US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Political history being re wrote as we watch

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) ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #346 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2011, 10:12 AM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.
exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?
Reply With Quote
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!
  #347 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2011, 01:21 PM
idb's Avatar
idb idb is offline
Registered User
Member #27296
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arrowtown, New Zealand
Posts: 5,856
Thanks: 258
Thanked 946 Times in 745 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 604
idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.
exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?
Charter of the United Nations
Reply With Quote
  #348 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2011, 01:37 PM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by idb View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.
exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?
Charter of the United Nations
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

Last edited by JRK; 10-27-2011 at 01:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #349 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2011, 01:44 PM
idb's Avatar
idb idb is offline
Registered User
Member #27296
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arrowtown, New Zealand
Posts: 5,856
Thanks: 258
Thanked 946 Times in 745 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 604
idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet idb is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by idb View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?
Charter of the United Nations
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
No
Reply With Quote
  #350 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2011, 08:46 PM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 69,068
Thanks: 10,049
Thanked 11,121 Times in 8,592 Posts
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 17938
JakeStarkey has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by idb View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?
Charter of the United Nations
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
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.
__________________
Yurt and Antares admitted they lied that I, a life long Republican, voted for Obama. No evidence. Here are the links that show that lying is the only way they can think of getting at me.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/health...uctible-4.html ; http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-fl...-s-lies-5.html ; http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-fl...blican-18.html
Reply With Quote
  #351 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2011, 08:47 PM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 69,068
Thanks: 10,049
Thanked 11,121 Times in 8,592 Posts
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 17938
JakeStarkey has disabled reputation
JRK is the working American equivalent of Goebbels or a Streicher, defending the indefensible. Amazing. But he is, after all, a progressive right winger.
__________________
Yurt and Antares admitted they lied that I, a life long Republican, voted for Obama. No evidence. Here are the links that show that lying is the only way they can think of getting at me.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/health...uctible-4.html ; http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-fl...-s-lies-5.html ; http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-fl...blican-18.html
Reply With Quote
  #352 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 08:23 AM
ShaklesOfBigGov's Avatar
Restore the Republic
Member #26151
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Washington D.C.
Posts: 2,373
Thanks: 1,049
Thanked 608 Times in 488 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 852
ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve
ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve ShaklesOfBigGov could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by idb View Post
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
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.
Are 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
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
__________________
"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would have never placed my signature to it.
.... I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against...every species of religious persecution."

― George Washington - May 10, 1789

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #353 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 10:18 AM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
[quote=ShaklesOfBigGov;4330692]
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

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
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. [/QUOTE

Are 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
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
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
Reply With Quote
  #354 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 10:27 AM
BlindBoo's Avatar
Registered User
Member #25197
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,811
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 2,284 Times in 1,759 Posts
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1294
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
[quote=JRK;4331251]
Quote: Originally Posted by ShaklesOfBigGov View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post

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. [/QUOTE

Are 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
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
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?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #355 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 10:46 AM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
[quote=BlindBoo;4331324]
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ShaklesOfBigGov View Post

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
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?
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

Last edited by JRK; 10-28-2011 at 10:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #356 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 11:32 AM
BlindBoo's Avatar
Registered User
Member #25197
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,811
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 2,284 Times in 1,759 Posts
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1294
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
[quote=JRK;4331468]
Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

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?
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
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"!
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #357 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 11:50 AM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
[quote=BlindBoo;4331725]
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo View Post

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
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"!
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
Reply With Quote
  #358 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 12:08 PM
BlindBoo's Avatar
Registered User
Member #25197
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,811
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 2,284 Times in 1,759 Posts
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1294
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
[quote=JRK;4331835]
Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

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"!
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
The point is Bush did in fact make claims that the UN did not.

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
Reply With Quote
  #359 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 12:25 PM
JRK JRK is offline
Registered User
Member #28394
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,488
Thanks: 850
Thanked 636 Times in 472 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 330
JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness JRK may be on a path to greatness
[quote=BlindBoo;4331940]
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo View Post

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
The point is Bush did in fact make claims that the UN did not.

Those are quotes from various speeches.

Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD.

I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write.
It is easy to debunk with 1/2 of the story boo
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
Reply With Quote
  #360 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2011, 12:43 PM
BlindBoo's Avatar
Registered User
Member #25197
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,811
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 2,284 Times in 1,759 Posts
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1294
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court BlindBoo could be on the Supreme Court
[quote=JRK;4332047]
Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JRK View Post

The point is Bush did in fact make claims that the UN did not.

Those are quotes from various speeches.

Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD.

I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write.
It is easy to debunk with 1/2 of the story boo
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
You do not offer the whole story. You never answer the question. Did we find the WMD programs or stockpiles the Bush Administration claimed Iraq had?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.