![]() | |
This is a discussion on Political history being re wrote as we watch within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) ...
| |||||||
| Politics Discuss government policies and candidates... |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN? |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
| ||||
| exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN? |
| |||
| exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN? Really? good luck, when you find it let me know Last edited by JRK; 10-27-2011 at 01:38 PM. |
| |||
| So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part Really? good luck, when you find it let me know Thought so. |
| |||
| JRK is the working American equivalent of Goebbels or a Streicher, defending the indefensible. Amazing. But he is, after all, a progressive right winger. |
| ||||
| Really? good luck, when you find it let me know Thought so. ![]() President Bush wanted a provision to include the use of military force, UN resolution 1441 was admitted to have been written very vague without a clear statement outlining if and the UN authority with reguard to the use of military force. Quote: Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own. International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq Maybe if you provided some "facts" yourself you might actually HAVE an argument. It appears you'd much rather just stict to some ideology "unsupported opinion" over anything else. You lost the argument here JakeStarkey with regard to any UN violation by President Bush, you haven't been able to prove you can redeem yourself, now move along to another thread
__________________ Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth” ― George Washington "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'” ― Thomas Jefferson "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America." ― James Madison Last edited by ShaklesOfBigGov; 10-28-2011 at 08:29 AM. |
| |||
| [quote=ShaklesOfBigGov;4330692] So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part Really? good luck, when you find it let me know Thought so. [/QUOTEAre you still rambling on? Did you even READ the acrticle pertaining to UNresolution 1441, or do you normally waste people's time going on about your ideological belief without backing it up? Where are the facts for the basis of your arguments? President Bush wanted a provision to include the use of military force, UN resolution 1441 was admitted to have been written very vague without a clear statement outlining if and the UN authority with reguard to the use of military force. Quote: Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own. International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq Maybe if you provided some "facts" yourself you might actually HAVE an argument. It appears you'd much rather just stict to some ideology "unsupported opinion" over anything else. You lost the argument here JakeStarkey with regard to any UN violation by President Bush, you haven't been able to prove you can redeem yourself, now move along to another thread ![]() we hold no allaince to any-one but the people for the people, by the people it would not matter, your thread is so true and spot on. The left is so scared people will find out the truth Obama was elected on lies, this 7 year lie is the biggest. The US senate voted on the same information W had and the UN had in October of 2002 to attack Saddam if he did not to adhere to UN resolutions as they pertained to Iraq On 1-27-2003 hans blix stated such, we invaded 8 weeks later. Thats all there is to it |
| ||||
| [quote=JRK;4331251] You, in other words, know full well that you can't prove the US has immunity from violating interational treaties concerning the law of war in Iraq. Thought so. [/QUOTEAre you still rambling on? Did you even READ the acrticle pertaining to UNresolution 1441, or do you normally waste people's time going on about your ideological belief without backing it up? Where are the facts for the basis of your arguments? President Bush wanted a provision to include the use of military force, UN resolution 1441 was admitted to have been written very vague without a clear statement outlining if and the UN authority with reguard to the use of military force. I even increased the font for you to make it easier for you to read, since you like to simply skip over information thats been provided to you. There are the facts. Case closed, end of discussion. Maybe if you provided some "facts" yourself you might actually HAVE an argument. It appears you'd much rather just stict to some ideology "unsupported opinion" over anything else. You lost the argument here JakeStarkey with regard to any UN violation by President Bush, you haven't been able to prove you can redeem yourself, now move along to another thread ![]() we hold no allaince to any-one but the people for the people, by the people it would not matter, your thread is so true and spot on. The left is so scared people will find out the truth Obama was elected on lies, this 7 year lie is the biggest. The US senate voted on the same information W had and the UN had in October of 2002 to attack Saddam if he did not to adhere to UN resolutions as they pertained to Iraq On 1-27-2003 hans blix stated such, we invaded 8 weeks later. Thats all there is to it Political history being re wrote as we watch Did they ever find the huge stockpile of newly produced WMD that the Bush Administration claimed was a dire threat to the worlds remaining superpower?
__________________ A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane |
| |||
| [quote=BlindBoo;4331324] shack those guys make it up as they go we hold no allaince to any-one but the people for the people, by the people it would not matter, your thread is so true and spot on. The left is so scared people will find out the truth Obama was elected on lies, this 7 year lie is the biggest. The US senate voted on the same information W had and the UN had in October of 2002 to attack Saddam if he did not to adhere to UN resolutions as they pertained to Iraq On 1-27-2003 hans blix stated such, we invaded 8 weeks later. Thats all there is to it Political history being re wrote as we watch Did they ever find the huge stockpile of newly produced WMD that the Bush Administration claimed was a dire threat to the worlds remaining superpower? 1) the UN resolution was for Saddam to resolve the issue without fault. 10 years later there was so much that was still not known 2) the 500 junk missiles proves that. no resolution mandated the shape or age of the items Saddam was to document and destroy. there are 6000 still un accounted for per HIS CLAIM and it is the very reaon we invaded 3) GWB claimed nothing, the UN made those claims based on what Saddam claimed as did many others, including Kerry 1-2003. GWB, Kerry, every-one was repeating what the UN had documented from 1991 Last edited by JRK; 10-28-2011 at 10:48 AM. |
| ||||
| [quote=JRK;4331468] I truly love how you pseudo's ignore that which does not agree with you. Political history being re wrote as we watch Did they ever find the huge stockpile of newly produced WMD that the Bush Administration claimed was a dire threat to the worlds remaining superpower? 1) the UN resolution was for Saddam to resolve the issue without fault. 10 years later there was so much that was still not known 2) the 500 junk missiles proves that. no resolution mandated the shape or age of the items Saddam was to document and destroy. there are 6000 still un accounted for per HIS CLAIM and it is the very reaon we invaded 3) GWB claimed nothing, the UN made those claims based on what Saddam claimed as did many others, including Kerry 1-2003. GWB, Kerry, every-one was repeating what the UN had documented from 1991 The UN? Really? I never heard them ever say these: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. " "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. " "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. " "We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -GWB "We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -rummy And the answer is, "No they never found any stock piles of newly created WMD"!
__________________ A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane |
| |||
| [quote=BlindBoo;4331725] This si the largest lie of all 1) the UN resolution was for Saddam to resolve the issue without fault. 10 years later there was so much that was still not known 2) the 500 junk missiles proves that. no resolution mandated the shape or age of the items Saddam was to document and destroy. there are 6000 still un accounted for per HIS CLAIM and it is the very reaon we invaded 3) GWB claimed nothing, the UN made those claims based on what Saddam claimed as did many others, including Kerry 1-2003. GWB, Kerry, every-one was repeating what the UN had documented from 1991 The UN? Really? I never heard them ever say these: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. " "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. " "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. " "We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -GWB "We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -rummy And the answer is, "No they never found any stock piles of newly created WMD"! when did this speech take place what was the date this intel was collected Un-like Obama, Bush did this in the public. He bombed Somaolia as an attack on Al-Qaeda. You think Saddam just sit while we waited for the UN to end this mess? Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun saddam moved weapons - Bing Videos Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD PJ Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria No-one but Saddam knew the truth. Why was it 550 metric tons of yeloow cake sit in Iraq until 2008? Why is it GWB needed ti lie? the truth was good enough and the truth was the reason we invaded That intel was not from GWB personal file, that intel went to everyone that mattered You keep trying to re direct the debate to events that have 2 sides to that story. Your problem is you ignore the side that makes sense and had history on its side in 2003 to be correct as my thread states, history, the truth will be re written. Its to late, it got BHO elected and we are now paying for it |
| ||||
| [quote=JRK;4331835] Your re-write is debunked again. The UN? Really? I never heard them ever say these: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. " "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. " "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. " "We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -GWB "We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -rummy And the answer is, "No they never found any stock piles of newly created WMD"! when did this speech take place what was the date this intel was collected Un-like Obama, Bush did this in the public. He bombed Somaolia as an attack on Al-Qaeda. You think Saddam just sit while we waited for the UN to end this mess? Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun saddam moved weapons - Bing Videos Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD PJ Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria No-one but Saddam knew the truth. Why was it 550 metric tons of yeloow cake sit in Iraq until 2008? Why is it GWB needed ti lie? the truth was good enough and the truth was the reason we invaded That intel was not from GWB personal file, that intel went to everyone that mattered You keep trying to re direct the debate to events that have 2 sides to that story. Your problem is you ignore the side that makes sense and had history on its side in 2003 to be correct as my thread states, history, the truth will be re written. Its to late, it got BHO elected and we are now paying for it Those are quotes from various speeches. Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD. I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write.
__________________ A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane |
| |||
| [quote=BlindBoo;4331940] and your point is? when did this speech take place what was the date this intel was collected Un-like Obama, Bush did this in the public. He bombed Somaolia as an attack on Al-Qaeda. You think Saddam just sit while we waited for the UN to end this mess? Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun saddam moved weapons - Bing Videos Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD PJ Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria No-one but Saddam knew the truth. Why was it 550 metric tons of yeloow cake sit in Iraq until 2008? Why is it GWB needed ti lie? the truth was good enough and the truth was the reason we invaded That intel was not from GWB personal file, that intel went to everyone that mattered You keep trying to re direct the debate to events that have 2 sides to that story. Your problem is you ignore the side that makes sense and had history on its side in 2003 to be correct as my thread states, history, the truth will be re written. Its to late, it got BHO elected and we are now paying for it Those are quotes from various speeches. Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD. I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write. Saddam buried fighter jets Boo, is this a manned delivary tool? any way Boo I have never tried to de bunk what we found, all I have ever done is offer what the whole story is, not the story that was told after 3-2003 and even some of that never gets told |
| ||||
| [quote=JRK;4332047] Saddam buried fighter jets Boo, is this a manned delivary tool? any way Boo I have never tried to de bunk what we found, all I have ever done is offer what the whole story is, not the story that was told after 3-2003 and even some of that never gets told
__________________ A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane |
![]() |
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Search tags for this page |
shaklesofbiggov $820 billion iraq
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.
|