No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 5 of 15
Still waiting, Auraptor.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which resolution ? There were 17 of them. Are you talking about 1441 ? Ya might want to go back and check 678 and 687, which are also relevent.
I'm curious Auraptor. Do you remember what the UN resolution actually said? Specifically, did the UN vote to authorize use of force against Iraq? You may refer to this to refresh your memory.
Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.
Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.
Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.
Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.
- Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01122004.html
And Bush never said there were any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda per the 9/11/01 attacks! Your little post does not dispute that one iota.
Why did OBL escape? He escaped becaue it's mountainous terrain which he and his associates are very familiar with ,and likely had help from the local folks.
Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at the level which the ground commanders have asked for. I'm guessing currently 135,000 in Iraq, and I'd have to research for Afghanistan. Your point ?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So in order to justify invading Iraq, GWB reached back to a 13-year-old resolution? What are you trying to say? That the UN in 2003, while actively conducting an aggressive search of Iraq, wanted an invasion that interrupted it's own work? Or are you saying that the USA was enforcing UN resolutions despite what the UN wanted that year? Which is it? UN wanted the invasion? UN didn't want the invasion and the USA did it anyway?
Resolution 678, passed in 1990, is the centerpiece here.
Quote:The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.
And Bush never said there were any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda per the 9/11/01 attacks! Your little post does not dispute that one iota.
Quote:heh What do you think?
Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at the level which the ground commanders have asked for. I'm guessing currently 135,000 in Iraq, and I'd have to research for Afghanistan. Your point ?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by SignyM-
The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.
speaking of the never ending war on freedom.. even Nick Rockefeller admits that the 'war on terror' is phony, a fraud, intended to dupe only those who deserve to be decieved and mislead. anyone still believing the lie can watch somewhat of a video expose' on Rockefellers comments, from director/activist Aaron Russo here - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal
.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No response from Auraptor yet.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like tp point out that no UN resolution allows one country to wage war on another 'under cover of authority'.
That's why the UN must specifically vote to send troops before any attacks are launched.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:So in order to justify invading Iraq, GWB reached back to a 13-year-old resolution? What are you trying to say? That the UN in 2003, while actively conducting an aggressive search of Iraq, wanted an invasion that interrupted it's own work? Or are you saying that the USA was enforcing UN resolutions despite what the UN wanted that year? Which is it? UN wanted the invasion? UN didn't want the invasion and the USA did it anyway?
Resolution 678, passed in 1990, is the centerpiece here.Quote:The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.
And Bush never said there were any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda per the 9/11/01 attacks! Your little post does not dispute that one iota.Quote:heh What do you think?
Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at the level which the ground commanders have asked for. I'm guessing currently 135,000 in Iraq, and I'd have to research for Afghanistan. Your point ?
I'm not TRYING to say anything that the U.N. didn't. ANY MEMBER NATION could use force against Iraq if it failed to abide by the resolutions passed and agreements it made. It failed, we used force. It's REALLY that simple.
or harbored such persons or organizations Yep, Iraq definatly was harboring and assiting terrorist too. Guess they picked the wrong time in history to back up Islamo nazis, huh? Sucks for them.
P.S. - Some of us work for a living and don't camp out by their keyboard all day long. If I don't reply w/ in a few minutes, chill. It does nothing for your argument to act like a 4 yr old and whine " no reply yet, no reply yet, no reply yet" .
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did you read Rue's comment? I was going in that direction and got beat to the punch. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that we went ahead and invaded Iraq despite the UN.
Also, you conveniently forget this phrase: "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,"
Why would that particular phrase show up on a resolution about Iraq? Or, let me put it this way: Wouldn't the resolution have made much more sense WITHOUT that phrase if Iraq truly didn't have anything to do with 9-11?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you read Rue's comment? I was going in that direction and got beat to the punch. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that we went ahead and invaded Iraq despite the UN.
Also, you conveniently forget this phrase: "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,"
Why would that particular phrase show up on a resolution about Iraq? Or, let me put it this way: Wouldn't the resolution have made much more sense WITHOUT that phrase if Iraq truly didn't have anything to do with 9-11?
Who draws up the resolutions? The Congress or the White House ? A - Congress, via Joint Resolution.
And as if ALL it said was what little you posted, lets see the REST of the story....
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
Ayyy ya ya .... Seriously now, what argument are you making?
Exactly WHAT was Iraq's continuing threat to the US ? And HOW was the US supporting the UN by attacking Iraq (counter to the UN's injunctions) and forcing the inspectors out ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME