Abraham Lincoln on unconstitutional US wars of invasion

[abso]

Abraham Lincoln on unconstitutional US wars of invasion
courageously standing against OBVIOUS lies

Most people do not know that Abraham Lincoln is a hero for his acts as a freshman member of the House of Representatives in the Congress of 1847-1849. Lincoln demanded that the President of the US provide specific evidence justifying the US invading a foreign country, suspecting that the President’s claims of a defensive war were lies to propagandize an offensive war for territorial control against a weaker nation. He did so despite the lack of support from most of his own political party. He demanded the facts despite his being painted by political opponents and the press as “unpatriotic.” The propaganda defeated Lincoln at his next election; his name slurred as “spotty Lincoln.” We now know that Lincoln was correct that the US President had indeed lied about the cause of war.

We find ourselves in a similar situation. US presidents are lying about our Wars of Aggression, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, while lying to cause a third war with Iran. Let’s review the courageous words of truth from Mr. Lincoln, and encourage ourselves to act against these treasonous and cowardly wars that have so-far killed over 5,000 American troops. The following five paragraphs from Mr. Lincoln’s speech in Congress deserve your full attention. They are written in his acclaimed concise and powerful prose.

Part of the speech:
“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.

… This strange omission, it does seem to me, could not have occurred but by design. My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; and there, I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client’s neck, in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the case, which he dared not admit, and yet could not deny…. Let him answer, fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no envasion — no equivocation.

.....................................

Rest of the speech and the article:
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-no...t-obvious-lies

[darin]

Does that have any relevance to anything current? We haven't 'invaded' (with the intent on capturing land) since...we stole this land from the natives.

[KarlMarx]

We certainly haven't invaded Afghanistan. We are there at the request of the current government....

[Gaffer]

Abso you need to stay well clear of American history unless you really know what your talking about. And be careful of people you read that have an agenda and like to revise history.

The war with Mexico began in 1846 with the invasion of Texas by Mexican troops. Mexico started the war. The US defeated them and then annexed what became our southwestern states. The politics of the day was manifest destiny. They believed the US should extend from one ocean to the next. Lincoln was against that line of thought, but he was in the minority.

[Sweetchuck]

I have a question for Abso. Anti-western Muslims often point out that the west is responsible for X number of deaths in the Muslim world. Can you elaborate?

[abso]

I have a question for Abso. Anti-western Muslims often point out that the west is responsible for X number of deaths in the Muslim world. Can you elaborate?

elaborate what ?, the number of deaths ?

[abso]

Abso you need to stay well clear of American history unless you really know what your talking about. And be careful of people you read that have an agenda and like to revise history.

The war with Mexico began in 1846 with the invasion of Texas by Mexican troops. Mexico started the war. The US defeated them and then annexed what became our southwestern states. The politics of the day was manifest destiny. They believed the US should extend from one ocean to the next. Lincoln was against that line of thought, but he was in the minority.

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

[Sweetchuck]

elaborate what ?, the number of deaths ?

Every time you hear some nutjob like Ahmadinnerjacket rail about how terrible the west is, they state that the west is responsible for deaths of children and all that.

How so? What are these guys basing these statements on?

[SassyLady]

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

Yes, Presidents (actually any leader of any nation) will lie. Sometimes they lie to protect the masses and sometimes they lie to achieve their goals. Sometimes those goals are in the best interests of their nation and sometimes they aren't.

Whether or not Bush lied, or was lied to, or lied to us is beside the point now. We cannot go back and change what has occurred ... what we can do is move forward and make the sacrifices worthwhile.

Abso, are you an American?

[Gaffer]

the topic is not about if you are considered invaders in iraq or afghanistan, its about the presidents who lies in the purpose of wars, GWB told americans that iraq had WMD, while such things was never found at all in iraq, so what was the real purpose of iraq war ???

so i am not saying that the war was for conquest of land, just that GWB lied and americans believed him.

thats what lincoln was talking about, not just to believe the president because he is a president, presidents are humans who can lie too, they are the best liars of all and of course you know that.

Why did Bush invade iraq? First of all because saddam did not follow the conditions of the cease fire from the first gulf war. He played hide and seek games with the inspectors there to check for WMD's. He completely refused to cooperate concerning the un's demands and orders. He repeatedly fired on the aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. He was financing hamas and hezbo and many other terror organizations. He was, according to intelligence from every nation, building and storing WMD's. Of course he had three months to remove those WMD's before the invasion.

The liberals all took up the cry "Bush lied" when no WMD's were found. The real fact is Bush was wrong. He didn't lie. All the intelligence agencies in the world were apparently wrong too. Or they lied to Bush.

But the facts are he had more reason to go into iraq than just WMD's. He had 12 un resolutions, inspectors kicked out, attacks on air craft and the fact there was a cease fire in place, not a treaty. Hostilities could be resumed at any time. saddam didn't follow his end of the deal and Bush chose to resume hostilities.

[abso]

Every time you hear some nutjob like Ahmadinnerjacket rail about how terrible the west is, they state that the west is responsible for deaths of children and all that.

How so? What are these guys basing these statements on?

ask them not me, i never blamed the west for all the deaths, in every war both sides makes mistakes.

and about who blames the west for everything instead of looking into their own mistakes, then you should ask your self, why some americans blame the muslims for all the terror in the world !!!, its just the hate that consumes some people and make them see only their side, not both sides.

[abso]

Yes, Presidents (actually any leader of any nation) will lie. Sometimes they lie to protect the masses and sometimes they lie to achieve their goals. Sometimes those goals are in the best interests of their nation and sometimes they aren't.

Whether or not Bush lied, or was lied to, or lied to us is beside the point now. We cannot go back and change what has occurred ... what we can do is move forward and make the sacrifices worthwhile.

Abso, are you an American?

No...

[abso]

Why did Bush invade iraq? First of all because saddam did not follow the conditions of the cease fire from the first gulf war. He played hide and seek games with the inspectors there to check for WMD's. He completely refused to cooperate concerning the un's demands and orders. He repeatedly fired on the aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. He was financing hamas and hezbo and many other terror organizations. He was, according to intelligence from every nation, building and storing WMD's. Of course he had three months to remove those WMD's before the invasion.

The liberals all took up the cry "Bush lied" when no WMD's were found. The real fact is Bush was wrong. He didn't lie. All the intelligence agencies in the world were apparently wrong too. Or they lied to Bush.

But the facts are he had more reason to go into iraq than just WMD's. He had 12 un resolutions, inspectors kicked out, attacks on air craft and the fact there was a cease fire in place, not a treaty. Hostilities could be resumed at any time. saddam didn't follow his end of the deal and Bush chose to resume hostilities.

i agree with you, saddam was not a wise leader, but let me just ask you simple questions...

Was Saddam a threat to USA security ?
Did Saddam ever threaten USA ?
was Saddam a threat to your own security or any other american ?

think throughly before answering...

[Gaffer]

i agree with you, saddam was not a wise leader, but let me just ask you simple questions...

Was Saddam a threat to USA security ?
Did Saddam ever threaten USA ?
was Saddam a threat to your own security or any other american ?

think throughly before answering...

Due to his support of terror organizations he was a threat to America. He was a major threat to the region. To oil production and distribution. It's not just the US that benefits from the mideast oil.

saddam threatened the US many times. He spent 12 years firing on US and British air craft patrolling the no fly zone. He was funding terrorist organizations and provided training areas for them. Unleashing terrorists on this country is a direct threat to me and any other citizen.

[abso]

Due to his support of terror organizations he was a threat to America. He was a major threat to the region. To oil production and distribution. It's not just the US that benefits from the mideast oil.

saddam threatened the US many times. He spent 12 years firing on US and British air craft patrolling the no fly zone. He was funding terrorist organizations and provided training areas for them. Unleashing terrorists on this country is a direct threat to me and any other citizen.

the terrorist organization that you mentioned, Hamas and Hizboallah.

are they a threat to USA security, or to israel security, or are both the same to you ?

is the american treasury an israelian owned property to be spent for the security of israel ?

who gave USA the right to patrol in the No fly zone, and who gave it the right to enforce it ?

whats your proof that Saddam was funding terrorists, do you really believe everything that your president tells you ?, i thought the american history has proved many and many times to the american citizens that they can never beleive their own elected presidents.

radicals was never unleashed at US soil until 9/11, they never thought of attacking it, until they got tired of its ongoin support of the criminal acts of israel.

why would america take sides in the conflicts in middle east, there is no benifit for it, america has no benifit at all in supporting israel, if you have got any benifit for the american people in this relation, then please tell me, arabs have oil to offer, whats does israel have to offer to america ?

all the islamic radicals problems was with israel, their fury was always directed towards israel, not america, but america has gained israel's enemies and their fury by supporting israel in everything it does be it right or wrong.

but i assure you, arabs never thought of america as an enemy, and even the most radical muslims never thought of attacking america until they got tired from the blind american policy of supporting israel.

did america have any troubles with muslims at all in the begginings of the last century, it all started just from two or three decades.