You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #2: of course [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. of course
that's why all this handwringing about Kerry's position is ludicrous. He did the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Were you in favor of sending weapons inspectors into Iraq? WilliamPitt  Aug-09-04 08:24 PM   #0 
  - Yes  dogman   Aug-09-04 08:26 PM   #1 
  - of course  DaveinMD   Aug-09-04 08:29 PM   #2 
  - Yes  JohnLocke   Aug-09-04 08:31 PM   #3 
  - Don't quite understand your question...  Q   Aug-09-04 08:32 PM   #4 
  - The IWR put the inspectors in.  blm   Aug-09-04 08:40 PM   #6 
  - yes and question mark  Snoggera   Aug-09-04 08:36 PM   #5 
  - And to continue that thought  Holland   Aug-09-04 08:44 PM   #8 
  - Yes, War isn't the answer to every damn crisis that comes  clydefrand   Aug-09-04 08:44 PM   #7 
  - Yes, I was in favor.  Old and In the Way   Aug-09-04 08:47 PM   #9 
  - Saddam did not let the inspectors in because of his good nature...  Monte Carlo   Aug-09-04 09:13 PM   #10 
  - The French Wanted to Further Increase the Number of Inspectors.  David Zephyr   Aug-09-04 09:23 PM   #11 
  - Yes and yes.  oasis   Aug-09-04 09:23 PM   #12 
  - only if they were going in as preemptive assassins  tinanator   Aug-09-04 10:37 PM   #13 
  - BUT  Jefferson_Clinton   Aug-09-04 10:39 PM   #14 
  - I wanted to send them Ivory soap  ZombyWoof   Aug-09-04 10:40 PM   #15 
  - 100%  sampsonblk   Aug-09-04 10:41 PM   #16 
  - next up at 11PM eastern!  ZombyWoof   Aug-09-04 10:44 PM   #17 
  - So, why couldn't the threat of force have come from Congress?  eridani   Aug-10-04 11:30 PM   #18 
  - The IWR, for chrissake  sandnsea   Aug-10-04 11:40 PM   #19 
     - You are re-stating erdani's point  sampsonblk   Aug-10-04 11:56 PM   #20 
        - Thanks! Beat me to it. n/t  eridani   Aug-10-04 11:59 PM   #21 
        - You're wrong  sandnsea   Aug-11-04 12:15 AM   #22 
           - If the IWR was identical to the WWII declaration...  sampsonblk   Aug-11-04 11:07 AM   #27 
              - Actually, the War Powers resolution of 1973 did that.  Sparkly   Aug-11-04 11:33 AM   #29 
                 - How far are we going with this?  sampsonblk   Aug-12-04 01:28 AM   #30 
  - Trick question. Assumes a threat of force BY THE U.S. was needed  TexasSissy   Aug-11-04 12:15 AM   #23 
  - Yes- with emphasis on "THREAT of force needed to back up..."  frankzappa   Aug-11-04 09:53 AM   #24 
  - Yes, with ALL the time  mesquite   Aug-11-04 10:21 AM   #25 
  - yes, under UN supervision and UN sanctioned use of force.  kodi   Aug-11-04 10:27 AM   #26 
  - no  Magic Rat   Aug-11-04 11:20 AM   #28 
  - That might make sense if the resolution REQUIRED  Classical_Liberal   Aug-12-04 01:37 AM   #31 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC