact, the last time congress declared war on a nation was against Japan WWII. Congress did not officially declare war against Iraq or anyone else since WWII. That's history you can't change it. The originally gulf war wasn't officially a war it was a military conflict. Dems didn't support the war just like reps didn't support Clinton's actions in the middle east, so no congress didn't declare war look it up it's easy to find lol or read an old history book its there as well.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Again, read the statement (and LAW) issued by Congress via the link which you have ignored. Then you might not seem so stupid.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 A declaration of war isn't a law man lol. What are you talking about? Go read... You're clearly wrong and you know it. This is getting redundant and you're pulling a Bill O'Reilly bs tactic. Look up the very last time that congress declared war. And I mean an actually declaration of war, not the pres sending troops to a given area, and not congressional permission to send troops... I mean an actual declaration of war against a specific nation.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Fool, again let me direct you to the link that you didn't read. Don't ask me what I am talking about until you actually take the time to educate yourself first. I clearly know YOU'RE wrong and we BOTH know it. I gave you the link which was a law passed by Congress. The definition of the word "law" is something you are obviously having difficulty understanding as it relates to government legislation. Law - an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation. Now read.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 darkdingleberry....Pull your mothers dildo out of your fat ass, and stop being a little sissy. Mom is going to flip her wig if she sees your bloody shit all over her favorite dildo. Now stop trying to prove you insanity bs here, you are going from video to video spewing right wing bs. If you don't stop trying to send me videos of you and Mike having gay sex, I am going to have to e-mail you mother again.
aIphecca2539 1 year ago
@aIphecca2539 Heheh hello again frustrated stalkertroll.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Dude seriously, congress didn't declare war on Iraq either time. Seriously, that's a historical fact. What's so hard about looking that up? Its all over the net. Again, you have it totally wrong and I know it sucks to be wrong, but you are dude... The End.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama I find it highly entertaining that you return to parrot the same ignorance. You still haven't read the law passed by Congress. That much is obvious.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift A declaration of war is not a law. Congress last declared war against japan... did you look that up? If you simply refuse to understand the facts of American history whats the point of a conversation dealing mostly with American history? Seriously.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Argue that to Congress then, simpleton. Read the god damn law. Again you return making IGNORANT statements showing me that you did not first educate yourself. What a douchebag you are. Come on, buddy. Read.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 You're the simple one who doesn't understand the allowance of troop deployment is not the same as a declaration of war. If you're going to continue to be full of shit, then don't bother commenting. You know that congress did not declare war on Iraq. 1941 was the last time congress declared war on a nation.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama I can't believe you didn't even read the law. What a complete and utter fool you are. Ignorant and defiant to the last. Quite pathetic. You DO realise that your entire argument is flawed because it is based on the assumption that Congress didn't officially "declare war". READ. THE. LAW.
You are one stupid moron, having Googled "When was the last time Congress declared war" or some such nonsense that you cling to desperately to remain in ignorance.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift I don't have to google it. I can just pull out my American Government text book from my freshmen year in college and see it printed there clear as day. You're either trying to pull a Bill-O bs tactic or you don't understand words written in history that don't exactly agree with your statements.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Of course you don't have to Google it, as I've posted the actual link to the law passed by Congress, dimwit. For current hisotical events, you might want to do a bit better than a history book. What a joke.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift Yes and I read up on that so-called law, and basically is was congress (NOT ALL OF CONGRESS) consenting to troop deployment to the region. It WAS NOT a declaration of war. Do you not understand that? And considering text books in college are updated usually EVERY SINGLE YEAR, and the war in Iraq was already going on and was actually mentioned in the book...yeah you need to come a little harder with your possible outdated text book allegation.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama No, you are lying. You did not read up on the "so-called" law as you wouldn't be referring it to "so-called" if you did, and you surely wouldn't be humiliating yourself further by continuing a pointless argument with me over the course of many days. Now go and ACTUALLY read the law in the link, and stop lying about it. Let me remind you that it was YOU who literally had the "outdated text book allegation" by telling me the words "There was no declaration of war" was in a textbook.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama Point being that is was CONGRESS that urged the President to take appropriate military action against Saddam Hussein, not the other way around as liberals like to peddle. Did your text book mention the law at all or did you just skip over that section for personal political reasons? Oh, and text books in college are absolutely NOT updated EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You can't lie to me, son.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift Much of congress actually opposed the war... And I do know exactly what you're talking about you are the one who is misunderstanding what exactly it is. It was not a declaration of war. There hasn't been a declaration of war since Japan in 1941. Its damn near common knowledge. Its like me telling you gravity is the reason why things fall to the ground, and you're not believing it because it doesn't support your argument. Face the facts and move on.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You are a fool. Nice attempt at changing the subject though. You still didn't read the law. What an ignorant person you are. Kind of feel sad for you actually.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift I'm not changing the subject. We're still on topic. What you're talking about... this so called "law" (I don't think you understand what a law really is) is only a mode of consent given to the president to send troops to a given area, NOT TO CARRY OUT A MILITARY CAMPAIGN. That is because THERE WAS NO DECLARATION OF WAR. How can you feel sorry for me when the rest of the WORLD knows that the last time the US declared war was in 1941 against Japan? You're the one out of the loop.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Fool: What is with you about a "formal declaration of war" that is publically announced or mailed to the opposing nation's government? Are you saying that CONGRESS (who is already given the power to declare war) somehow broke their own law by not standing up in front of a camera and stating "We hereby declare war on Iraq"? Is that what you are saying? Because it is ABSURD if you think that formality is important to this discussion. The LAW was voted on and passed by Congress.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 I'll do more than skim if you take a history lesson or two and realize that the last time a war was declared against another nation was in 1941 against Japan. Seems to me like you don't want to address that. Those are the facts however and its pretty common knowledge.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You would learn more about the operations of our government and the Iraq war by actually reading the law passed by Congress than by taking a history lesson or two. I am not interested in your interpretation of what your textbook tells you, son. The law is what it is, and if your textbook didn't inform you about this then I suggest you find another community college. Learn more about the details of the law, and less about common knowledge.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 blah blah... my American gov text book is from 2007...hmmm its up to date and its a known fact that we did not declare war on Iraq. Stop playing man lol this is funny, but you can't keep at the same joke.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama So I guess I was right. They DON'T update your text books every year as you previously claimed.
I wonder what else I'm right about...Oh yes, that's right. The Congressional LAW.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 LMAO spoken like someone who hasn't read a text book. About 2 years in the field of Enzymology there was a particular enzyme in salmonella that we thought was the catalyst for many of it's enzymatic reactions. This year's issue shows that its not one, its actually two enzymes. Now science takes A LOOOONG time to update. History....Well not so much. Every time you have new editions its the updated material all the way up to the final writings. It's up to date and common knowledge.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama I've read plenty of text books, son. What I'm trying to tell you is that there is information to be gleaned that is found outside of text books, as obviously you are ignorant of the workings of Congress in relation to the Iraq war. Now, son, I am disinterested in your feeble attempt at changing the story to enzymology. This specific law passed by Congress, may very well have been recorded in your text book. Then again, they may have omitted it due to length restraints.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 In other words....wrong try again.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Regardless, the information I provided was not fabricated by myself. It is your choice to remain ignorant on the subject and instead bicker with me for over a week as I urged you to educate yourself further on the matter. The information I've provided to you is not "wrong" in any way. Do you dispute Congress writing the law I posted? How would you know until you take the time to read it, which I am CERTAIN you did not?
In other words....wrong try again. Foolish troll child.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Again the last time the US declared war was in 1941 period. You know it. Stop playing dumb.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Moron: You continued to refuse to read the Congressional law and therefore accept the reasons for it or its Constitutional legality. That's all that needs to be said. Until you actually read the law, you can't even participate in arguing against it. Stop being dumb. PEACE.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Do you take it up the ass fat boy? Do you lube first? How many cocks do you swallow a night? Can I shoot a load of warm cum in your ear? Why do you fat republican dudes like to eat shit out of each others assholes? Darkshit wanted to send me nakey pics of him and his butt plug boyfriend eating shit out of each others corn holes. Of course I turned the offer down, as I like girls not dudes. Stop it faggot.
SarahPaIinAK 1 year ago
@SarahPaIinAK Please continue to spam on pages I've posted on, son. That way people can see how foul liberals stalker-trolls are. Thank you! But I still DO feel sorry for you.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Dude the WAR ON TERROR is not a declaration of war against ANY OTHER NATION. Its simply a global initiative that states that any PARTY that commits war crimes will be in fact waging war on this nation. That is not a declaration of war against ANY OTHER NATION. Dude, we breathe oxygen in the form of O2. That is a common knowledge fact. We haven't declared war against another nation since JAPAN... That is also a COMMON KNOWLEDGE FACT! Get the fuck outta here... Why are you so stupid?
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You idiot.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Whatever man, you fail to accept the facts because they don't agree with your beliefs. Deal with it.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You imbecile.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 lol Now its just down to name calling? I knew I shouldn't have taken you seriously to start with. Have a great day with your backwards beliefs and your lack of common knowledge.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You buffoon.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 lol You've been watching too many cartoons my friend.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Read the law if you don't believe me, ignoramus.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 lmao dude the WAR ON TERROR is a global initiative. It's not a declaration of war. Denying a common knowledge fact is the only ignorance being portrayed here...By you. Like seriously dude I don't know where you're from, your level of education, or what form of media you rely on for your info, but this isn't even worth debating. Its like you're saying H2O isn't water. READ THE NEXT SENTENCE CAREFULLY... The last time we declared war was against Japan during WW2. Its a FACT!
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama I never said it wasn't a global initiative. Judging from your comments, I assume you are an ignorant student. "The last time we declared war was against Japan during WW2." I never denied this. As I said before, the issue is that the Congress decided to start military operations in Iraq, passing the law authorizing the President to take appropriate military action against Saddam's regime. This is a FACT that you want to ignore by simply parroting irrelevant common knowledge.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama And for weeks I encouraged you to take initiative and educate yourself by reading the law passed by Congress and the statement as to WHY we continued military operations that was essentially the culmination and much needed end to the Persian Gulf War. It is not an "illegal war" simply if a formal "Declaration of War" was never issued by Congress. I am merely trying to clear up many left wing brainwashing issues you tend to adhere to. I hope, after these many weeks, you understand.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Man the entire time I've been saying CONGRESS NEVER OFFICIALLY DECLARED WAR. Therefore without a declaration of war there is no REAL war. Congress can give consent for troop deployment, but it doesn't matter if congress gives that consent or not because the president can station troops wherever. Having congressional support is more symbolic than necessary, but the bottom line to this entire conversation is that the VERY LAST TIME WAR WAS DECLARED WAS AGAINST JAPAN. Period...
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama But there IS a war in the general sense of the word, son, if you consider the armed conflict that has been going on between the US and Iraq in the past several decades. Point is Congress DID give consent to the Iraq war, regardless of an offical declaration of war against the country of Iraq. Now stop being ignorant and babbling about issues that are common knowledge. Better yet, read the god damned law. Do you need another link to it or what? WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 No one is denying the fact that a literal war is being waged. But to make the claim that we are continuing a WAR due to the breakage of treaty regulations means that we're talking about war in the official sense. Therefore while this conflict escalated into what is physically, emotionally, and visually, a full scale war, there is ZERO official claims on it. Therefore the notion that an OFFICIAL war is being wage in response to treaty violations from another OFFICIAL war is utter BS.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama So essentially what you are ignorantly claiming is that the past few administrations have been in violation for continuing to fight an "illegal war" even though it was voted on by Congress, not opposed by the Supreme Court, and has not stopped under either republican or democrat administrations. I gather from your comments that you don't know your history very well. And you know even less about US government functions. Read what you are typing before you post in the future.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift Also the fact that none of our so-called wars since 1941 have been UNOFFICIAL makes you wonder why the UN has yet to do anything about us. No embargoes, no sanctions, nothing at all really. So you're claim that the UN is against America means that you don't understand what's really going on. The UN has had plenty of reason and enough power to do something about the US's actions.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Furthermore, the U.N. is a complete joke. They were unable to prevent Saddam Hussein from continuing his WMD programs, so the USA had to step in and take charge of the situation. The treaty violations committed by Saddam were many, and if you were grown up enough to actually read the law (instead of repeating your same old juvenile nonsense) then you might know that. The fact of the matter is, you don't understand anything whatsoever about government functions; maybe never will.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama How old are you? 13?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Darkrift777 How old are you 65? lol Because you clearly have an extremely backwards way of thinking. Fact is you're wrong here man. PERIOD... You know it and I know it and anyone who has read this shit knows it lol.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama I'm obviously not wrong. You can't name one thing I've said that isn't 100% factually correct. All you can do is respond with a juvenile statement.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol one I did read your last comments completely because you're spinning this conversation into a different direction. You literally thought the Iraq war was after a congressional declaration of war. You think the war on terror is a declaration of war. You think a declaration of war which never happened links the two so-called Iraq wars, which are in actuality two military conflicts. All of which is wrong. Fact is the war was personal, and Bush relied on false info to go to war. The fuckin' End.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama No, I never said that Congress issued an official declaration of war - once again, I said they voted and passed a law that stated why military conflict was necessary and what made it a legal action. Do you deny this taking place? Since you have as of yet refused to actually educate yourself by reading the law which I posted via link, I assume you either don't want to know the truth or you simply don't have the humility to admit it.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 6
@raventakayama Fact is the war was not "Personal" or "Bush's War" as you leftwingnut simpletons like to spew. Bush Sr, Clinton, George Bush, and Obama all had a role to play in the military conflict that is known as the Iraq War. And in fact (once again I point out) it was CONGRESS who urged the President to take action, not the other way around.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 8
@Darkrift777 Bush and his cadre of
co-conspirators, including Cheyney et.al. and the military hackwho, before the UN, repeated baseless lies of WMD,aluminum tubes, etc. to induce mindless fear, long a tool of Republican sychophants who achieve their nefarious ends via lies, frauds,and deceptions of simpletons to hold on to their power in their ongoing attempt to pervert and dissolve our democracy!
Truthtodupes 3 months ago
@Truthtodupes Except we don't have a democracy. Never have, thankfully.
Darkrift777 3 months ago
@Darkrift777 YEAH republican form of gov't that recognizes inalienable human rights and does not (or at least it isn't supposed to) attempt to regulate such natural rights or let mob rule (a completely democratic act) take those rights from the individual except in cases where it can be proved in a court of law without a shadow of a doubt that said person has knowingly and violently taken away such rights from another. Most notably by murder (the right to life).
dlstb 2 months ago
@Darkrift777 Yes, bceause we all know it was CONGRESS that lied about the WMDs /sarcasm
LouistheHedgehog 1 month ago
@LouistheHedgehog You haven't done your homework, sadly... I suggest you look up the statement Congress issued that named the dozens of treaty violations by Iraq. The threat of WMDs was a small part of that. They never said he HAS them, only that he was actively working towards acquiring them. How you people swallow what you are spoon fed by a deliberately deceitful leftist media...
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777 *facepalm* You mean their attempts to acquire uranium from africa which was also a lie? Or those alumnimum tubes, which were actually used for something else? Or the chemical weapons that WE GAVE THEM?!
LouistheHedgehog 1 month ago
@LouistheHedgehog I think you need to reread what I wrote and take my advice.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@raventakayama And once again let me point out that the so-called "false info" was supported by multiple countries - even the UN knew that Saddam Hussein was violating the cease fire agreement. It is all detailed in the statement issued by Congress which is recorded in the law I posted. You are a joke and have dug yourself quite a hole of self degradation, complete with stereotypical left wing ramblings and cliche' spewing nonsense. PERIOD. And you know I'm right.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 5
@Dark No. You're using an argument that wasn't even used by president Bush himself. Which means you're fishing my man. There's another no for the you know I'm right thing, because that was plum retarded. Any time right wingers babble about left wingers I push the mute button, because its just one conspiracy theory after another with the right wingers leading the way. Fact is congress would not have URGED Bush to take action then NOT declare war. Oh and the UN was TOTALLY against military action.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 We were supporting Sadam during the Iran Iraq War and also Iran. That was when he did all the genocide on the Kurds. No one cared then. We cared when the TV started telling us to care. Congress is bought out anyway. Bush also ran on the platform of "No Nation Building." Dick Cheaney also was Secretary of Defense under Reagan.
HoGraz 1 year ago
@HoGraz "No one cared then."
Not true.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Well we didn't stop it did we? Rumsfeld was buddies with him. It's really who the Power Elite wants in office. We've put dozens of dictators in power.
HoGraz 1 year ago
@HoGraz Sure, in retrospect the people in power have made many mistakes.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Well that's one way to look at it. You've got a point. I personally think sometimes it's not mistakes.
HoGraz 1 year ago
@raventakayama Look, I've dealt with your ilk before. I understand completely that you are heavily indoctrinated which led you to the wrong conclusions about the war in Iraq. It is also obvious that you are uneducated about matters of government and its functions as well, which is a dangerous combination - yet your sad condition is common among the fringe radicals of the left. It has also come to my attention that you are a stubborn fool, who is too proud to admit when you are clearly wrong.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 5
@raventakayama Therefore, it is obvious that you will continue to post simplistic childish retorts and elementary bits of irrelevant common knowledge that nobody disputes as if that somehow validates your silly position. It doesn't. The bottom line of the discussion was not about a formal declaration of war, but the reasons for it. It was about the fact that a vote was indeed cast by Congress (which is all that is needed) making the Iraq war perfectly legal - and they state the reasons why.
Darkrift777 1 year ago 6
@Darkrift777 Oh and the global war on terrorism was a global initiative not a declaration of war. PEACE.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama "So called law" - So, AGAIN, you speak from ignorance, having A) not fully educated what a law means in respect to Congressional legislation, and B) not taking the time to familiarize yourself with that law. You are such a fool. Now, instead of waiting 3 days to say the same ignorant things in response, TAKE SOME TIME to actually READ THE LAW.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama You have had days to educate yourself in this matter, but you have shown yourself to be a classic stereotype of an uneducated and indoctrinated liberal buffoon. Tell me, what is your aversion to taking 5 minutes and reading the law? Afraid you'd be wrong? Or is it that you are just simply afraid to admit that you are wrong? It's like I'm trying to explain the legislative process to a 5 year old. All you can do is claim I'm "full of shit" in response to me citing Congress! LOL
Darkrift777 1 year ago
ya know why are people scared of health care reform it's almost the same thing instead off giving your money to a profit organization that will try top deny you for any reason you give it to the government that's not making a for profit system so that they can treat you and lose money and thats okay and really your schools , police force, library's, army, and many more things are government controlled things and just to say i live in a medium high income family
xSomethinginabox 1 year ago
@xSomethinginabox and i know people that would have died without health care and im glad that my tax dollars went to save there lives
xSomethinginabox 1 year ago
What propaganda this guy churns out.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 lol its true though
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama No, it isn't. True from your "certain point of view" perhaps, but not fact.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 I explained this to someone else earlier but here we go. Multiple Myeloma cases are some of the the least insurance covered health care problems in America. Even though the disease is fatal without treatment it is hard to get a company to coverage said treatment because most MM treatments are deemed experimental. Many patients have to get on a waiting list for clinical trials in order to sneak by insurance companies and get treated. That's one disease of many. I have an entire list.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 cont' And I work as a public heath researcher, my primary focus is health disparities and one of my topics is the disparity in health caused by the uninsured or those who have experienced coverage decline. It happens its a reality, just visit any of the lower income housing projects or lower middle to middle-middle class families. The number of people who are denied coverage is staggering to say the least.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama And you really think socialized medicine is the solution to this problem, do you?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Considering the fact that universal healthcare would provide healthcare coverage for everyone... Yes, its a great solution to the problems faced by the uninsured or the declined. How it's funded is a totally different issue, but hey if the Brits can do it and prosper why can't we? Oh wait, if we had true universal healthcare the special interest groups and insurance companies would lose TONS of money... so I guess its not that good of an idea anymore right? lol
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama No, universal healthcare would not provide healthcare coverage for everyone for every little thing as you are clearly pretending that it would. Medicare is currently denying more people coverage than any private company and I see no reason why that would change with Obamacare. Medicare is also going bankrupt so Obamacare is like borrowing from one credit card to pay the debt off of another. Brits CAN'T do it. Their quality of care is minimal AND they are going broke too!
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift Medicare isn't universal healthcare and neither is so-called Obamacare. But we got Obamacare because cons were blocking the idea of universal healthcare at all costs. Western Europe has provided universal healthcare for years upon years and even in their economic down turn its still going strong enough to provide everyone with healthcare. Like I told someone else we are ranked 37 in healthcare because of our healthcare system. Opposed to France #1 who also have a high rate of obesity.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Obamacare needs to be repealed at all costs. It would kill the medical industry as we know it, making it as poor as, say, Canada. Hopefully this November elections will provide the much needed change to do so.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Well I'm not a fan of Obamacare because its a lot less than I thought was going to happen. But it doesn't matter who we elect ALL politicians are in it for their careers and they need the support of the corporations therefore they are corporate America's puppets. Even those so-called tea party candidates. And Canada is actually ranked higher than the US in healthcare lol, sucks considering how great this nation should be.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama And who is the "high power" ranking them, eh? No agenda there, eh? Come on.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 You mean the WHO...The world health organization, which is one of a number of UN branches that has each and every country on the list as a member. I mean what kind of bias could be there? lol. The ranking is based on statistics, if the US is a member of the W.H.O. why would they go for listing themselves below a number of other countries? I mean what kind of logic is that?
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Exactly, the UN. What kind of bias could there be??? You must be fucking kidding me.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Well considering P5 nations pretty much dictate most of what happens in the UN and America is apart of those P5 nations there really isn't much bias at all. The UN has always supported the US when the US was justified. They elected not to support the US in Iraq, but they did support the US in Afghanistan. Why? Because one war wasn't justified and the other was. There's no bias there. Everyone doesn't hate us and we are among the 5 biggest voices at the UN so again what bias?
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama No, the UN supported Obama's position because he is a globalist socialist, as I believe most on the UN council are. War in Afghanistan to capture one man? Alrighty then.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 However the war in Iraq had no clear cut evidence for a preemptive strike. Therefore it was unjustified. You should never just guess and go to war, while neglecting the fact that North Korea around that same time was supposedly starting up a nuclear program. We also neglected to aid Kenya, a once stable nation in Africa during their outbreak of civil war, but we somehow had the man power to fight in Iraq for no good reason. hmmm...
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama FALSE. Review the speeches President Clinton gave regarding the need to invade Iraq. In fact, there were many many politicians (both left and right wing) that went on TV explaining the need to invate Iraq, and they presented valid arguments to do so. Keep in mind this was throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. Clinton ordered airstrikes and therefore began the hostilities long before the ground invasion.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 The so-called need to invade Iraq does not supersede the fact that no evidence of Iraqi wrong doing was found. It also doesn't explain how the initial propaganda campaign for the war had WMDs as its headline and was later changed to Iraqi freedom. Funny how there's tons of nations that are viewed as allies of the US that could use some liberating but they were ignored. And why was North Korea ignored when their nuclear program was revealed? Answer that please.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You are so out of touch with reality that it is really humorous carrying on a conversation with you. There was absolutely evidence of Iraq covering up WMD research programs. I didn't need to read past the first sentence of your paragraph to determine you are grossly misinformed or out of your mind.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 While there was speculatory evidence of Iraq covering up WMD research programs there was a definite nuclear program being built in North Korea AND lets not forget that Israel was under fire for supposedly having a nuclear program as well... Why didn't we do anything there? Why did we single out Iraq... didn't find any evidence then attacked them based on Iraqi freedom? Answer please.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama "Speculatory evidence"? Uh, no. Try again.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama To answer your simple question - the reason we went to Iraq is because Saddam Hussein had proven that he was perfectly fine with using WMDs against civillian populations, as he had already done so killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. North Korea had done no such thing.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Dark You mean when he used that nerve agent that we gave him to combat soviets lol. So now we're going to blame a man for using a tool THAT WE GAVE HIM, because he later used it against his own set of enemies (Kurds) and not the mutual enemy? If this was an act of keeping Soviets out of the middle east the US wouldn't have done a thing. So obviously we're ok with chemical weapon usage as long as you use them in the way that we see fit. That argument throws Bush's Iraqi freedom propaganda out.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama While I don't think its ever ok to give anyone WMDs (regardless of them being our current allies or not) you cannot blame the US for how people use the weapons. It's the same concept with gun control. In the hands of responsible people, there is nothing to fear. As for "Bush's Iraqi freedon propaganda" I'm scratching my head saying "What the fuck are you talking about?" "Freedom Propaganda"??
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 You're missing the point that we gave them the weapons to use against a mutual enemy. Which is a fact that the US wanted to keep on the hush if you read the events of that era. What's the difference between them using chemical weapons against Soviets and using them against the Kurds? You seem to believe the US was right in their invasion of Iraq, it seems to me like we were trying to cut off our own right hand that kept pulling the trigger. You can't justify US involvement.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Has North Korea used WMDs against their enemies? You asked a simple question, and I gave you the answer. I don't know why you are trying to put an idiotic propaganda spin of your own as your reply.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift And NK has made plenty of threats, and the initial planning for the Iraqi invasion was a preemptive strike to prevent carrying out of a threat. So despite what you may think about the Kurds it was the so-called threat of WMD usage that sparked the Iraqi war. Fact is Kurds were killed in Iraqi in a form of genocide. Well that's been happening in South Africa for some time now and it was happening to Kenya OUR ALLY before the Iraq war. Why didn't we jump it that?
raventakayama 1 year ago
@Darkrift Before the Iraq war they never proved Iraq was breaking any UN treaties or resolutions of any kind. That's why the UN didn't back the US in that war and France OUR ALLY spoke out against it. There was no conclusive proof to send troops to die, and the fact that Saddam committed acts of genocide isn't enough to go to war. Because if that were the case we'd be at war with half of Sub-Saharan Africa. No one can seem to rightfully justify this war without neglecting commonsense.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama They sure as hell did prove that Iraq WAS breaking UN treaties, fool. I am no longer stunned by liberal ignorance/lies. You guys must rewrite history in your own minds to justify your wingnut ideology. Moron, the reason why the US doesn't stop genocide in South Africa is because WMDs aren't involved. You asked me the same question about North Korea, dummy.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift LOL Ok you're the ignorant one if you can't even see your own country's agenda. The us has used any excuse to dwell within the middle east. You're talking about I'm rewriting history, you don't even know it. NK has tested several long rang missile systems and they have all worked! Meaning that they're close enough to strike the west coast of the US and they are much more of a threat than any middle eastern nation. Saddam had skud missiles that WE GAVE HIM once again...
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Dunce, anything about North Korea is moot, as I've told you time and time again that Kin Jong Il never used them against his enemies, and we are not at war with him. The situation in Iraq was never resolved since the Persian Gulf War. Saddam never surrendered, only his standing army did. Under the treaty of the cease fire, Saddam had to abide by certain restrictions (UNLIKE NORTH KOREA, dunce) which he violated.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift Yes and those restrictions also applied to Sudan because they all fell under human rights violations. However there wasn't even an investigation in Sudan over allegations (2005 - 2006) of them using chemical weapons, no attempt to aid Kenya (an ally), and only a threat from China towards NK after they launched what appeared to be a long range rocket of some sort. Point is there was plenty of stuff going on and most of it got ignored for the sake of a personal plight in Iraq.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Irrelevant as that wasn't even remotely linked to the topic we were discussing.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift How is it irrelevant? Are you simply dodging? I remember asking why Bush went into Iraq... I also remember stating that there was a lot of shit going on during that period and Iraq getting that much attention was somewhat fishy. So how is my comment irrelevant? You can't explain why Bush ignored all the other incidents during that time to seek out a long shot in Iraq.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama How is it irrelevant, you ask? It is clear. We were talking about the unique situation in Iraq concerning the ongoing and unresolved Persian Gulf war and you launch into a monologue about the Sudan, Kenya, Israel and North Korea. Apples to oranges - all irrelevant and we've been over why already several times. What "all other incidents" did Bush supposedly ignore to "seek out a long shot" in Iraq", whatever that means?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 We were talking about the reasoning behind going into Iraq and upon bringing up Iraq I listed other events that could have easily gotten America's attention. However, propaganda, the un-American campaign, and ignorance (anti Muslim attitude from many Americans) fueled support for the invasion of a nation that did the same exact things the Sudanese were accused of doing. So the relevance is within the fact that one situation was ignored while a similar situation was handled.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama We went into Iraq because of the violations of the treaty established during the cease fire of the Persian Gulf war. It's just that simple. There is no connection whatsoever to the Sudan, to North Korea, or to anything other than the temporary truce between Iraq and the US.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift lol so intense. What you're saying doesn't explain the situation at all, because many of the things Saddam did were done by others and those others didn't receive any attention from the US. To carry on the Gulf War as if old Bush was in office is 1. unprofessional, and 2. unnecessary and 3. irresponsible and 4 a waste of life in a needless war with NO grounds. If he had grounds for the war he wouldn't have changed the reason why we were fighting. 1st it was WMDs then Iraqi freedom lol.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Saddam Hussein broke UN treaties numerous times. Each time he did so was a clear act of hostility.
georgewbush-whitehouseDOTarchivesDOTgov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2DOThtml
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift And the fact that I think Bush had his own agenda makes that statement from Bush rather irrelevant in proving your point lol. If you had an agenda of sorts you'd say what needed to be said. Fact is there was no viable reason to launch a preemptive strike, which are usually launched to prevent attack on one's own country, not to prevent attack on un-allied nations in a foreign land. There's no grounds for the Iraq war and you know it.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama "You know it"? Its been explained to you why the Persian Gulf war had to be settled with the end of the rule of Saddam Hussein and yet here you are pretending to be ignorant. And you have the audacity to say "I" know there is "no grounds for the Iraq war"?? You simpleton. Perfectly happy to sit in your little cocoon and parrot left wing bullshit, not knowing ANY relevant facts whatsoever. The "Iraq war" is merely the inevitable END of the Persian Gulf war, and now YOU know it.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift If it was simply the violation of a treaty proposed at the end of the Gulf war there would have been many other avenues taken before war. To be part of the UN is to show a level of diplomacy. Bush neglected any and all other options and didn't even state that the war treaty was his reason. He claimed WMDs then he claimed Iraqi freedom. He didn't even give the reason you gave. You're fishing man.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama The war was still going on, dunce! A temporary cease fire was all there was - as long as Saddam Hussein respected the agreement, which he didn't. What, are you saying the Persian Gulf war was a "needless war with NO grounds"? What you fail to understand is the reasons for resuming the Persian Gulf war. Hussein violated the cease fire agreement multiple times. Freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein gives the Iraqi people a chance at freedom. They are all related reasons, fool.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 LMAO! Uh no my friend now you really are fishing. Bush didn't even use that excuse he had that much common sense at least. And there wasn't even a formal congressional declaration of war against Iraq lmao. You're the fool my dumbass friend. You can't find an excuse to support a needless war, which was technically a conflict, and you're fishing. When you're wrong, you're wrong no one's going to judge you... Much.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama Sorry my simple-minded friend, the historical facts I've presented are available for all to see. No "fishing" required. Of course there wasn't a "formal declaration of war against Iraq. And why? Because it was merely the end of the Persian Gulf war that had been going on (albeit postponed) for years and years. Don't try to deflect the fact that you are an ignorant buffon with repeated accusations of "fishing". LOL
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 No there was never a formal declaration of war in either war lol. And New Bush was under fire because there wasn't a declaration of war. Old Bush faced the same political pressure. New Iraq war has been referred to as Vietnam, due to the futility of the war efforts and the lack of congressional consent. So the war wasn't even a war in the 1st place, how can you carry on a non-war lol. So how am I dumb when your dumb ass can't understand that there was never a war!
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama You couldn't be any more misinformed. The bottom like is that you are simply a delusional idiot. That was all that remains to be said and now it has been. A completely brainwashed partisan wingnut. Have a great one, idiot.
Keep lying and denying. Wow.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama Let me try to educate your stupid ass again, all right? War was already declared during the Persian Gulf war under Bush Sr. We both know that the conflict was never resolved, (you DO know that, right?) as Hussein never surrendered power. I think the reason why Bush Sr didn't push the invasion further is because he hoped that crushing the bulk of Iraq's military would be enough and the Iraqi people would rise up in revolt against Saddam which would be better for everyone.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Congress only declared war a few times in American history. The last time being WW2. Everything else were military conflicts... All of which had the support of the UN accept Vietnam which had mixed support and The 2nd Iraq war which virtually had no support. One war started as a covert intervention against communism, and the other war was some personal vendetta or something.
raventakayama 1 year ago
@raventakayama But unfortunately, the Iraqi people were too disheartened and too terrified of Hussein to do that on their own. During the cease fire of the Persian Gulf war, Hussein violated the agreement of the cease fire numerous times as is documented within the presidential archives that you are able to view online. Any one of those violations allowed for the continuation of the Gulf war, or the "illegal war" as you wingnuts love to ignorantly claim. Still with me, child?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@raventakayama As far as being a "needless" war, please educate yourself as to why the Persian Gulf war was fought in the first place, and then get back with me so you can revise your asinine statement. Also, you DO know that the formal declaration of war was made by Bush Sr at the beginning of the Gulf War, don't you? "Technically a conflict"?? LMFAO You are such a foolish child. Read a news paper or something.
Darkrift777 1 year ago