If you like Bush & what he's done to this world, you are evil.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 19:38
VIEWED: 30693
PAGE 25 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:The invasion of Iraq was not sponsored by the UN.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Go to the UN site, read the 17 Resolutions yourself, read the 15-0 Security Council vote....
Actually, it was.
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:Oh for crying out loud. No AU, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not sanctioned by the UN, that's why it was the coalition of the willing, not a UN or NATO task force.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, it was.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're damn right i'm unwilling to accept that, because there's very little chance of that point being even remotely true. I never credited Bush for my own economy, just stated that it's been the best ever. But as a matter of fact, Bush HAS done right by the country, whihch is riding a 25 + yr time span of economic growth, unparalleled in this country's history. The Bush tax cuts, for example have been great for this country. The upper 1% of the income earners are paying 39% of all income taxes paied to the Gov't. That seems pretty darn fair to me. Also,lower 50% of income earners are burdened w/ a whopping 3 % of the tax bill. Not 30%, not 13%, but THREE PERCENT !
Also, you maintain that YOUR personal economy has never been better, so that proves to you that Bush is the second coming and that everything he's done has been right. Flip that around a bit, and you can see why someone whose personal economy has never been worse could blame Bush for all that is wrong. You seem unwilling or unable to accept that.
So spare me the sob stories from pockets of economic trouble, like in Michigan. Those places are not benefitting primarily because they're clinging to the economic model that the Democrats want to put the whole COUNTRY under. I guess when everyone is hurting, your own pain doesn't look that bad.
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 citizen:Quote:Oh for crying out loud. No AU, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not sanctioned by the UN, that's why it was the coalition of the willing, not a UN or NATO task force.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, it was.
Yes, it was.
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:Just deal with the fact that you are wrong and move on:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yes, it was.
Quote:That's Kofi Annan, the then Secretary General of the UN.
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am not wrong.
Saddam was removed from power because he failed to provide the evidence that he had destroyed those weapons. The U.N. resolutions required this of him, and he failed to comply. Those same resolutions said that any member nation could use force to compel him to comply ...and that's exactly what some member nations did.
Of course, Kofi Annan saying that the Iraq war was illeal, even thougth it followed the letter of the U.N.'s own resolutions, is a bit hard to take, as Kofi and his own son were knee deep in the biggest scandal of all time, the Food for Oil scam.
How's that investigation going ? Oh yeah, the U.N. has power to investigate itself. 
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:Jog on AURaptor. Unless you've got something better than "but but but OIL FOR FOOD!!111!!" and childish exclamaitions of "yes they did!", give it up.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I am not wrong.
The UN voted against it, the UN didn't sanction the invasion of Iraq. Saying they did because you don't agree with their decision not to, just makes you sound insane. THE UN VOTED NOT TO INVADE IRAQ. THE SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED AGAINST MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ.
Get a grip AU. You can say they made the wrong decision all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they made a decision, and it wasn't to invade Iraq.
Saddam was removed from power because the US coalition invaded, against the Security Mandate to not invade. There was no UN sanction to invade, I don't give half a shit if you, the president and the Easter Bunny think there should of been, the Security council voted no. Until you can show me proof, that in fact the Security council voted yes to an invasion in Iraq your just blowing smoke out of your arse.
Member states don't get to decide the enforcement of UN mandates, that is what the Security Council is for. The only sanctioning of unilateral force with in the mandate is if a member is actually attacked, and that didn't occur. The invasion was based on the possibility of an attack, not an actual one, and that is not covered. Even so that wouldn't have been a UN sanctioned action, merely one that didn't break the UN Charter. The only way for the invasion to be sanctioned by the UN is if the security council vote for it, WHICH THEY DIDN'T DO! Member nations do not have the authority to override the security council, not even if they're run by George Bush and think they're the centre of the Universe.
Since it seems to need repeating I'll do so. The only way the UN could have sanctioned the invasion of Iraq, is by the security council to vote to invade in 2003. The security council voted NOT to invade in 2003, prove me wrong, show us some evidence of a yes vote for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or stop bloody lying, because continually saying "yes they did" when even a four year old can tell the Security Council voted no, is really beginning to get on my pecks.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Like Cit said, there was NO mandate to invade. If there had been, it would have been a UN force.
How the plainly obvious manages to evade you so often and for so long continues to amaze. Cutting taxes didn't hurt the Federal budget. Saddam had stockpiles of WMD in 2002 and posed a credible threat to the USA. You could destroy a city with the WMD in a small UPS truck.
I'm glad to say that you and your delusions are in the vanishing minority.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was my understanding that there were some weapons found in Iraq. A truck with chemical and biological weapons was found travelling around Iraq at the time of the war. I don't think that was really important though as I don't believe one truck was the reason America invaded Iraq.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There were "some" weapons found in Iraq... 10-15 year-old relics: drums, warheads etc that sometimes contained traces of degraded Sarin. These were leftovers that were abandoned during the rout of the first Gulf War. In one case troops found a pretty potent drum of mustard gas, which is the one chemical warfare agent that is stable over decades. Kay and Duelfer found some pieces of nuclear technology buried in a rose garden. All in all, they didn't find anything that resembled WMD research or production and NOTHING resembling "stockpiles" and no trucks filled with chemical or biowarfare agents.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME