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 26 of 32
I agree with you 100% Chisisall. 
Its weird...so many people hate him...I wonder how he even became president? (I can't remember I was nine at the time. :P ) But even at nine I knew he was no good and didn't like him. Then when I was 13 he got a second term...what the heck? 
What were you adults thinking?! :P
(Don't take my post too seriously. Its all good fun. )
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Wash is the tater to my tot! <3
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
citizen
We're going round and round on this, so i'll present the most concise explanation I can on the matter.
Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.
Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.
Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.
Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it. http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01122004.html
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
As much as I respect some talk show host who happens to say what you want to hear, Kofi Annan is a far more respectable source on the UN and UN resolutions and how they pertain to international law than some hick with a blog and a radio show.
But more specifically:
Quote:No member state has the authority to decide how to enforce UN resolutions over the vote of the Security council. No member state has the authority to decide how to enforce UN resolutions over the vote of the security council. The council voted no. The UN decided not to invade. You can give justifications, your reading, George Bush's opinion, some talk hosts opinion until you are blue in the face. The only way the invasion of Iraq could have been sponsored by the UN, is if the security council voted to invade in 2003. They voted not to invade. Saying you disagree with their reasoning, and deciding that the US should be able to make unilateral decisions for the security council doesn't make it so. At best, at very very best if you apply very loose and favourable readings of the resolutions, charter and international law, the very best is that the action wasn't completely illegal.
Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.
The only way, THE ONLY WAY, that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 could be considered to have been sponsored by the UN is if the security council voted for it. You said it was sponsored by the UN, the only way that can happen is if the security council voted for it. THE SECURITY COUNCIL DID NOT VOTE FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ in 2003. The only way you can prove that the UN sponsored the invasion is by showing the security council voted to invade, which they didn't do. I'm going around in circles, because all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "yes they did" when it's clear the UN DID NOT AUTHORISE THE INVASION OF IRAQ in 2003.
Even if everything you've said is true, even if your reading of the resolutions are right, and the Security Council was wrong to vote no, they still voted no, and if the security council voted no, then the action they voted against IS NOT AUTHORISED BY THE UN. It's an enormously simple concept.
It works like this: The Security Council votes yes, invasion authorised by UN mandate, the security council votes no, invasion not authorised by UN mandate. The Council voted no, AURaptor. The SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED NO. The invasion of Iraq was not authorised by the UN Q.E.D.
No amount of half truths, delusions, talk show hosts or lies can ever change the fact that the Security Council voted no, and no amount of subtly changing the subject is going to change the fact that the security council voting no means the action was not approved by the UN. Please get over it.
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:Silly silly British man. Do you really expect something like this to be taken seriously? AURaptor will find a way around this fact- he always does.
Originally posted by citizen:
The SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED NO.
Negative facts will be re-assigned meaning; resistance is futile.
AUoftheBorgisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He can't because he won't.
Please get over it.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The U.N. chose not to invade, but left the door open for ANY MEMBEMR NATION TO DO SO.
And we did.
On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
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 AURaptor:
The U.N. chose not to invade, but left the door open for ANY MEMBEMR NATION TO DO SO.
Yes, I remember the door being left somewhat ajar.
I think that the UN cat nudged it open a little more. Then there was a breeze that opened it even more. Then Bush & Cheney, seeing the door left so invitingly open, stepped through it.
AU, you REALLY need a job in the White House as a professional spin doctor, you'd be better than most at it given your belief in the garbage you spew
.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The U.N. chose not to invade, but left the door open for ANY MEMBEMR NATION TO DO SO.
Yes, I remember the door being left somewhat ajar.
I think that the UN cat nudged it open a little more. Then there was a breeze that opened it even more. Then Bush & Cheney, seeing the door left so invitingly open, stepped through it.
AU, you REALLY need a job in the White House as a professional spin doctor, you'd be better than most at it given your belief in the garbage you spew
I'd take that job, provided I got the kick ass Gov't salary, health care and pension for life.
But I only believe it because it's true. Otherwise, I'd have no interest in it , what so ever.
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
Rapo, I can Wiki too. So I noticed that you left out some essential parts, specifically the part which said:
Quote:Look, you're desperately wrong about this. Man up to it and move on.
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said: “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said: “ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]
Stop going over old ground and trying to make reality something other than what is was.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, the UN vote for not invading Iraq was basically "We vote not to invade, but don't go NOT invading 'cause of lil' ole us..." ?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But I only believe it because it's true.
Is this really what you believe?
Don't you ever get dizzy, AU...all that spin and all?
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME