Bush reveals source of intel on WMDs
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 00:10
VIEWED: 9980
PAGE 2 of 2
6ix, OK...I guess I missed that statement. And I do understand how you feel about what Bush has done to the Office of the President. I would not write off white Christian males as a group yet over it though. Obama is a phenomenon that comes along every few decades or so. Personally, the throngs of his worshippers, including the daily fainters, seem identical to the mass goers on Sunday morning TV ministries. It's all adulation, without much substance. But as I 've written here before, Obama does not need to be substansive at this point...he needs to defeat Hillary for the Dem. nomination, and he's doing that quite handily now. The Obama -vs- McCain campaign will really be interesting. I think you'll see Obama open up more about what he would do on issues. What the heck can McCain say? He's a Washington veteran whose voting record is a mile long...not too many surprises gonna come out of his mouth. It's Obama who's the real mystery man here, and America may just be ready to make a leap of blind faith because of his incredible dynamic energy. McCain will face media attacks & hatred, and that will be sad to see, while Obama is almost untouchable, as Hillary has all too late discovered. Guaranteed to be an exciting campaign initially, and I would expect it to get increasingly ugly and personal as election day approaches. Enjoy the ride, no need for any of us to get all verklempt over any of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know what you're saying Jongs. I know that I say a lot of things in here to people that can be terrible, and certainly things that I would only reserve for the biggest swine in real life but seems to come out so much more uncontrollably here. Is it the anonymity? Is it the fact that there will always be somebody here to argue with? Probably some of both.
RWED would suck if it were just me and a few others on top of a hill that nobody else wanted to climb and give a try at knocking me down off the pedastal I put myself on sometimes.
Most notable has your change been. Some have joked that perhaps you've been the victim of the body snatching pod people. I don't think so. In fact, your change of attitude has really amazed me. Not just your change in some of your core beliefs about the way things in the world are going, but of the way that your posts seemed to have developed a sense of maturity and patience that I hope someday I can achieve.
I really do worry about all of us. Much much more than is healthy. The physical ailments I've been feeling in the last few years because of this and some of my outside indescretions have me seriously concerned about my own mortality on some days. I'd like not to think I'm a hypocondriac, but for the last 4 hours or so, I've probably heard my heart beat in my right ear about 300 times. I know that's not right at 28 years old, especially considering that only 4 years ago I was in the shape of my life.
I can't take 4 more years of this, but I can't take an indefinate amount of time where we will begin living in a country where there isn't anyplace that won't be invaded and told how to run. Seems like you can't get a democrat or a republican who will put a stop to that in the last few decades. Obama is not the solution, however he will be the answer for millions of voters angered at the status quo. (I'm calling it now that this will be the election where the majority of voters was under 40 years old, and also the highest turnout of kids up through college).
People used to rise up and demand and make changes. Today most of us are all armchair warriors who are willing to blindly follow somebody who offers something different than what we've had for the better part of a decade. I'm not going to outright say what part of notable history this mirrors, but I'll just say that I've been aware of how this looks from the outside for quite some time. Yes We/we can!
Obama really scares me, and I'm seriously considering voting for Hillary because I think sadly she is the most conservative of the three real potential candidates left.
So here it is...
Sorry Rap. I'd like to think that as a post that somebody called me out on attacking you for, you recognize that it's one of my more tame attack modes and I really like when I can try to get a point across without resorting to a neanderthal. If nothing else, you give me a symbol of a lot of things I think need changing in the world. It's not personal, and I'm not completely in disagreement with you. Chances are that we feel very similar on a lot of issues regarding the economy and foreign policy. I've always considered myself to be more of a Rethug than a Demon if ever I were forced at gunpoint to choose sides. That's just what makes forgiving all of their greiveances all the more difficult for me. If we kept illegals out, government were to have gotten smaller and civil liberties weren't being breeched, I wouldn't have as much a problem swallowing the Middle East pill. Our boys and girls come home in shifts and every day their own country and the whole world looks so much different than when they left.... just like you and I look different to people we haven't seen for 10 years at our high school reunions.
Thansk for being around Rap, even if you're one of the ones on just one end of a political spectrum I see with so many blatent flaws whatever "side" you're looking at.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
christ, can't you people take a joke...?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I know what you're saying Jongs. I know that I say a lot of things in here to people that can be terrible, and certainly things that I would only reserve for the biggest swine in real life but seems to come out so much more uncontrollably here. Is it the anonymity? Is it the fact that there will always be somebody here to argue with? Probably some of both.
RWED would suck if it were just me and a few others on top of a hill that nobody else wanted to climb and give a try at knocking me down off the pedastal I put myself on sometimes.
Most notable has your change been. Some have joked that perhaps you've been the victim of the body snatching pod people. I don't think so. In fact, your change of attitude has really amazed me. Not just your change in some of your core beliefs about the way things in the world are going, but of the way that your posts seemed to have developed a sense of maturity and patience that I hope someday I can achieve.
I really do worry about all of us. Much much more than is healthy. The physical ailments I've been feeling in the last few years because of this and some of my outside indescretions have me seriously concerned about my own mortality on some days. I'd like not to think I'm a hypocondriac, but for the last 4 hours or so, I've probably heard my heart beat in my right ear about 300 times. I know that's not right at 28 years old, especially considering that only 4 years ago I was in the shape of my life.
I can't take 4 more years of this, but I can't take an indefinate amount of time where we will begin living in a country where there isn't anyplace that won't be invaded and told how to run. Seems like you can't get a democrat or a republican who will put a stop to that in the last few decades. Obama is not the solution, however he will be the answer for millions of voters angered at the status quo. (I'm calling it now that this will be the election where the majority of voters was under 40 years old, and also the highest turnout of kids up through college).
People used to rise up and demand and make changes. Today most of us are all armchair warriors who are willing to blindly follow somebody who offers something different than what we've had for the better part of a decade. I'm not going to outright say what part of notable history this mirrors, but I'll just say that I've been aware of how this looks from the outside for quite some time. Yes We/we can!
Obama really scares me, and I'm seriously considering voting for Hillary because I think sadly she is the most conservative of the three real potential candidates left.
So here it is...
Sorry Rap. I'd like to think that as a post that somebody called me out on attacking you for, you recognize that it's one of my more tame attack modes and I really like when I can try to get a point across without resorting to a neanderthal. If nothing else, you give me a symbol of a lot of things I think need changing in the world. It's not personal, and I'm not completely in disagreement with you. Chances are that we feel very similar on a lot of issues regarding the economy and foreign policy. I've always considered myself to be more of a Rethug than a Demon if ever I were forced at gunpoint to choose sides. That's just what makes forgiving all of their greiveances all the more difficult for me. If we kept illegals out, government were to have gotten smaller and civil liberties weren't being breeched, I wouldn't have as much a problem swallowing the Middle East pill. Our boys and girls come home in shifts and every day their own country and the whole world looks so much different than when they left.... just like you and I look different to people we haven't seen for 10 years at our high school reunions.
Thanks for being around Rap, even if you're one of the ones on just one end of a political spectrum I see with so many blatent flaws whatever "side" you're looking at.
Hey 6ix, As Klaatu said to little Billy while looking at the Lincoln Memo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can not find them over there....
no WMD's beneath this chair.
Perhaps the statement could be fair,
We made it up out of thin air.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
didn't like that one?
how bout this... what do you call a rooster with erectile dysfunction??
boneless chicken
lighten up.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol.... How embarassing to admit that it doesn't look like it much here.
My bad... 
"Heh... I like the rap music. I get these kids today. Givin love to my homies.. heh.. I love me some Vanilla Ice Heh... I was down with Dre before anybody was, back when he was underground with the
World Class Wrecking Crew http://www.cracked.com/article_15826_six-musicians-with-pasts-they-hop
e-youll-forget.html
That Tupac was a pretty smart feller. He used his prison time real good and read that Mac... Mac... Mac Tonight book. Heh... funny headed moon dude... why don't McDonalds bring that guy? He cracked me up. Mac tonight! Heh... Hop on Pop. Why don't they have Hop on Pop? Didn't they know the prezerdunt was commin'? Green eggs kids... Green eggs and ham. eat 'em up... heh. No more yella eggs cause the chickies and them piggies are eating cloned green corn and slop cause we need real food makes more oil fer our Humvees and wars... heh. 'Member boys and girls. Work real hard and any one of you can be preserdent like me and pimp children's books at the Skools. Heh... no child left behind. A'right!" "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
I can not find them over there....
no WMD's beneath this chair.
Perhaps the statement could be fair,
We made it up out of thin air.
That was great. Need you around these parts more to lighten up the atmosphere. Nice to meet you. I have teeth and claws so beware. Just a nice friendly warning from a guy that takes everything too seriously. Post at your own peril here, my friend.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Post at your own peril here, my friend.
oh it's a den of iniquity, no doubt....
'but i can dodge them scales alright..'*
thanks for the heads up Jack
*six days on the road, and i'm gonna make it home tonight..."
Durka, Durka, Durka.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would have limited these resolutions to those that "call on" and "demand" Israel to do this and that, but I wanted you to get an idea of the sheer number of resolutions against Israel since 1955.
None of those resolution authorized the use of force in order to compel compliance.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure Rap. Cut and run. That's all you ever do.
Non related issues, Sig. Nice try though.
BTW- anyone over the age of seven knows that six half-assed excuses for doing something (The dog at my homework. I wasn't feeling well. My sister was bugging me.) are worse than just one. And one excuse doesn't hold a candle to one GOOD reason.
So give me ONE REASON- just one, not a half-dozen - for invading Iraq.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
how bout this... what do you call a rooster with erectile dysfunction??
boneless chicken
or maybe.... a cock with no doodle-do?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I pity you Rap....
You live in an even scarier world than I do in my own mind from day to day. Until this thread, I really thought that quite impossible.
I hope you find whatever it is you need to cope from day to day the next 8 years when we don't have a white male "Christian" in office anymore to protect you from all the bad guys in the world. The only thing I want to see less than Barack Hussain Obama in office is to see McCain in office, but he is going to win this.
Your hero just made white Christian men so stinking unpallatable that I do believe it will be a very long time until we see another one in office. Your hero just made it possible to break traditions that haven't been able to be broken for 200 years.
In 2009 we will have a Muslim in office because of your hero. I hope you can live with that. I'd truly miss your posts here if you couldn't.
Obama claims to be a Christian, last I checked. Either way, I'm an atheist, so much for the "fundie hero " claims on your part. (Sorry, just had to make you look the part of an ass ) But speaking of heroes, we're not talking about Reagan, so don't waste your breath here. I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ThatWeirdGirl:
Don't get TOO upset by the goings-on in here. Most of it (dare I say 99.9%) is just about getting one another's goat, or needling each other. If I actually *met* Hero or Auraptor, who knows, we might even be able to have a beer together. On things political, however, I don't think we're ever gonna see eye to eye. 'Course, that might be because I'm 6'8", and don't really tend to see eye-to-eye with about 98% of people...
But yeah - where's the fun in arguing with people you already agree with? As for the vitriol, what can I say? It seems to get ratings - just ask hate-mongers like Bill Orally and Wow-what-a-Rush Limbaugh... Hate & name-calling sells, and it makes for entertainment for the masses. Whic probably explains a lot about professional wrestling.
So anyhoo, you can either (a) join in the fun down here in the mosh pit, (b) watch from the sidelines, or (c) avoid the messiness that is the RWED altogether.
I usually only come in here when I'm in the mood for a fight, or feeling particularly contrarian.
Enjoy the ride, and don't take any of it too seriously. After all, none of us gets out of this life alive.
Mike
Eschew Obfuscation!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
Amazing, AU - we actually AGREE on something!
Will wonders never cease?
M
A baby seal walks into a club...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bump up for Rap
"Sure Rap. Cut and run. That's all you ever do.
BTW- anyone over the age of seven knows that six half-assed excuses for doing something (The dog at my homework. I wasn't feeling well. My sister was bugging me.) are worse than just one. And one excuse doesn't hold a candle to one GOOD reason.
So give me ONE REASON- just one, not a half-dozen - for invading Iraq."
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So give me ONE REASON- just one, not a half-dozen - for invading Iraq.
Why? If you will not accept a half-dozen, why do we think you'd accept just one?
Its like a DUI stop. Weaving, not enough. Bloodshot eyes, not enough. Odor of alcohol, not enough. Admission of drinking, not enough. Slurred speech, not enough. Poor motor skills (like fumbling a wallet when producing a license), not enough. None of those things are enough to justify an OVI investigation or arrest. However, a combination of some or all of those things does justify the arrest based upon the totality of the circumstances.
My view is that the one thing your looking for probably comes at the very end when we order Saddam to quit the country or face invasion. At that point his one singular decision to refuse our ultimatum justifies our invasion.
That said it is all the other factors, his faking a WMD program, the billions in oil bribes, the failure to live up to the 1991 cease fire, firing on US and British planes (including shooting down a US drone), the non-cooperation with international inspectors, his brutalizing of his own people (revealed in full after the fact), his terrorist connections with Palestine, his harboring of an Al Queda camp in northern Iraq, the 9/11 attacks (not because Iraq was a part of the attack but because the attacks changed US policy to one of preventative war), failure to account for a missing US 1991 MIA pilot, the attempted assasination of President Bush '41, and all the other reasons too numerous to get into.
So lets pick one. Non-cooperation with international inspectors. Is this reason enough? I defer my answer to President Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998:
Quote:
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces....
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
I note for the record that the results of that campaign included Iraq no longer having inspectors, they did not return until 2002 in a last ditch effort to avoid or delay the US invasion. In short Clinton felt that one reason was enough, I agree.
Despite all the reasons, historically speaking the invasion flows naturally from Sept 11, 2001. Prior to that the US would show restraint and allow itself to be attacked again and again with little effective response. After 9/11 the US policy changed. We realized that the potential destruction terrorists could deliver, even with conventional attacks, was such that we could not simply respond to attacks, we had to take the offensive against our enemies BEFORE they attacked us:
Quote:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
President Bush
State of the Union address
January 28, 2003
President Bush was right.
So you wanted one singular reason, so I gave you several to respond to:
1. That once we gave our ultimatum, we had to follow through.
2. Totality of the circumstances.
3. The removal of UN inspectors was cause enough to attack in 1998, so it was good enough in 2002 as well. Saddam's last minute efforts were
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap
"U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, in short gives any member nation (that's us ) the right to use military force on Iraq if it does not abide by the sanctions agreed upon by the U.N. and Iraq.
Iraq failed to abide, we responded, eventually, w/ military force."
Not true, again. The charter takes precedence and provides for the required procedures by which to act. Geeze Rap, if you're going to parrot talking points at least you could do a little background on them.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Hero'
"First of all your list is not exhaustive."
My list had the item 'other' - I think that makes it complete enough for the purposes of discussion.
"Second, there is no reason to pick one ..."
But you're our official legal beagle. Which one provides for legally attacking another country that didn't attack first and is not an imminent threat ?
"casus belli (which is the reason for war)"
So b/c the US followed it's own internal legal code means the US is NOT an aggressor nation ? (BTW for historical purposes I'd like to mention that Germany also followed its own legal code in launching WWII, and that didn't give Germany a pass, either.)
"Thats subjective."
Is that what you say to the people you prosecute ? There IS international law which the US violated. Is that subjective ?
"non-threatening, non-attacking Iraq had a record of brutalizing its people, attacking its neighbors, funding Palestinian terrorists, harboring some nasty terrorist types, including some Al Queda types folks in the north, tried to assinate the first President Bush after he left office, and regularly fired on US and British warplanes flying in the no-fly zone established as part of the cease fire agreement after the 1991 war."
But are those internationally-recognized reasons to legally launch a war ?
Help us out here with some legal information and not just more propaganda.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damned I am
I do not like them overseas.
I do not like it on my knees.
I do not like this stupid door.
I do not like Mr. Albert Gore.
I kinda like my smirky face.
I still can’t find those weapons anyplace.
I do not like going to the slam.
Adios Suckers, Damned I am
Apologies to the Dr.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Laudable intent there, AU, but Bush (and others) pissed on it, he didn't uphold it, and that's why I dislike him so- my America is better than that.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
Where's Goldwater when you need him....
Patriot Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
IRONY alert!!
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not true, again. The charter takes precedence and provides for the required procedures by which to act. Geeze Rap, if you're going to parrot talking points at least you could do a little background on them.
The Charter? Of the UN?
Lets start with the one that says its the Security Council's business in the first place:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Oh, here's the article that says they can authorize the use of force:
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Here's the one that says Madagascar could have attacked Iraq if they wanted to enforce the resolutions:
Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Here's the one that says the US can join Madagascar to enforce UN resolutions...got to respect those Malagassy types for taking the lead in this example:
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Here's the self-defense provision:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Turns out the Charter says they can authorize the attack and the resolutions so authorize said attack...so unless your planning to re-write the charter like you re-write history...on this issue the case is closed.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because Rap has a habit of shifting his justifications from one lame excuse to the next in a verbal game of whack-a-mole. Then, when all of his rationalizations have been discredited he disappears like a gutless wonder, only to reappear with the same ole spew of crap in another thread.
Why? If you will not accept a half-dozen, why do we think you'd accept just one?
Both his delusions about the economy
It's ON FIRE! Haven't you heard?
Because the stock market!... I mean, the housing market!.. I mean, employment! I mean, Federal revenues! I mean... whichever headline looks at not so bad today!and WMD survive only because he refuses to argue the core of his ideas.... whatever they are... to conclusions. So for once, I'd like Rap to chase down ONE of his delusions to the end and face the contradictions at the very basis of (what passes for) his thought.
Erm, you too.
Your list is as lame as Rap's and contains some THOROUGHLY discredited items.
For example:
The UN Inspectors were removed by the UN because of the United States. WE were the cause. That's a demosntrated fact which seems to elude you. I know facts can be slippery things to the right-wing, but Christ, man! You're like a bad toilet that keeps gurgling shit back up.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Second, there is no reason to pick one ..."
But you're our official legal beagle. Which one provides for legally attacking another country that didn't attack first and is not an imminent threat ?
I go into more detail in another post, but there is simply no reason to pick one. I choose them all, together, totality of the circumstances and I do this despite the fact that several reasons are strong enough to stand alone.
Don't tell me its not a legal argument, its a legal standard I use every day in criminal cases where I have to justify a traffic stop or a warrentless search and seizure, or other circumstance where the state has acted for a variety of reasons in order to ensure public peace, officer and community safety, investigate crimes, or stop ongoing crimes.
Quote:
"casus belli (which is the reason for war)"
So b/c the US followed it's own internal legal code means the US is NOT an aggressor nation ? (BTW for historical purposes I'd like to mention that Germany also followed its own legal code in launching WWII, and that didn't give Germany a pass, either.)
In this argument you are confusing the legal basis for war with the moral basis for war. So long as the US followed its own internal guidelines it is a legal war under US law. So long as the US followed international agreements and treaty obligations it is legal under international law.
In this case the US met its first obligation by seeking permission from Congress to wage the 1991 and 2003 military campaigns. It met its second obligations by UN resolutions authorizing the use of force in both instances and there was no treaty or other international agreement superceded the authorization by the UN (especially since no treaty ever really ended the 1991 conflict to settle the original issues and I note we face the same problem in Korea).
Your example of Nazi Germany is false. While the Germans acted legally under German law, Germany was bound internationally by the Treaty of Versailles. They broke it not by invading Poland, but rather by formally abrogating the treaty, rearming, and occupying the Rhineland, Austia, and the better part of Czechoslavakia. Further they were bound by the League of Nations, although that was an empty shell. The US has no comparable international restriction such of the Treaty of Versallies, thus Germany broke international law but the United States did not.
It can be argued that Roosevelt broke an number of international agreements and treaties with some of his actions such as lend-lease. I disagree because most of those treaties had been abandoned by the parties before 1939.
I note for the record that Treaties of Perpetual Peace and Friendship have been around a long time. They tend not to be worth much. I would suggest, based upon historical precedent, that such treaties are either unenforcable, have no legal effect, or are themselves violations of internation law. Precedent supports that conclusion far more then the idea that a nation can't simply make war for just about any reason.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The UN Inspectors were removed by the UN because of the United States. WE were the cause. That's a demosntrated fact which seems to elude you. I know facts can be slippery things to the right-wing, but Christ, man! You're like a bad toilet that keeps gurgling shit back up.
Your only looking a what happened in 2002 and 2003. The inspectors issue began in 1991. In 1998 after years of shuffling Saddam threw them out. We bombed. He did not let them return until the US began its pre-invasion build up in Kuwait. At that time the US determined it was an ongoing ploy to delay the invasion, so we determined to go foreward. That decision prompted the UN to close shop so their fella would not get stepped on by either side.
Clinton was correct when he said throwing them out justified war. He failed to carry his conflict to a successful conclusion. But letting them back in at the last minute was too late.
I get this a lot with folks who owe fines to the court. They get thirty days to pay, thirty days later no money, no defendent. Warrant. Assuming we don't pick them up they show up a few days later, with some...not all...of the money. At that point the Judge looks at their record. If its good he gives them a warning and more time and recalls the warrant...if its bad they go to jail.
Saddam had a very bad record.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Basically what you're saying is that we invaded Iraq for something that Saddam did 10 years previous?
Get a life!
The whole point was to disarm Saddam. That mission was accomplished and was in the process of being verified.
It seems like some people... YOU for instance... just can't stand success.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That exactly what they're saying...why? You got a problem with pre-emptive retro-punishment?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Basically what you're saying is that we invaded Iraq for something that Saddam did 10 years previous?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We all know the real reason is Bush had a hard-on for Saddam, and these wingnuts are just lock-stepping along. No further point going round in circles.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah- time to go back to the entertainment side.
Stargate!!! Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
We all know the real reason is Bush had a hard-on for Saddam, and these wingnuts are just lock-stepping along. No further point going round in circles.
I can only assume that the "We" you are referring to is yourself and the mouse in your pocket. Would you mind telling the rest of us the "real reason" why "Bush had a hard on for Saddam".
We're going to have to penalize you for the "lock-stepping" comment. I think you might have been trying to slip in a suttle Hitler reference (goose-stepping). Thanks for playing anyway.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And that's exactly what drives me batshittier than I already am. The Bushites can'd decide if the invasion was about what Saddam did 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or what he was doing in 2002, what he might do in the future, WMDs that he buried for later use or sent to Syria (HA!) or because he was a "bad man", or because we were just doing what the UN wanted us to do, or authorized us to do, or... the dog at his homework, and his sister was bugging him, and he couldn't find a pencil (Was that before or after the dog at his homework?), and the power went out and...
That exactly what they're saying...why? You got a problem with pre-emptive retro-punishment?
But they have reasons, by God! At least a couple of dozen, none of which make any sense and quite a few of which are inconsistent with each other. I swear to God some of these folks are a few neurons short in the "logic" area.
I should just treat them like I'd treat any paranoid schizophrenic and simply smile and back away slowly...
*backs away slowly*
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
We're going to have to penalize you for the "lock-stepping" comment. I think you might have been trying to slip in a suttle Hitler reference (goose-stepping). Thanks for playing anyway.
I said what I meant. If that challenges you, perhaps you should work on expanding your vocabulary.
But thanks for playing.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But they have reasons, by God! At least a couple of dozen, none of which make any sense and quite a few of which are inconsistent with each other. I swear to God some of these folks are a few neurons short in the "logic" area.
Once more to respond, Signy:
"This is an important book, children. It shows how you can break all the rules, and still come out looking good, as if you'd never done anything wrong in the first place.
I love that message- it's like...redemption or something."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Hero'
Did you accidentally read 'United States" in place of "Security Council" ? Or did you just presume the United States IS the Security Council ?
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Obama claims to be a Christian, last I checked. Either way, I'm an atheist, so much for the "fundie hero " claims on your part. (Sorry, just had to make you look the part of an ass ) But speaking of heroes, we're not talking about Reagan, so don't waste your breath here. I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
Most of that rambling in your post doesn't even make a lick of sense, but I'll be around for a while if you would like to take a second shot at making me look the part of an ass.
None of the top 3 canidates will do anything to uphold the US Constitution, so not looking too good there.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Most of that rambling in your post doesn't even make a lick of sense, but I'll be around for a while if you would like to take a second shot at making me look the part of an ass.
None of the top 3 canidates will do anything to uphold the US Constitution, so not looking too good there.
I'm sorry you lack such basic comprehension skills.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" 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:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Laudable intent there, AU, but Bush (and others) pissed on it, he didn't uphold it, and that's why I dislike him so- my America is better than that.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
Where's Goldwater when you need him....
Patriot Chrisisall
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?
And you call yourself a patriot ?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" 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:I KNEW there was a reason why talking to you is like talking to PN! You're both on the same delusional wavelength!
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm sorry you lack such basic comprehension skills.
Now you're just being silly Rap. I've been called quite a few things on here and even I'd agree with most of them, but you and I know that I suffer from no comprehension problems or any other mental deficits.
If you'd like to have another swing at trying to make me look like an ass though, I welcome it. I know you can do better than to take cheap personal attacks on me. Especially after I was so nice to you earlier today.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Laudable intent there, AU, but Bush (and others) pissed on it, he didn't uphold it, and that's why I dislike him so- my America is better than that.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.
Where's Goldwater when you need him....
Patriot Chrisisall
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?
And you call yourself a patriot ?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I KNEW there was a reason why talking to you is like talking to PN! You're both on the same delusional wavelength!
I see a lot of delusional people here. All this seems to be to me is two sides picking what they believe to be the lesser of two evils and arguing each other about it.
Bottom line is we had shitty choices for America the last 8 years and we're faced with even shittier choices now, since any canditate that was for protecting America and the Constitution is out of the race or so laughably behind at this point that they'll have to run third party and inevitably lose.
I did my part. My bro and I got quite a few people to vote for Dr. Paul in the IL primaries. Funny how none of them had ever even heard of him several months before.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:W T F are you talking about??
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?
Any seditious Jew-nazi aliens you'd like to throw in there?
McCain is an evil robot, you know...
And Hilary eats the babies supplied to her by Obama.
Biped...such a biped.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:RAP, HERO- In case it's escaped your notice "our sovereignty" does NOT extend to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, France, Syria, Israel, Germany, Japan, or anywhere outside of our borders, really. So if you're whinging that we can't do whatever the fuck we want, whenever and wherever we want for any reason or no reason whatsover... you won't find a sympathetic ear here!
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?
And, you may not have noticed, but the "anti-globalization" forces are mainly populated by liberals.
So stick THIS in your ear.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Somehow I don't think Kerry or Gore would have made quite such a mess. But maybe it's better that we have such an idiot in the WH... Bush is quite a lesson.
I see a lot of delusional people here. All this seems to be to me is two sides picking what they believe to be the lesser of two evils and arguing each other about it Bottom line is we had shitty choices for America the last 8 years.
Quote:It's all about the money. It's always been about the money. At the moment, all the remaining candidates are tainted. As fortetold by prophecy.
and we're faced with even shittier choices now,
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Bushites can'd decide if the invasion was about what Saddam did 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or what he was doing in 2002, what he might do in the future
I don't know how much clearer I can be. It was NOT one thing. It was everything. Ten years ago, 20 years ago, what he was doing in 2002, AND what he might do in the future.
Edited to add: Now that I think about it...most American wars have this in common. The Revolution, for example, was not about Lexington and Concord or the price of tea...it was a series of reasons spanning decades many of which were outlined in the Declaration. Totality of the circumstances turned treason into a just war for independence.
The only folks who want to focus on one thing are the folks who gave him a pass on everything.
You also suggested that some of the reasons I cited are inconsistant with each other, yet while I listed reason after reason you give not one example of how this is so.
You asked for one reason, so I gave you several to choose from any of which I was happy to consider sufficient to be the one reason. You failed to refute any of them relying instead on tired rhetoric, baseless insults (of the President and those who support his policies), and repetative critisism of the WMD argument, which was not and is not the sole basis of the argument for war in 2002 (even though it was enough for war in 1998 according to President Clinton).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obviously, WMD wasn't enuf for war for Clinton because he didn't go to war. Facts, man. Stick to 'em.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Hero'
"It was NOT one thing. It was everything."
But not one of them a legal reason to attack another country. For someone who pretends to uphold the law you seem mighty flexible on that point.
Here's the deal: There was no VALID LEGAL reason for the US to attack Iraq. It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't pre-emptive and it wasn't under UN authority.
The US was an aggressor nation.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And, it was an incredibly stupid idea.
Iraq didn't pose a threat to us, they were free of any useful WMD, didn't have a delivery system, weren't in collusion with al Qaida. In short, except for the notion that we were going to somehow "free" the Iraqi people (BTW women's status in Iraq is slipping towards Taliban-style repression, and Iraq is now experimenting with opium production) there was no reason whatsover to invade.
And if that was our aim, there were better ways to do that than killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of civilians, plunging Iraq into total chaos, reducing their infrastructure to rubble, driving everyone into distitution and in general mucking things up for the average Iraqi civilian, plus bankrupting our budget, destroying our military, and ruining our credibility around the world.
But if YOU think that's a reasonable tradeoff... well...
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't pre-emptive and it wasn't under UN authority.
The US was an aggressor nation.
The UN Charter reserves the right of self-defense, but that is NOT the only form of war the Charter recognizes. It also allows the Security Council to authorize member states to use force to enforce resolutions.
I don't understand how you can argue that it was not under UN Authority. We've cited the relevant portions of both the Charter and Resolutions. You just say "no it wasn't" with no explanation.
Perhaps our discussion could advance past this issue if you explain your position.
For example, you could argue the UN can't authorize the use of force...even though the words "use of force" are in the charter. You could authorize that one or both resolutions were somehow invalid. You could argue that the 1991 cease fire was never violated. You could argue that Congress had no authority to issue its use of force authorizations.
But in order to do that you need to actually say what you are arguing and then back it up with discussion, evidence, and citations of authority. That would allow me to review your argument and material and then agree or posit a counter-argument which could lead to a spirited back and forth discussion.
You challenged my opinion, so I backed it up with citations, precedent, historical notes, and discussion. You seem incapable of defending your position with a reasoned argument.
Based upon what I have read, it seems to me that your opinion must come from an emotional opposition to the war. "I oppose the war, therefore the war MUST be illegal." Based upon this reasoning the legal standard for war comes neither from the US Constitution or the UN Charter...it comes from your emotional understanding of events.
However it seems that we have shown that from a purely legal basis President Bush got all the forms stamped and paperwork in order. That means that while a discussion of the merits of the case for war should always be appropriate, from a legal standpoint the war was clearly in technical compliance with both domestic requirements and international standards.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Obviously, WMD wasn't enuf for war for Clinton because he didn't go to war. Facts, man. Stick to 'em.
No, he merely failed to launch a ground offensive to complete his objectives.
He did however use force against Iraq...ranging from sometimes bi-weekly bombing attacks against air defenses in the no-fly zones (espcially after 1998) to a formal 30-day air campaign.
I also note for the record that he signed the Iraq Liberation Act where he made it a US law to remove Saddam from power.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, he merely failed to launch a ground offensive to complete his objectives.
He did however use force against Iraq...ranging from sometimes bi-weekly bombing attacks against air defenses in the no-fly zones (espcially after 1998) to a formal 30-day air campaign.
He didn't "fail to launch a ground offensive" - he DIDN'T GO TO WAR! Some of us realize that there is a difference between a few air strikes and an all-out invasion. Clinton used what was called an "appropriate response" - you light up our planes with your antiaircraft radar, and we stuff an AMRAM missile down your radar operator's throat, and then maybe, just for good measure, we go ahead and laund a Tomahawk strike against an air base.
It keeps costs down (in both dollars AND lives, on BOTH sides), and it kept Saddam's forces contained and controlled. And not one US life was lost enforcing the No-Fly Zones.
Also, keep in mind that WHEN Clinton launched such attacks, the right-wing talkers went wild, claiming he was "wagging the dog" and trying to distract the media from the "real" problem that was the larger threat to the nation - whether or not he got a blowjob from a fat girl. The "wag the dog" line was also used when Clinton launched strikes targeting Osama bin Laden - strikes which were exactly as effective at killing Bin Laden as Bush has been, but at a much lower cost, both in lives and dollars.
- "We don't negotiate with terrorists." - Ronald Reagan (spoken WHILE he was indeed negotiating with terrorists in Iran.
- Why does Bush keep leaving war funding out of the federal budget, and why does he keep asking for "emergency" funding of the war? We've been in this stinking mess for more than five fucking years now - you'd think Bush would sober up long enough to remember that! It's not like he just woke up from yet another long weekend of cocaine and booze and realized that - Holy SHIT! - we've still got US troops in Iraq! We need to find a way to fund them!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It also allows the Security Council to authorize member states to use force to enforce resolutions."
An authorization the US failed to get.
"I backed it up with citations, precedent, historical notes, and discussion. You seem incapable of defending your position with a reasoned argument."
No, what you did was post a lot of irrelevent stuff in place of a single relevant piece of information on the lack of said authorization. Also, I can't help it if your memory is failing on this simple historical fact.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Look, I'm able to stretch and see that there's an argument to be made that the war was based on UN sanctions that Saddam flaunted...I'm even able to say that it may have not been an entirely illegal campaign...but given THAT, don't you see that it was just plain stupid to take him down the way we did? There were other more cost-effective ways to do it- certainly not as immediately dramatic, though.
Originally posted by Hero:
I don't understand how you can argue that it was not under UN Authority. We've cited the relevant portions of both the Charter and Resolutions. You just say "no it wasn't" with no explanation.
Plus, I have to take back what I said about you being at the opposite pole from PN, you certainly come up with an argument for your position, as much as I might disagree with it- AU actually should have been my target for that particular attack with all his 'because it's a fact's, and absolutely no facts to back up anything, save what a fanatic he is on the subject.
Apologies.
The calm Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
W T F are you talking about??
Any seditious Jew-nazi aliens you'd like to throw in there?
McCain is an evil robot, you know...
And Hilary eats the babies supplied to her by Obama.
Biped...such a biped.
First there was Gore and his capitulation to the Kyoto ( SCREW AMERICA EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ) Protocall, and then there was Kerry's " Global Test" which essentially means we must 1st get U.N. approval before we defend ourselves from anyone , ever again. Then there's the whole 'World Court' superceeding our own U.S. Constitution, our regular military forces being made to serve and take orders from U.N. officers, and oh yeah, I've about had it w/ your Jewel Stait-less Stargate Atlantis poster. Why do you hate the BDH's ? You BDH hater!
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" 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:Whoah...paranoid much?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First there was Gore and his capitulation to the Kyoto ( SCREW AMERICA EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ) Protocall, and then there was Kerry's " Global Test" which essentially means we must 1st get U.N. approval before we defend ourselves from anyone , ever again. Then there's the whole 'World Court' superceeding our own U.S. Constitution, our regular military forces being made to serve and take orders from U.N. officers,
So, all that is a worse threat than throwing us into the jaws of a recession to further this ridiculous "Saving Of The Iraqi People"??
Click your heels together, Dorothy....
Quote:
and oh yeah, I've about had it w/ your Jewel Stait-less Stargate Atlantis poster. Why do you hate the BDH's ? You BDH hater!
Oh, HERE!!!
Better? Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, HERE!!!
Better? Chrisisall
You need to ask ?
Ooooohyeah
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Hero'
I don't know how much more clear I can be, short of teaching you how to read english.
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat ..."
UN inspectors were in Iraq doing inspections to determine the level of compliance or threat that existed. The SC hadn't made any determination as to threat, as required by the UN Charter.
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary ..."
The Security Council hadn't voted to take action, as required by the UN Charter.
"The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine."
The Security Council gets to determine who takes action, and when, to maintain international peace (not individual countries like the US) as required by the UN Charter.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ..."
The US attack on Iraq wasn't self defence, nor was it a response to an imminent threat, as required by the UN Charter.
If that's not clear enough, perhaps I can direct you to a remedial english class in your area.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If that's not clear enough, perhaps I can direct you to a remedial english class in your area.
What is required is that you examine the Charter, the Resolutions, including the ones from 1990, and historical precedents.
I think your problem is that you fixate on a single topic and ignor how all the pieces fit together.
I note for the record that in 2002 the UN Security Council determined that enough was enough and did authorize the attack. It was really touch and go and I believed that France or Russia would veto military action. However they quibled and the US was able to secure a blanket authorization for just about any action we felt was appropriate. I think it was ultimately decided that we were going under the 1990 Resolutions...supported by ongoing use of force under those resolutions throughout the '90s (ie precedent) so anything more the token opposition was ultimately pointless.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Look, I'm able to stretch and see that there's an argument to be made that the war was based on UN sanctions that Saddam flaunted...I'm even able to say that it may have not been an entirely illegal campaign...but given THAT, don't you see that it was just plain stupid to take him down the way we did?
Actually I'm wondering if its my perspective as a Prosecutor that lets me see the distinction between the legality of the war and its reasoning.
Most often I see crimes after the fact. The crime has been committed, the investigation gathers the evidence, the defendent has been arrested.
The first thing I look at in EVERY case is the procedure. For example in DUI's its not 'what did he blow', first its 'was there reasonable suspicion for the stop' then 'was there reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation by removing the subject from the car for sobriety tests' then 'was there probable cause for the arrest' then 'was the rights read' and lastly 'was the breath machine working properly'. The answers to each of those questions affect the merits of the case as much as the actual facts do. Thus, I could have the drunkest fella in the world...but if he broke no traffic laws then there was no reason for the stop and the case is over before it begins. I've had it happen and it pisses me off, but not too much cause we've got some great cops whose pure instinct has probably saved lives but lost cases. (I've also had bad cops who have just plain lost cases...)
Anyway Iraq looks like this to me as a Prosecutor:
Cops get info from a Confidential Informant about a drug lab in a house. The CI has a good reputation and is often used by us and other jurisdictions as well. The subject has a history of known drug use and manufacturing as well as a history of violence (including a home invasion of a neighbor). They take it to a judge and they get a warrant. Any judge would give a warrant on these facts. They go in and they search the house and find no drug lab and only some left over paraphenalia (minor misdemeanor stuff...like rolling paper or residue). They also find evidence of a previously unknown murder. The subject is charged and convicted of the murder. The search is valid even though the underlying information turned out to be bad. The murder conviction stands. Execution. Job well done by everybody.
The problems caused by subsequent rival gangs scabbling over the subjects former territory are seperate issues. Perhaps a special task force can deal with them (ie a surge). But regardless its not relevant to the initial case.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
YOU MEAN THIS DECISION ?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it (Iraq) a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
So, 'Hero', any more crap to spew ?
Did the UN find Iraq to be an imminent threat ? Decide to advance to an invasion ? Authorize the US to carry out its decisions ?
PLEASE, find it for me.
***************************************************************
Otherwise just go away.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, Hero is such a load of turds.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, Hero is such a load of turds.
Hero showed up to kick ass and chew bubble gum and it turns out he was all out of bubble gum.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And you wonder why it's 'fly-over' country rather than the light of the nation.
***************************************************************
Or do you prefer to ignore facts and join PN and Rap in la-la land.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First there was Gore and his capitulation to the Kyoto ( SCREW AMERICA EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ) Protocall, and then there was Kerry's " Global Test" which essentially means we must 1st get U.N. approval before we defend ourselves from anyone , ever again. Then there's the whole 'World Court' superceeding our own U.S. Constitution, our regular military forces being made to serve and take orders from U.N. officers,
Whoah...paranoid much?
So, all that is a worse threat than throwing us into the jaws of a recession to further this ridiculous "Saving Of The Iraqi People"??
Click your heels together, Dorothy....
Much as I dont' agree with Hero or Rap in here at all, this is very important to me too.
In fact, all of that is a worse threat to America than throwing us into the jaws of recession. (period)
Saving the Iraqi people or anything else of that sort is none of my or any of our business.
Problem is, Bush hasn't done anything to save us from that fate. When his globalist administration has been starting wars everywhere and selling us out left and right he was pissing off everybody in the world off at the same time. Now everybody is so fed up with Republicans that we're willing to elect a Muslim in office because we're so desperate for change. One day in 2009 we're going to wake up in a Socialist nation who is just another seat at the UN table, who takes orders from a new master.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I like ya Jack, but that's a little far in the OTHER direction, doncha think?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Now everybody is so fed up with Republicans that we're willing to elect a Muslim in office because we're so desperate for change. One day in 2009 we're going to wake up in a Socialist nation who is just another seat at the UN table, who takes orders from a new master.
'Sides, that won't happen 'till 2019, anyway...
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Way to go widely off topic. Here there was a nice discussion about whether there were or were not wmds or evidence thereof and you have to bring a person's faith into the thread. Sick.
That's bs. There's nothing wrong with electing a Muslim. However, Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. Doesn't he go to Chicago's Trinity Christian or something like that? I do not support Obama, but I will defend his right to be our president to ignorant fools that vote on religious and racial lines.
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As opposed to being The Master, perhaps?
One day in 2009 we're going to wake up in a Socialist nation who is just another seat at the UN table, who takes orders from a new master.
Beginning 1945 the United States was in an enviable position as the most productive and technically advanced nation in the world. Europe, the Soviet Union and Japan had been destroyed by WWII (my SO, who was born in Hungary in 1947, tells me there was one working truck in Hungary at the time), China had not yet started development, South and Central America were nice, compliant backwater oligarchs... just the way we wanted, Africa was .... well, Africa. And for years the only threat that we took notice of was "communism".
Since then, a lot of nations/ economic blocs have grown up to be our near-economic equals, and some like China or the EU look to surpass us, soon. It's a hard transition to make and even harder to accept that we ARE just one nation among many. But that is the truth of it. And that is what we should always have been, not some power-mad imperialist who tried to take over the whole world. And although we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined our real undoing will be economic, not military, cultural, political, or religious.
What you're missing 6ix is that we're already "taking orders" but it has nothing to do with the UN and everything to do with NAFTA. The UN, for the most part, leaves nations to do whatever they do within their borders. NAFTA OTOH tell us what our internal labor, environmental, and tax policies will be. I've heard of NAFTA taking municipalities to court because they (the city) imposed an "unfair trade practice" on a competitor. And this isn't backed by an army, but by an army of lawyers and accountants, all with the power of wealth behind them. So if you're gonna get all twitchy about internationalism you're looking in the wrong direction.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Wow. Way to go widely off topic. Here there was a nice discussion
That's bs. There's nothing wrong with electing a Muslim. However, Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. Doesn't he go to Chicago's Trinity Christian or something like that? I do not support Obama, but I will defend his right to be our president to ignorant fools that vote on religious and racial lines.
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
Thank you, WeirdGirl - that's a separate point I've been *TRYING* to make in a different post for quite some time now. The same people who argue the most vehemently about how we must fight in the Middle East to keep those nations from descending into theocracies then turn around and, in the same breath, preach about how we could not POSSIBLY, EVER, EVEN CONSIDER electing a Muslim to any office in this country. So, apparently, that whole "freedom of religion" thing in the Constitution really means that you're free to be any brand of Christian you choose, so long as you're Christian and nothing else. Again, I must say: How very fucking patriotic of you... Fighting against theocracies elsewhere, while insisting on them here at home.
I know that people who say these kinds of things also tend to preface them with "...Now I don't wanna sound racist, but..." Note for the record that, when you have to preface a statement that way, you already sound racist. Usually because you're racist.
Try this little exercise: Say, out loud, all your thoughts about Muslims. "All Muslims are ___________" Now, take those exact same statements and replace the word "Muslims" with "blacks" or "Jews" or "Hispanics", because that's EXACTLY how racist you sound, and are. Let's face it - you've been told, repeatedly, that Obama is not a Muslim; why don't you just go ahead and use the word; say you could never vote for him because he's black. It's closer to the truth, I'd wager. Or at least it certainly appears that way...
Any time you start thinking at ALL of a certain race or religion are one way, you've succumbed to the most virulent kind of hate - the kind that led the Nazis to embrace the Holocaust. What if I were to claim that I could never, EVER vote for any kind of Christian - after all, Truman was a Christian, and he is the only person in the world to ever use atomic weapons on another nation, so by association, all Christians must want to nuke the entire world, right?
What if I were to claim that I could never vote for a Catholic because all Catholics like to fondle little boys? What if I were to claim that I could never vote for a Mormon because all Mormons like to screw underage girls by the dozen? Wouldn't that make me sound just a *little* backwards and close-minded?
Let's see... Mike Huckabee has said, on record, that he thinks we need to re-write or amend the Constitution of the United States of America to include the ten commandments - thereby making it *officially* a "christian" document. Yet you're worried about the influence a Muslim-who's-not-even-a-Muslim might have on the country?
Sounds to me like you'll vote for anybody who's a paler shade of white before you'll ever support a black man running for the Presidency. As I've said before, I don't have any problem at all with you not liking Barack Obama, but at least hate him for the RIGHT REASONS, and quit maligning the guy for something that he doesn't even believe!
Mike
Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, none of the candidates are Muslim. But even if they were, so what?
Now everybody is so fed up with Republicans that we're willing to elect a Muslim in office because we're so desperate for change.
Since when should we discriminate by religion? Would you think really think less of a candidate who supports most of your values, just because he or she is Muslim?
--------------------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
-- Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Better bring a bigger hammer if you wanna try getting THAT point across, Kwicko.
While I judge people as people, individually and by their own actions, I am less than fond of Christians as a whole or group, simply due to the acceptance and inclusion of folk who think nonbelievers should be abused or killed.
Long as they leave me alone, they can believe that all they want, but when some rowdy pack of shitheels tries to ACT on it, resulting in violence and injury to the intended victim and several of the perps...
Or when they drive a little girl* to suicide by constant harrassment overlooked by school officials who hold the same beliefs...
And yet, in spite of these horrors, taken as a whole, religion more often than not is the basis for moral, rather than immoral, actions on a universal scale.
It's not the religion, it's the PEOPLE, as simple as that.
What you BELIEVE matters not a whit, it is what you DO that defines you as a person, to yourself and others.
If someone does ill unto you or others, it's because they did it, maybe using religion as an excuse - but in the end, THEY did so.
If you're drowning and someone throws you a rope, they make claim religion inspired them, but it wasn't religion that made the toss, it was THEM.
We're all just folk, in the end, and I wish folks would "get" that... but they mostly don't, too busy coming up with stupid, arbitrary reasons to hate each other, I guess.
-F
*(See: Tempest Smith)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hey, three in a row...
thanks for speaking the truth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Better bring a bigger hammer if you wanna try getting THAT point across, Kwicko.
Yeah... I'm not sure the world HAS a big enough hammer for some folk...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I kinda wish that the "Obama's a MUSLIM" crowd would just come right out and use the N-word. It's clear they really, REALLY want to; they already say "Muslim" as if it were a turd in their mouth. They'll be the ones at the Inauguration who are trying to re-enact that scene from "Blazing Saddles", hollering like Gabby Johnson, "The President is a nii-" BONG! goes the bell. "What'd he say?" "He said the President is NEAR..." "NOOO, dad-blame-it, con-sarn-it - I said the President is a NII-" BONG! goes the bell again.
And so on.
Maybe if he changed it to something more... "American"... like O'Bama... Yeah, that's it. It's American, like O'Malley or O'Shaughnessy, and it makes you think of the Old South, in down-home 'Bama.
Honestly, these people are so caught up in the guy's name - the name his father gave him before he disappeared from his life - that they're certainly not going to let pesky little things like *FACTS* get in the way of a good old-fashioned cross-burning.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i watched an interesting interview recently on FOX with Michael Schauer, head of the CIA Bin-Laden unit. its his opinion that our interventionist foreign policy directly attributes to terrorism. he went as far as to say none of the current politicians, including McCain, understands this, except Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich
according to the constitution, we are not interventionists. we had no legal or just authority to attack them, Iraq never directly threatened us, so this was a pre-emptive war of aggression. it even violates something called the 'just war theory' of christianity(the libertarian view), which is protection only in self defense. pre-emptive war is a sign of fascism...
the Arab world would have dealt with Saddam WITHOUT the UN or American envolvement; but then Saddam wouldnt even exist if not for us! its rediculous. so nevermind the past CIA coups and various elected governments overthrown at our behest, this war can only create resentment among young Muslims. we're helping alqaeda recruit, and fullfilling propaganda in the meantime!
wake up guys and realize you cant stop a suicide murderer, not in AMerica, not in Iraq. if someone wants to die, there are a million ways they can do it, and take others along with them. you can only remove their incentive and motivation, just the opposite of what we're doing.
something on the scale of 9.11 would have been prevented, had the airlines not been neutered, and the federal agencies asleep at the wheel. we dont need homeland security or the patriot act or military commissions acts. i doubt you or me or anyone here will die in the next terror attack, or any terror attack, the odds are very slim. so in the event of the next suicide attack, itll be the aftermath, and the response of the government, that will destroy the liberties the 'terrorists' hate. am i wrong?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I may not agree with you on a lot, Antimason, but yer preachin to the choir here with that one.
Kwicko... what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...
I mean, shit, imma Anarchist, which is about as "Liberal" as you can get, and yet here I am bitching about Constitutional Compliance whilst the so-called 'Conservatives' use the damn thing for toilet paper.
I'm a bit more snappish about that than usual since a slightly drunken friend got a little "wall to wall counselling" for flaming "liberal gun grabbers" when all of the recent and most grevious insults to the second amendment were from dickheads he supported.
The way I have seen it in use (cause you KNOW they refuse to define it, or can't..) it means not white enough, not racist enough, not intolerant enough, and if they wanna use THAT as an insult against me...
PLEASE, insult me more!
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...
Commie?
Quote:
PLEASE, insult me more!
And you smell bad.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Kwicko... what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...
Good thing you have never tried to denigrate the right by using such terms as 'right wing-nut' or 'jack-booted neo-con'
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I mean, shit, imma Anarchist, which is about as "Liberal" as you can get, and yet here I am bitching about Constitutional Compliance whilst the so-called 'Conservatives' use the damn thing for toilet paper.
As an Anarchist, I think you would be closer to the right than the left, no?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...
Commie?Quote:
PLEASE, insult me more!
And you smell bad.
H
Yup, the way "conservative" has become just another word for "Nazi".
And you spell bad. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Linear-thinking biped.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
As an Anarchist, I think you would be closer to the right than the left, no?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
As an Anarchist, I think you would be closer to the right than the left, no?
Linear-thinking biped.
Please enlighten me regarding your take on the issue. And remember not to use too many big boy words so I can follow along.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Please enlighten me regarding your take on the issue. And remember not to use too many big boy words so I can follow along.
Anarchists, I believe, are interested in what gets the job done, and done correctly- therefore they have no use for right/left ideology as such.
(Frem, please correct me if I'm wrong...)
BDN, the left or right is simply what you feel like assigning to the Anarchist label- it's like calling what Bruce Lee did Kung-Fu; it's limiting.
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, that's prettymuch it - whatever does the job with a minimum of waste, stupidity and disruption, and stay out of our business and personal space unless invited.
And while I am indeed intentionally insulting to rightwingnuts, jackboots, and rethuglicans, I make specific distinction in the how and why I am insulting them rather than smearing an entire political spectrum with a single label.
To me a Rethuglican is a jerk using a false front conservatism to put on a moral image when they are in fact an immoral creep - there's been a few of those around, as a Dimocract is a dumbass who's short sighted quickfix policy is more likely to do eventual harm than good.
Jackboots are proto-fascists, and rightwingnuts are folks who rabidly support a political spectrum even when members thereof are acting directly counter to their interests, see also: leftwingnuts.
When I level insult, it's specific, directed and fully intentional at that person to specific group, for their actions, or by their actions.
But I sure ain't gonna claim altruism there, I am specific and directed cause smearing a whole political spectrum isn't.. yanno... *personal* enough a slap for my liking, I want em to have no doubt who I mean when I do it.
-F
Edit: BTW, Communism is a form of Government.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Kwicko- Mike Huckabee has said, on record, that he thinks we need to re-write or amend the Constitution of the United States of America to include the ten commandments - thereby making it *officially* a "christian" document. Yet you're worried about the influence a Muslim-who's-not-even-a-Muslim might have on the country?
im suprised Huckabee doesnt know better, but this is something people should know: our constitution is based on the laws of Moses and the ten commandments; in fact libertarianism draws a lot from christian theology. the concept of individual liberty is impossible without morality and responsibility. thou shalt not murder, steal, thou shalt not bear false witness and thou shalt not covet thy neighbors belongings. we are entitled to keep the fruits of our labor, and we are commanded to work for our own sustenance, that someone who will not work does not deserve charity.
contrast that with communism and socialism, where welfarism is encouraged, and people are neglected the rights to property and the products of their labor. this should be obvious....
according to the OT, this was how Gods people functioned, without a king or ruler, but by his commands. it was the rejection of God that necessitated government, and because man is imperfect and sinful, so to is government. that is why our constitution includes the word 'Creator', and our rights are self evident and inalienable, without which you lose the basis for liberty
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AwwwCrapper:
A while back, I asked you a direct question. Remember?
Quote:
Answer this: How many tours of duty did you do in Iraq?
You never answered. You sidestepped, hoping no one would notice. I noticed, and I've waited patiently for you to regale us with your tales of the glory days of your military service.
Now, I'm sure you served in the military, because only America-haters HAVEN'T served. And I'm sure you could always re-up (military slang for reenlistment), because now, more than ever in recent memory, America NEEDS loyal, dedicated soldiers. And only someone who hates America or is a coward or hypocrite WOULDN'T join the military right now, right?
So, answer the question: what's your military service history?
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- i do not want to come down on you too harshly, as some have(it doesnt appear to be effective).. my question is in regards to this, which appears to be your premise for justifying the Iraq war:
Quote:
The evidence is plain and clear for all to see, it's been produced 1000's of times, you simply keep ignoring it. Read the UN Resolutions over and over again, if that's what it takes you to get it through your dense skull.
you are obviously a republican, why do you care what the UN says? until recently, republicans have traditionally despised the UN, they knew it was a move towards global government.
the UN is not an elected body that we can appeal to, so what say should they have in our affairs? we need to withdraw from it altogether, just as many libertarians and traditional conservatives have warned. because here we are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, for precisely this reason; we invaded a country pre-emptively! thats no small matter.. we should have voted to declare war through congress, on behalf of the American peoples desires, not on the authority of the president, and some neo-con think tanks and there banking puppetmasters
IMO, things are worse now, then they were on september 12, 2001, or any day after that... until the summer of '03, when the invasion began. this is not something that should be taken lightly, we're talking about letting a handful of pseudo-intellectual elites, marxists and neocons, socially re-engineer through warfare, sovereign nations. how can you endorse socialist policies as a republican?
i think its a valid question to ask why not invade Darfur, or any other dictatorship? thats more of a rhetorical question though.. that kind of militarism and pre-emption has never worked in all of history, it only brings more authoritarianism and instability.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME