Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on May 20, 2003, 01:49:10 PM
-
So I'm driving back to work after a trip to the local hobby shop and I'm surfing the radio for the noon news report when I come across the public-funded news station. They're interviewing a local woman named Faith, a retired schoool teacher who had voluntarily gone to Iraq to act as a human shield at a refinery.
So right then I was getting emotionally bent. This lady suckels at the teat of government employment, collects government pension money, then goes and defies her nation? :mad:
But it got worse.
She described how she and the other human shields were housed in a community near the refinery, with the intent that they would be rushed into position when warning sirens sounded. As it turned out, given her age and physical limitations, she wasn't a fast mover and couldn't get to the refinery on time, so she spent most of the bombing time huddled in a house until the all-clear signal was given. So, not only was she defying her nation, she was also letting down the people she had wanted to support. :rolleyes: When the bombing stopped and the refinery was in ruins, she checked on the neighbors and, of course, nobody was hurt because the bombs landed on the refinery, not on the houses.
With the bombing over and no real purpose for her trip, she and the rest of her group decided to go to the local hospital to see what they could do, even though they had no medical training whatsoever.
Ok, so what did she expect to accomplish besides get in the way? Lift gurneys? Perform emergency tracheotomies? Then again, giving her the benefit of a doubt, maybe she thought she could simply hold an IV bag or twist a tourniquet. So, ok, I'll accept that.
And then she went on to describe "the horrible scene of blood and things that I've never seen before, but will see for the rest of my life in my dreams...". She talked about how a doctor, frazzled and stressed, pointed to beds and repeated "Children! Children! Children!" indicating the kids that had been caught in the war. She saw people screaming in pain, dying, blood-soaked clothing and bandages, and such like that.
What? Was she expecting to see something other than human carnage at the hospital after a bombing? That's what war is, sweety-pie. That ain't warm chocolate flowing out of that amputated limb. :rolleyes:
The guy giving the interview did a good job keeping politics out of the session and keeping his distance. He asked her about the media and she said she'd spoken and given interviews with foreign reporters about her reactions to the bombing and how she was there as a human shield (like that ain't going to be used for anti-American propoganda, right? :rolleyes: ).
Fortunately, by this point I was back at the parking garage and ready to go back to work, so I was spared any more of this lady's ignorance and naiveness.
The really scary part was, how many American kids did she teach during her career?
-
Anger is a choice.
-
I criticised my government heavily for its mistaken policy on Iraq.
I thought the whole thing was a travesty of international relations.
But I have to say I find the reasoning and justification employed by many of the human shields to be profoundly stupid.
This is yet another example, would've made me angry too.
-
The most amazing part is that they let these bellybutton clowns back into the USA. I know quite a few people who would like to come to the USA, but can't get in, while these traitors are allowed in without questions. It boggles the mind.
-
Everytime I think I've seen the apex of human stupidity, I turn on the Springer Show and know there's plenty of room for achievement in the field of Idiocy.
-
the interview was a fake, the US did not bomb any refinery. thats so stupid, the war was for OIL, remember? it takes time and money to rebuild a refinery, so the boosh/halburton oil cartel would not bomb any refinery.
-
They should ship her bellybutton back there to help excavate the thousands of bodies they are finding in the mass graves in the Baghdad outskirts.
-
anger is a gift.
-
Mickey, dont be silly... she said she never wanted to see anything like that at all every again (apparently she wasnt in Manhatten on 9/11)
Anyways - those mass graves are filled with the dead children killed by American servicement in 1991... we buried them so no one would ever find our secret "cleansing camps." :rolleyes:
-
I have to agree. Right or wrong. that is treason. Make your choice and live with it stupid.
Remember the human shields that left when they found out that sadam wanted them to stand at military bases not baby food plants..
-
on second though..send her to guantomino for 6 months of barney training!
-
back off pongo
old woman following her concience, agree disagree all a bunch of piffil. calling treason is just plane wrong.
-
How can the action of obstructing the movements of your countrie's military not be considered treason?
-
How can actively aiding the enemy's military effort in a time of war not be considered treason?
-
Because Bush is Hitler? :)
Yep I concur with Pongo on this one, 6 months Barney training at gitmo! :D
-
you guys actually expecting LDV to come back with a logical answer thats not "Hitler/Bush" related? Come on, we're not dealing with a full deck of cards here. ;)
-
Was she from Florida? I thought all the nuts were from California.
-
Yeah, she was from Sarasota. Not sure if she taught here or if she just moved here from somewhere else.
To heck with it all, I'll just plan on taking over the world and put an end to this nonsense!
http://www.villainsupply.com
-
Gofaster,
That lady's actions may have been disagreable but some of your argumentation is inane.
I would be the first to call for government to get out of areas that can be provided by private business, especially education, but while it is not the case, the people who work for governments of various levels are as entitled to their opinion as those who work for private businesses.
She did not "suckels at the teat of government employment, collects government pension money". She earns her salary and pension like any other worker does. She teaches children wherever she lives and people there pay her through their property taxes. That is of course if she was retired from public rather than a private school. What the heck does it have to do with the Government (unless you mean her local school district government was bombing the iraqis, can they do that?) and what business is it of yours how she makes her living?
Same as you pay bucher for your meat. Would you say a bucher is not entitled to his opinion becasue you pay his salary?
Her opinion may be in doubt but you are not attacking her opinion, just her eligibility to have it based on her previous employment. It would usually indicate that you are out of arguments and that is regrerfull - I can think of plenty of arguments against her actions.
Also, what was the rationale for bombing an iraqi refinery and killing the workers operating it?
Wouldn't we have to rebuild it? Disrupting iraqi's gasoline production would have only mattered in case of prolonged war which we did not expect to have. If we did get into a prolonged war, wouldn't we be able to bomb that refinery any time?
miko
-
treason
dictionary.com
1.Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2.A betrayal of trust or confidence.
the great majority of the world believes it was an illeagle war. unjustified by any of the lies bush told ( wmd anyone?) i also believe it to be illeagle and immoral. thus i seen no violation of allegiance or betrayal of trust or confidence.
an old woman went 8 thousand miles to try to help at the worst.
possibly missled but in no way treasonous. and her heart was in the right place in my oppinion and about 5.75 billion agree with me, ya know the ones who dont listen to fox or rush.
-
anger is a five letter word.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
treason
dictionary.com
1.Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
-
treason
dictionary.com
1.Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2.A betrayal of trust or confidence.
This about sums it up...thanks LDV for proving that she DID commit treason.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
. and her heart was in the right place in my oppinion .
And there you have the secret to all Liberalism. This is how they explain away all their hypocrisy.
-
illeagle war. started contiued and ended with lies. she said what she was doing befor she left the country. why wasent she arrested? because they had no grounds then or now. she is not guilty you are foolish evil tempered dogmatic men.
summs it up for the other side
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
illeagle war.
Opinion, not fact. There is the '91 Ceasefire terms argument. So far it hasn't been adjudicated and probably never will be.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
illeagle war
the war was about oil...
not sick birds.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
the war was about oil...
not sick birds.
LOL - hey guys tell me how much oil have we stolen allready? :D
-
not oppinion at all if the sanctioning body of a military action is aginst present action. your assertion that the old order supercedes a newer is just plain stupid. and more than a little sad. (similar to germans i ww2 believing poland attacked them in fact hauntingly so)
if you want to be a roman be a roman dont pretend you are moraly justified by quibblingh its insulting to those who know better.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
you are foolish evil tempered dogmatic men.
OK, put me on this list. WOOF!
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
not oppinion at all if the sanctioning body of a military action is aginst present action. your assertion that the old order supercedes a newer is just plain stupid. and more than a little sad. (similar to germans i ww2 believing poland attacked them in fact hauntingly so)
if you want to be a roman be a roman dont pretend you are moraly justified by quibblingh its insulting to those who know better.
And here we go again with the usa & bush = nazi germany & hitler...
Your hatred for this country, for bush and your unceasing madness are beyond belief, hauntingly so... :rolleyes:
-
Ahhhh leave the old bitty alone... like Lord Dork Doofus say's, she was just goin with her conscience. Heck, she prolly just a left over 60's hippie chick reaching out for her lost youth.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
not oppinion at all if the sanctioning body of a military action is aginst present action. your assertion that the old order supercedes a newer is just plain stupid. and more than a little sad. (similar to germans i ww2 believing poland attacked them in fact hauntingly so)
if you want to be a roman be a roman dont pretend you are moraly justified by quibblingh its insulting to those who know better.
OK, but don't pretend your more intelligent and know better just because you think your morals are so much higher than ours. Thats insulting.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Ahhhh leave the old bitty alone... like Lord Dork Doofus say's, she was just goin with her conscience. Heck, she prolly just a left over 60's hippie chick reaching out for her lost youth.
You mean like rooting for the VC communists as they were killing our servicemen or torturing them in their prison camps - check that... :mad:
-
no i dont but the reasons for that war were questionable at best.
the guys who faught and died there may have prefered not to. we cant ask them can we. they werent defending the nation against forign agressors as is was sold to them and the public and alot of good americans faught that war tooth and nail you call them trators? good on ya but your wrong.
lizard 3 i didnt say my morals were higher than anyones, but i can see that would be the conclusion. i spelled out my very clear reasons for calling bull**** on the u.n. sanctioning of the second war. you think t calls peoples morals into question well yea i agree. start a thread.
now this one is a hoot.
"your hatred for this country, for bush and your unceasing madness are beyond belief, hauntingly so..."
grunhertz
i have no hatred of this country im a vet ( openly questioned here because i dont tote the party line. )
i do do feel hate for bush because of his actions and lies.
the assertion of madness i guess is just an insult hoping to make me mad, htc lets you do this still? id report you but conservative loudmouths just never seem to get and action from the moderators here funny that.
or are you a psychologist? and feel my words here justify your professional diagnosis? betting your just a jerk.
-
IMHO you take your personal hatred of bush way too far and thats why so many people respond to your posts they way we do. The incessant bush=hitler comarisons and allusions are both factually inacurate and I think idiotic - they clearly demonstrate your illogical hatred for bush and your continued use of them betrays an ignorance of historical contexts and concepts. The president of the USA is simply not hitler, the USA is not nazi germany - anyone who consistently implies such rubbish really should rethink why they keep making such rediculos accusations.
-
Sigh, lil dip vacant, the sanctioning body for the US military is the population of the US. All indications are that there was and still is rather overwhelming support for the actions taken in iraq. You argument doesn't hold water there.
The illegal war claim is also smoke and mirrors. The war was declared with plenty of advance notice including the terms for not taking actions and had a un basis even though the several of the larger nations decided to back out once they realized their fiduciary interests in iraq would likely suffer if saddumb was toppled. BTW there is no refferee or war declaration office in the world that accepts conflict applications to make it "legal". :rolleyes:
If you understand combat troops, you know that NONE of them prefer to be in a combat situation. They do understand the necessity of that situation however and particularly in a voluntary military know that in advance. They didn't HAVE to join up in other words. Any soldier that claims they didn't understand they would actually have to fight after joining up is a rather sorry excuse for a thinking being.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
T I know quite a few people who would like to come to the USA, but can't get in, while these traitors are allowed in without questions. It boggles the mind.
(Raises hand very high!!!!)
Funked... You want to adopt me? :D
It doesn’t mean we'd be going steady though. ;)
Regards,
Badger
-
LDV: Hope the sources cited finally clear this issue up for you.
However, I doubt it because IIRC despite numerous explanations directly from source documents, you still willfully and vociferously refuse to accept the Electoral College's role in this Republic. :D
US Constitution, Article I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html)
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/attack/main524191.shtml)
Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."
The resolution - which authorizes President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decides it is necessary[/u] - was approved by the House Thursday evening and the Senate followed suit shortly after 1 a.m. Friday.
In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.
In the Senate, the vote was 77-23, with 21 Democrats voting no, joined by Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Republican Sen. Linc Chafee of Rhode Island.
-
The term illegal is put forth from a international point of view as in the U.N. pointedly did not sanction the war. i.e. it was a war of aggression against a power that was no real threat ( i say again they weren't attacking us and didn't have wmd and no evidence of aid or support of osama his mortal enemy is known either).
anyone care to debate if the u.n. thought it was a legal action?
that said you can state that it was legal because bush said it was and be correct but by the same logic if he decided to attack canada and his red tied party drones in congress agreed it would be just as legal. but then again he said there were wmd and that was a lie also. this brings up the question. if he told the gop canada was targeting us with mustard gas would they believe it ? hell the guys a confirmed coke head, drunk driver,military deserter, also some of his private comments really show he is not very intelligent and frankly a idiot. you want quotes? there are tons you debate they are true? some really scary ones are on tape.
so it was within bushes powers to force the war and he is a idiot. the fact that such a man can become president of the united states against the majority of the american public at all points to a serious flaw in our electoral system and calls into question the reason for for the oddities in it. the days of semi independent states united under a loose federal government died with my great great grandaddy at Vicksburg. the feds control all now.
who does the texas republican lawmaker call to find his political rivals? the freindly republican appointees at the dpt of reich security. record burning the following day in good republican fashion also. good lord this isn't suspicious to you ? is there an end to the support of men openly hiding public things from the public?
p.s. its illegal to destroy such records in texas also. they are trying to hide who gave the order want to bet what party he was in if they can find him under the partizan lies protecting their own?
p.p.s.
green hart by the way the comparison with hitler was unintentional i was thinking of the incident where dead polish soldiers were shown at attackers to scare the german public and goad them to war.
it was essentially the same thing as the staged radio conversations and faked evidence of wmd. the situation was quite similar. two immoral men taking care of business.
so grun you were the one who brought up hitler angle i do agree tho.
-
"it was essentially the same thing as the staged radio conversations and faked evidence of wmd. the situation was quite similar. two immoral men taking care of business. "
You mean like the fake staged "evidence" you are supposedly presenting in that very statement?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
also some of his private comments really show he is not very intelligent and frankly a idiot. you want quotes? there are tons you debate they are true?
LDV, better open mouth and extract foot:
illeagle - illegal
missled - misled
oppinion - opinion
plane - plain
contiued - continued
wasent - was'nt
faught - fought
forign - foreign
trators - traitors
bushes - Bush's
-
More lies and lunacy from Vader.. how long must we put up with his negligibly coherent babble?
-
yea babble ok great retorts.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
anyone care to debate if the u.n. thought it was a legal action?
Anyone care to debate that the UN has sovereignity over the US or any nation?
Didn't think so.
As the Constitution says, Congress has the warmaking powers and by a large majority, both Democrat and Republican, they gave it to the President.
So, the "red tied party drones" is just more bile. 373 out of 529 possible votes of ALL the people's representatives. That's 70%. So get over it already.
As for WMD, it's been less than a month after the combat phase was declared over. Give it a bit before you bile over. The "Instant Gratification" thing sort of conflicts with the "US must take the long view" diatribes, doesn't it?
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the majority of the american public at all points to a serious flaw in our electoral system and calls into question the reason for for the oddities in it.
There's another view of this as well. Some may view it as a "flaw". I view it as a major benefit. The Electoral College keeps smaller states and all rural areas "in the loop". If it were abolished, candidates wouldn't even bother to visit less populated states. Nominees would concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the Northeast and California. Yeah.. that's who I want picking my President... the Northeast and California. :D NOT!
The way it is assures at least a little balance between "big city" and "rural" populations. The little guys can't get "written off" in the campaigns and politicking.
Feel free to disagree. But it's Constitutional, just like the First and Second Amendments. There have been a lot of attempts to remove the EC, something like 700. But there she stands, and she's a beauty to my eyes. Long live the EC!
-
i understand the argument your useing it was the same one they used to count slaves as 3/5th of a man. bull**** politics at is worst then and now. pretending giving one man more power in voting balances anything is just incorrect use of the word, it imbalances the votes in a way you think is nessasary, i don't.
people in wyoming are not more important than people in texas for any reason its just a falshood, and also there is a paper that used to be important with "all men are created equal" somewhere if the present administration is done whiping their collective tulips with it and havent thrown it out the window in the name of the reich.
we arent the lose confederation we were at that point in time. the states tried for freedom from federal tyrany once and failed. they havent won a single argument with the feds on anything that counts since 1865. hell my state would be better off out of the the federal republic than in it. continuing the unequality of value to each mans vote on the idea that it gives rural areas equal representation. when it really gives unequal over value to them resulting in situations where truly questionable people get elected agains the will of a substantial portion of the total population( as in there are 11 states with voting populations smaller than gores margin of victory in the popular vote even after the more far left canidate siphoned off 2.8 million liberal votes ). (please please please ask for cite) it needs changin if only to prevent people with the aformentioned character flaws from the highest office in our country, im resigned to idiots and liars in all the lower ones. religous zelots cokeheads and deserters need not apply. all in one forget it.
-
pretending giving one man more power in voting balances anything is just incorrect use of the word, it imbalances the votes in a way you think is nessasary, i don't.
people in wyoming are not more important than people in texas for any reason its just a falshood, and also there is a paper that used to be important with "all men are created equal" somewhere if the present administration is done whiping their collective tulips with it and havent thrown it out the window in the name of the reich.
LDV
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al sure had some crazy ideas...
A senate that represents states?
A house that represents districts allocated to the states based on population?
An Electoral college that was enumerated along the congressional model?
How extremely stupid. It will never last.
By the way just who is advocating unconstitutional ideals?
-
Yeah, I have to laugh almost every time.
Blast the present administration for this and that act as being "unconstitutional" and then explosively regurgitate all this bile about the Electoral College, the Second, Democracy/Republic etc., etc., etc.
Ah, well.. it always provides a smile at some point during the day.
Republic. Say the word. All together now. :D
Here's one to research for you.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
Republic. :D
-
So why is an electoral college still important to our Republic? IIRC the EC was originally implemented as a hedge against an uninformed populace. The FF figured there should be a few members of the landed gentry to help keep the little people from messing up.
-
Why shouldn't everyone in the USA vote for the Governor of California and every other state?
Why don't we elect Senators nationally instead of state by state?
Why don't we elect Representatives nationally instead of state by state?
Basically, it all boils down to the same reason.
Suppose, just for an example, that 60% of the people in the US lived within the city limits of NYC, which had expanded to cover most of NY state. Should the residents of NYC get to elect the President all by themselves? If you had this mass of folks in "Greater NYC", who would the politicians pander to and provide porkfests for?
Everyday, I'm extremely happy the Founding Father's were so bloody smart. They were almost prescient; maybe there will be time travel, eh? Maybe from Greater LA, a distant also-ran to Greater NYC in the year 2450 all the way back to 1776.
:D
-
...and when did the definition of "state" change from country to territory?
-
A decent argument Toad, but not the original intent of the FF. Seems to me that it just luckily turned out to be a good thing for the wrong reasons.
Look at the demographics in 1790 compared to today. Almost a complete flip flop from 90% agricultural to 90% urban. I'd guess that the FF would have been less inclined to implement an EC if they knew city dwellers would make up a majority of the voters.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
...luckily turned out to be a good thing for the wrong reasons.
Depends on what you mean by luck... it offends me that a vote for president in Wyoming carries more weight than a vote in California.
-
In any event, this is still and always will be a Republic. So the "democracy" argument/bile isn't even on the radar screen. Lot of folks don't seem to realize the difference or the fact of it.
So what was the original intent of the Founders with respect to the Electoral College?
I've been reading up on it, including some of the Founders as sources.
What conclusions do you draw on the subject?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Depends on what you mean by luck... it offends me that a vote for president in Wyoming carries more weight than a vote in California.
It would offend me far more if the citizens of major cities votes could make everyone else in the nation "play their way". And without the Electoral College, that's exactly what would happen. Thank the Founders for the 3/4 Constitutional amendment ratification rule!
It works perfectly. The high density areas can make rules for themselves, but not for the low density areas. And vice versa. How novel! How wonderful! What a GREAT solution.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
It works perfectly. The high density areas can make rules for themselves, but not for the low density areas. And vice versa. How novel! How wonderful! What a GREAT solution.
:D
What does this have to do with choosing a president?
The EC is used for nothing else.
-
Vader, your spelling is so poor that I cannot give enough credence to your arguments to reply in any length. I really can't take what is supposed to be an intellectual debate seriously when my opponent's posts are rife with misspellings; a clear indication that I'm dealing with one who is poorly educated and thus cannot hold an intelligent repartee. Ergo, any response I posted for you of any substance would be lost on your dull wit. So, for you, I keep my replies to your ignorant typing as succinct as possible.
-
You know before the 2000 election it was sometimes speculated that GWB would win the popular vote but that Gore would come out on top in electoral college votes.
Something makes me think that if that had happened some of you would feel much differently about the ec today - but of course you wont admit it.
Nonetheless whatever your view of the 2000 outcome - GWB did win the election according to the laws of the united sates and he is president today.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Vader, your spelling is so poor that I cannot give enough credence to your arguments to reply in any length. I really can't take what is supposed to be an intellectual debate seriously when my opponent's posts are rife with misspellings; a clear indication that I'm dealing with one who is poorly educated and thus cannot hold an intelligent repartee. Ergo, any response I posted for you of any substance would be lost on your dull wit. So, for you, I keep my replies to your ignorant typing as succinct as possible.
I am not so certain. In my experience, spelling is not necessarily indicative of poor education or lack of intelligence.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Opinion, not fact. There is the '91 Ceasefire terms argument. So far it hasn't been adjudicated and probably never will be.
This spin ain't gonna fly Toad...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What does this have to do with choosing a president?
The EC is used for nothing else.
Provides a system for President akin to the way we're all represented in Congress. It's pretty consistent, I think, throughout the Republic.
Of the three branches, the Legislative and Executive are both representative using different but similar systems. In fact, the Senate method and House method are sort of combined to create the Executive method.
Only the Judicial is not directly "representative" but BOTH the Legislative and Executive are necessary to create the Judicial.
I'm just in awe of this system. Sorry, I can't help it. The checks and balances are so kewl. :)
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
This spin ain't gonna fly Toad...
Well, go ahead and make the case that Hussein was not in violation of the '01 ceasefire then.
The argument is out there. You just don't agree with it in principle or concept and thus you brand it as a non-starter.
It's there. It's possible a case can be made. That's all I said.
Beyond that, the Congress undeniable gave Bush war powers. As the US is not subservient to the will of the UN, in the end the legality of the Iraq action IS in fact decided by our Congress.
So, the "illegal" charge was, is and remains either pointless or uninformed, your choice.
;)
-
Well, go ahead and make the case that Hussein was not in violation of the '01 ceasefire then.
Other way around. What was Hussein in violation of?.. WMD?.. not making full accounting of all WMD and delivery systems?.
Well it seems most of the dates and destruction locations are listed in the redacted 14,000 page report the Iraqis gave. The 8,000 pages the government won’t release. Even to the UN!
Beyond that, the Congress undeniable gave Bush war powers
Copy that!.. Congress gave Bush undeniable war powers to invade Canada!
As the US is not subservient to the will of the UN, in the end the legality of the Iraq action IS in fact decided by our Congress.
Yes and no Toad.. Yes Congress can cut off funding .. heck they can cut everything.. and no.. the whole thing with Iraq was a UN deal.... the first Gulf war.. this.. But this time the US stepped outta bounds.. We committed “Aggressive War”.. We got some co-conspirators Briton.. Spain.. 47 countries in all.. That just leaves 139 countries against.
I don’t know if you’ve seen these articles.. they’re from about a week or so ago.
Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of
Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at
home to Americans.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
[/i]
Ha-Ha-ha-ah-ha.. wouldn’t ya know it they took down the link already.. I got the rest of the article here if you hadn’t read it.
In explaining the gap between the prewar and postwar claims on Iraq's WMD, Dr Rice said the US was now seeing the programs in a different light. "The fact is that we are beginning to see a kind of pattern on how Iraq may have hidden its weapons of mass destruction from the outside world for all of
these years," she said this week.
According to Dr Rice, the weapons programs are "in bits and pieces" rather than assembled weapons. "You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there," she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal
by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities
[/i]
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/30/1051381997497.html
-
America's Right to Fight Iraq (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0813res.htm)
...The war ended not with a peace treaty but with a ceasefire. UN Resolution 686, passed on March 5 1991, demanded full compliance with all relevant resolutions as a condition of commencing the ceasefire. Iraq accepted this and there followed UN Resolution 687, passed on April 3 1991, that set out the full ceasefire terms and obligations to which Iraq had to adhere. This included a demand that Iraq unconditionally accept the destruction and elimi-nation of all of its WMD, and that it unconditionally undertake not to use, develop or acquire any items relevant to WMD.
Crucially, Resolution 687 was passed under UN "Chapter 7" authority dealing with threats to the peace. It does not in any way terminate the authorisation to use force in the earlier Resolution 678. That has to be seen as intentional.
...As recently as November 1998, the Security Council - in Resolution 1205 - ruled that Iraq was in "flagrant violation" of ceasefire Resolution 687. It continues to be. Iraq has behaved in a way that undermines the ceasefire terms and therefore the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678 can be revived....
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002) (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 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).
Like I said, the argument is definitely there and a case could be made. It'd take better legal minds than you and I to decide it, IMO.
Lastly, what part of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
and the bi-partisan vote giving Bush war powers still isn't clear?
-
Nice work toad. Its a damned dirty thankless little job, but someone has to do it.
:D
-
Iraq is in breach of many of these terms and its continued possession of elements of WMD constitutes a particularly offensive breach that must be seen as a threat to international peace and security.
Continued possession of elements of WMD?... Naw.. I can’t sell that. How can you prove a negative? You can’t. That’s why in a court of Law it’s always up to the accuser to bear the burden of proof.
Looks like now Scott Ritter and the weapons inspectors back in the 90’s were right. Most of the stuff was destroyed soon after gulf1 and the last suspected locations were hit during Desert Fox back in 1998.
and the bi-partisan vote giving Bush war powers still isn't clear?
I read what Congress gave him soon after 911. I was appalled. Even demos I like like John Kerry.. and the evil one.. that Hittelary. even she voted for it... No.. I’m not happy w/ the demos in Congress right now at all.. Tom Dash-hole.. boy... what a limp wrist.. We need somebody with fire in the belly.. a James Carville type, or even the Big Dawg himself ;)
-
#1. Haven't they found two of the mobil bioweapons labs that match the description Powell gave at the SC? Either one of those is technically a violation.
Further, it's only been a month.
Of course, it depends a lot on your definition of "is", right?
Originally posted by 10Bears
I read what Congress gave him soon after 911. I was appalled.
The Congressional vote giving Bush war powers against Iraq was October 2002.
Soon after 9/11? It was 13 months.
-
I think it's high time the Congress went back and re-evaluated the 1950 war powers act.
-
Basic problem is that Congress no longer has the brass to execute their Constitutional obligations with respect to warmaking.
I doubt that will change.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Basic problem is that Congress no longer has the brass to execute their Constitutional obligations with respect to warmaking.
I doubt that will change.
I do not doubt that you are correct.
-
Having congress consume precious time to debate whether to declare war in the age of instant information is perhaps a hindrance to the security of the nation. Especially in this era of radical religious WMD threats.
Giving the President the power to make war was the appropriate measure to take.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Continued possession of elements of WMD?... Naw.. I can’t sell that. How can you prove a negative? You can’t. That’s why in a court of Law it’s always up to the accuser to bear the burden of proof.
Never been audited by the IRS huh?
Auditor: "Show me that this deduction was not in violation."
Taxpayer: "uh yes sir, if you'll look at this column, you can see that..."
Folks do this everyday.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Giving the President the power to make war was the appropriate measure to take.
I disagree.
-
Congress had plenty of time to debate it and act though Yeager. In fact, I think the case could be made that Iraqi compliance might have been had without invasion.
Consider that while the UN SC machinations were going on, if Congress had gone ahead and actually declared war on Iraq (not just given him "war powers"), giving Bush the green light to engage Iraq when Bush felt that SC efforts had come to an impasse, then a very different atmosphere would have prevailed in the SC and in Baghdad.
Might have been able to get something done without invasion.
Might.
-
i totaly agree. for what its worth.