Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia?

[Merlin1047]

Why?

Why? That's easy. Because it is apparent from your nonsensical posts that the rest of us are one hell of a lot better read and far more capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion than you, that's why. You aren't even smart enough to recognize the fact that you have made a complete ass of yourself and you obviously lack the grace to be embarrassed by it, even if you woke up and got a clue. Garbledella, you were just born too late. You would fit in with the half-naked, unwashed, commune living, free love, drug using, dumbass hippies of the '60s.

next question?

 

[IControlThePast]

What UN resolutions did we violate by attacking Iraq?

Article 2 of the UN charter: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Attacking Iraq was violence against Iraq, but it was a warning to saudi arabia. Diplomacy doesn't work with proven repeat liars who only respect violence.

It certainly hasn't made SA stop their Terrorist practices. If SA is the head anyways why not just take off the head. If the body doesn't die, then it is a more effective warning to the body. Either way you're doing the same violence, just one way costs less because it probably won't require future violence.

So you're for attacking Saudi arabia? Sure you are. We're getting crap from libs about deposing saddam despite multiple U.N. resolution violations, proven genocide against his people, rape rooms, tyranny, abetting global terrorism etc. You think taking out Saudi Arabia would have been politically easier?

Most of the crap you're getting is because we didn't really have an exit strategy, there are better targets out there we could have hit, and we didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts to fund it. I'm sure there are better targets that we could convince the UN to attack, even if they wouldn't accept SA. At least we shouldn't fund and be friends with the head of the Terrorist beast.

Yeah. It didn't violence was eventually necessary. It may eventually be against the saudis as well. You seem awfully hawkish about Saudi Arabia. You're lying.

At least don't pretend we're friends now if violence could be necessary in the future if SA's behavior doesn't change.

We can't do them all at once. you're not for this anyway. this is what I mean by no core. If bush said we were doing all this tomorrow, you and your cohorts would be ag'in' it.

That's because I explicitly said I'm not for doing any of it right now. These are all much better alternatives to attacking Iraq.

This sort of capricious enforcement is not acceptable in a global body which wishes to retain any legitimacy.

Correct. I'm no supporter of the UN, although one could say the same thing about US laws, generally supported by conservatives, that aren't well enforced or are impossible to enforce.

No we didn't. We picked up the slack when the U.N. failed due to it's corrupt leadership. The world should be thanking us for our brave action.

So if any country picked up slack because the UN didn't attack us after violating the charter they would be justified and should be thanked by the world? The charter violations aren't what make Saddam bad and us good. It was his human rights violations and being a Dictator.

You know this is a lie. Your party is obsessed with bringing down Bush over national security.

You do know I am actually a member of the Republican party, right? I'm a liberal and member of the Rep party. I want the old Republican party back that was for fiscal conservatism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Article 2 of the UN charter: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

that's not a U.N. resolution. Plus, it's wishful pie in the sky thinking . "can't we just all get along."

It certainly hasn't made SA stop their Terrorist practices.

true.

If SA is the head anyways why not just take off the head.

It would be too politically and diplomatically upsetting to libs and the mideast. We've been over this.

If the body doesn't die, then it is a more effective warning to the body. Either way you're doing the same violence, just one way costs less because it probably won't require future violence.

Or we could send a warning and hope they may see our resolve. At least with saddam we had the multiple violated resolutions and the intelligence services of many countries to back our case.

Most of the crap you're getting is because we didn't really have an exit strategy, there are better targets out there we could have hit, and we didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts to fund it. I'm sure there are better targets that we could convince the UN to attack, even if they wouldn't accept SA. At least we shouldn't fund and be friends with the head of the Terrorist beast.

The exit strategy is victory. Putting out an arbitrary timeline just to put one out tells the terrorist all they must do is wait us out.

At least don't pretend we're friends now if violence could be necessary in the future if SA's behavior doesn't change.





That's because I explicitly said I'm not for doing any of it right now. These are all much better alternatives to attacking Iraq.

poor poor ictp. You just don't understand the intricate web of international diplomacy and relations do you. I admire the simplicity of your view. It's just not practical.

Correct. I'm no supporter of the UN, although one could say the same thing about US laws, generally supported by conservatives, that aren't well enforced or are impossible to enforce.



So if any country picked up slack because the UN didn't attack us after violating the charter they would be justified and should be thanked by the world? The charter violations aren't what make Saddam bad and us good. It was his human rights violations and being a Dictator.

In this case yes. The charter is a pipe dream.

You do know I am actually a member of the Republican party, right? I'm a liberal and member of the Rep party. I want the old Republican party back that was for fiscal conservatism.

YOu should join the dems. They more accurately reflect your views and thoughts.

 

[5stringJeff]

Article 2 of the UN charter: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

According to this, no member nation could ever participate in any war ever - and the UN could not sanction any military actions either. (Read: Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.). Not only is this unenforceable, it's unrealistic.

 

[Gabriella84]

You know this is a lie. Your party is obsessed with bringing down Bush over national security.

I don't have a party. You have a party. I don't allow other people to tell me what to think and who to support. That is for Republicans.

Why? That's easy. Because it is apparent from your nonsensical posts that the rest of us are one hell of a lot better read and far more capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion than you, that's why. You aren't even smart enough to recognize the fact that you have made a complete ass of yourself and you obviously lack the grace to be embarrassed by it, even if you woke up and got a clue. Garbledella, you were just born too late. You would fit in with the half-naked, unwashed, commune living, free love, drug using, dumbass hippies of the '60s.

I sincerely hope you do not have children.

 

[manu1959]

I don't have a party. You have a party. I don't allow other people to tell me what to think and who to support. That is for Republicans.

where do you get your information then? can't be from an outside source as any outside source would influence your thinking and destory your purity thus you wouldn't be thinking for yourself


aslo you should have a party...you would be happier

 

[Merlin1047]

I sincerely hope you do not have children.

Oh, ow ow ow. Another good one. You must have that committee working overtime. Is being a whiney, pathetic bitch something you do professionally, or is it just a hobby?

 

[Merlin1047]

I don't have a party. You have a party. I don't allow other people to tell me what to think and who to support. That is for Republicans.

Bullshit. You haven't had a single thought that didn't come from the DU or Moveon. You're nothing but a shill.

 

[IControlThePast]

According to this, no member nation could ever participate in any war ever - and the UN could not sanction any military actions either. (Read: Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.). Not only is this unenforceable, it's unrealistic.

that's not a U.N. resolution. Plus, it's wishful pie in the sky thinking . "can't we just all get along."

It's the charter. The UN has been idealistic from the outset, but all disputes between UN member nations are supposed to be solved by the UN, which means that we'd need a UN sanctioned force to attack Iraq. The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter.

It would be too politically and diplomatically upsetting to libs and the mideast. We've been over this.

Why would they be more upset over losing SA than Iraq? More news: you don't have to worry about upsetting libs anymore. Look whose got the presidency and congress. Back when the Iraq War was authorized I don't think you had to worry about libs either.

Or we could send a warning and hope they may see our resolve. At least with saddam we had the multiple violated resolutions and the intelligence services of many countries to back our case.

We never did sell or win the Saddam case. The UN didn't buy it.

The exit strategy is victory. Putting out an arbitrary timeline just to put one out tells the terrorist all they must do is wait us out.

poor poor ictp. You just don't understand the intricate web of international diplomacy and relations do you. I admire the simplicity of your view. It's just not practical.

Oh I understand it. Making ourselves dependant upon our enemy's resources for a low cost of living is not a good thing.

In this case yes. The charter is a pipe dream.

Most of the UN is looking like a pipe dream, but the same goes in the case for UN resolutions.

YOu should join the dems. They more accurately reflect your views and thoughts.

The only real important thing to me is the economy, instead of domestic issues when I vote. I thought the Republicans were supposedly the party of the balanced budget, although it's looking like you're right and that's changing.

 

[Stephanie]

You are a perfect example of why the University of Berkley should be shut down...it was a great University about 40 yrs ago...now all they teach is children like you to protest...you have no idea why you protest...just that you are supposed to! When you graduate and get your so called degree...why don't you join the military...get a commission and do something usefull for once in your life!
ps: do they still teach spitting 101?...I got my share of y'all Berkley spitters during the Vietnam era!!!!

Very well said archanel. I agree. I'd like to :spank3: but it would be a waste of time.. so instead let them just keep showing their :moon4:

 

[Comrade]

It's the charter. The UN has been idealistic from the outset, but all disputes between UN member nations are supposed to be solved by the UN, which means that we'd need a UN sanctioned force to attack Iraq. The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter.

Why should the worlds' security be decided by a slew of government appointees, especially if the bulk of these are speaking for the remaining dictatorships of the world who worry immensely over the liberation of Iraq?

Why would they be more upset over losing SA than Iraq?

Because SA claims the home of Muslim religion, and is accepted as such among the Muslim world.

More news: you don't have to worry about upsetting libs anymore. Look whose got the presidency and congress. Back when the Iraq War was authorized I don't think you had to worry about libs either.

We as a group don't worry much over a Liberal takeover of the government in America. The leader of the opposing party, Howard Dean, continously assures us of that fact.

We never did sell or win the Saddam case. The UN didn't buy it.

No, France, Russia, and China didn't desire it because of the large outstanding balance Saddam Hussein owed to these three countries during the time he was manipulating the Oil for Food Scandal which is public news at this time.

Oh I understand it. Making ourselves dependant upon our enemy's resources for a low cost of living is not a good thing.

Our Enemy, being the Saudi Regime? That is, of course, the presumed target the left decided should be the alternate target since the start of 9-11. (the primary one being America itself). Well, why not, except for the massive political and economic instability such a war would inflict upon the West. Which is, of course, exactly what the left desires in pursuit of the destruction of the USA system. How typical. What I mean is, if we had attacked Saudi Arabia from the beginning of 9-11, the complaints from the left would have multiplied into a scream of intolerable proportions, and of course, Bush would have lost the 2004 elections... as the left primarily desires over all other concerns.

Most of the UN is looking like a pipe dream, but the same goes in the case for UN resolutions.

Except you claim that "The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter." Oh, that a great idea. Let's put all force in the hands of the worlds administration, mostly chosen by dictatorial regimes.

The only real important thing to me is the economy, instead of domestic issues when I vote.

And yet you've debated me endlessly over the legal rights deserved to Gitmo detainees.

I thought the Republicans were supposedly the party of the balanced budget, although it's looking like you're right and that's changing.

A balanced budget in wartime? Which Democrat even remotely managed such an accomplishment?

 

[Stephanie]

Why should the worlds' security be decided by a slew of government appointees, especially if the bulk of these are speaking for the remaining dictatorships of the world who worry immensely over the liberation of Iraq?



Because SA claims the home of Muslim religion, and is accepted as such among the Muslim world.



We as a group don't worry much over a Liberal takeover of the government in America. The leader of the opposing party, Howard Dean, continously assures us of that fact.



No, France, Russia, and China didn't desire it because of the large outstanding balance Saddam Hussein owed to these three countries during the time he was manipulating the Oil for Food Scandal which is public news at this time.



Our Enemy, being the Saudi Regime? That is, of course, the presumed target the left decided should be the alternate target since the start of 9-11. (the primary one being America itself). Well, why not, except for the massive political and economic instability such a war would inflict upon the West. Which is, of course, exactly what the left desires in pursuit of the destruction of the USA system. How typical. What I mean is, if we had attacked Saudi Arabia from the beginning of 9-11, the complaints from the left would have multiplied into a scream of intolerable proportions, and of course, Bush would have lost the 2004 elections... as the left primarily desires over all other concerns.



Except you claim that "The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter." Oh, that a great idea. Let's put all force in the hands of the worlds administration, mostly chosen by dictatorial regimes.




And yet you've debated me endlessly over the legal rights deserved to Gitmo detainees.



A balanced budget in wartime? Which Democrat even remotely managed such an accomplishment?

Look at the goshdarn democratic party, underminding the war on terror, playing right into their hands. Calling for a time of exit, calling the prisions a gulag, and we're worse than hiltler. The goddamm terreriost are jumping for joy seeing this. These people make me sick

 

[Annie]

It's the charter. The UN has been idealistic from the outset, but all disputes between UN member nations are supposed to be solved by the UN, which means that we'd need a UN sanctioned force to attack Iraq. The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter.



Why would they be more upset over losing SA than Iraq? More news: you don't have to worry about upsetting libs anymore. Look whose got the presidency and congress. Back when the Iraq War was authorized I don't think you had to worry about libs either.



We never did sell or win the Saddam case. The UN didn't buy it.



Oh I understand it. Making ourselves dependant upon our enemy's resources for a low cost of living is not a good thing.



Most of the UN is looking like a pipe dream, but the same goes in the case for UN resolutions.



The only real important thing to me is the economy, instead of domestic issues when I vote. I thought the Republicans were supposedly the party of the balanced budget, although it's looking like you're right and that's changing.

See Jeff's comment about Bosnia, the UN never did act. Have you heard of Darfur? Still nothing. Remember Rwanda? Think nothing. Time and time again, UN unable to act. Sorry, like the Constitution, the UN is not supposed to be a suicide pact.

 

[IControlThePast]

See Jeff's comment about Bosnia, the UN never did act. Have you heard of Darfur? Still nothing. Remember Rwanda? Think nothing. Time and time again, UN unable to act. Sorry, like the Constitution, the UN is not supposed to be a suicide pact.

Why should the worlds' security be decided by a slew of government appointees, especially if the bulk of these are speaking for the remaining dictatorships of the world who worry immensely over the liberation of Iraq?

Except you claim that "The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter." Oh, that a great idea. Let's put all force in the hands of the worlds administration, mostly chosen by dictatorial regimes.

It shouldn't be decided by the UN. I'm no fan of the UN, so I don't know why you keep talking about how ineffective or idealistic it is. There's no disagreement there. But as I've been saying all along you can't seriously claim "look Iraq didn't comply with the UN" and then go violate the UN charter.

Because SA claims the home of Muslim religion, and is accepted as such among the Muslim world.

We could take em. I've got nothing against Islam, but Radical Islam is the main threat in the world today.

No, France, Russia, and China didn't desire it because of the large outstanding balance Saddam Hussein owed to these three countries during the time he was manipulating the Oil for Food Scandal which is public news at this time.

We still never did sell whatever case we made, even if you would could claim it was a better case. Maybe what you're saying is that these countries would not have had such a large oustanding balance with other potential targets in the Middle East and be more likely to vote to send a UN force there?

Our Enemy, being the Saudi Regime? That is, of course, the presumed target the left decided should be the alternate target since the start of 9-11. (the primary one being America itself). Well, why not, except for the massive political and economic instability such a war would inflict upon the West. Which is, of course, exactly what the left desires in pursuit of the destruction of the USA system. How typical. What I mean is, if we had attacked Saudi Arabia from the beginning of 9-11, the complaints from the left would have multiplied into a scream of intolerable proportions, and of course, Bush would have lost the 2004 elections... as the left primarily desires over all other concerns.

Hmmm, I was going by rtwngAvnger's presumption that the Saudi Regime is the head of the beast. I personally think that Iran would have been a better target than SA. It has people with much more exposure to American culture, conveniently borders Afghanistan, and that WMD thing.

A louder Dean scream doesn't mean they would have been elected. Any war in the Middle East is going to create political and economic instability both there and in the West. Oh, and that Democrats primary desire is still to win the 2000 election .

And yet you've debated me endlessly over the legal rights deserved to Gitmo detainees.

A balanced budget in wartime? Which Democrat even remotely managed such an accomplishment?

I wanted to learn about the legal rights of detainees at Gitmo. I don't vote based on "morals" or value systems of the leader which never will make there way down through legislation some how. Maybe in a Supreme Court justice if they get very lucky.

I don't think any have, but which one cut taxes in wartime? About 40% of our budget defecit comes from the tax cuts said the CBO. Most of the rest comes from the war.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It shouldn't be decided by the UN. I'm no fan of the UN, so I don't know why you keep talking about how ineffective or idealistic it is. There's no disagreement there. But as I've been saying all along you can't seriously claim "look Iraq didn't comply with the UN" and then go violate the UN charter.

And you want to hold us to the charter and ignore the resolutions. It's a conundrum on both sides. Our position just happens to be what is best for the U.S. and the civilized world. Yours is what is best for barbaric mideast theocracies.

We could take em. I've got nothing against Islam, but Radical Islam is the main threat in the world today.



We still never did sell whatever case we made, even if you would could claim it was a better case. Maybe what you're saying is that these countries would not have had such a large oustanding balance with other potential targets in the Middle East and be more likely to vote to send a UN force there?

the case was rock solid. The un was on the take from saddam. What's wrong with your brain?

Hmmm, I was going by rtwngAvnger's presumption that the Saudi Regime is the head of the beast. I personally think that Iran would have been a better target than SA. It has people with much more exposure to American culture, conveniently borders Afghanistan, and that WMD thing.

Right. You would have been all for an iranian invasion. No one believes you, fake republican. Your cover is blown.

A louder Dean scream doesn't mean they would have been elected. Any war in the Middle East is going to create political and economic instability both there and in the West. Oh, and that Democrats primary desire is still to win the 2000 election .



I wanted to learn about the legal rights of detainees at Gitmo. I don't vote based on "morals" or value systems of the leader which never will make there way down through legislation some how. Maybe in a Supreme Court justice if they get very lucky.

No. You vote based on value systems of leaders who will appoint judges who make hair brained, legally indefensible positions, hallucinating rights into the constitution that aren't there.

I don't think any have, but which one cut taxes in wartime? About 40% of our budget defecit comes from the tax cuts said the CBO. Most of the rest comes from the war.

Or from spending. Which one you cite right now indicates which one you'd like to eliminate. You want to eliminate the tax cut instead of the spending. You're such a fraud. there's no part of you that's republican.

 

[IControlThePast]

And you want to hold us to the charter and ignore the resolutions. It's a conundrum on both sides. Our position just happens to be what is best for the U.S. and the civilized world. Yours is what is best for barbaric mideast theocracies.

No, I don't want to hold us to the charter and I want to ignore the resolutions. You want to ignore the charter but hold the resolutions. You're in the conundrum. So you're saying attacking these theocracies are what's best for them? Then why don't you want to leave them alone?

the case was rock solid. The un was on the take from saddam. What's wrong with your brain?

I don't know, maybe if I saw some evidence that we won the case, resulting in UN military action against Iraq. I seem to have missed that part. The verdict was "not guilty" whether the jury was bribed or not. If you're going to do something to someone who is actually guilty, but isjudged "not guilty", you don't have to particularly worry about providing a convincing case about them (to the UN).

Right. You would have been all for an iranian invasion. No one believes you, fake republican. Your cover is blown.

No, I probably would have called for balancing the budget or a UN action/large coalition that would have kept costs way down. If it was decided we had to attack someone, I would have chosen Iran or SA instead of Iraq.

No. You vote based on value systems of leaders who will appoint judges who make hair brained, legally indefensible positions, hallucinating rights into the constitution that aren't there.

No I don't, I vote basically on the Economy only. I don't care about all these "value" systems. I'm not gay, I can't have an abortion, I'll own a gun or do drugs whether they're legal or not. If legal consequences dictate a course of action then it doesn't matter what's "right," it's only "wrong" if you get caught and convicted. I'll stick to my own moral code, not the governments.

Or from spending. Which one you cite right now indicates which one you'd like to eliminate. You want to eliminate the tax cut instead of the spending. You're such a fraud. there's no part of you that's republican.

Really, where did I say I didn't want to eliminate spending. I'm a Republican because I believe in the Laffer curve. That's the basic premise behind taxation, and the Bush administration argued we were on the right hand side of it. Well guess what, now we're farther away from the middle on the left hand side than we were before. You do notice that all of these attacks are alternatives to the War on Iraq. Our defense spending could use quite a bit of cutting.

What you're saying is that you're a true Republican unlike me, because you want your warning to be expensive multiple wars instead of inexpensive diplomatic action. Right .

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I don't want to hold us to the charter and I want to ignore the resolutions. You want to ignore the charter but hold the resolutions. You're in the conundrum. So you're saying attacking these theocracies are what's best for them? Then why don't you want to leave them alone?

Whatever. Why did you bring up the charter then, just to hear your gums flap? You're all over the map.

I'm saying deposing these theocracies will stop these imams from brainwashing their poverty stricken victims with nothing but xenophobia and an irrational fear of modernity, turning them into human bullets against the west.

I don't know, maybe if I saw some evidence that we won the case, resulting in UN military action against Iraq. I seem to have missed that part. The verdict was "not guilty" whether the jury was bribed or not. If you're going to do something to someone who is actually guilty, but isjudged "not guilty", you don't have to particularly worry about providing a convincing case about them (to the UN).

Case? The u.n. is not a court of law. And our "allies" in the u.n. were fully behind controlling soddam until it came time to actually do something. Then they rallied the world to not support us in doing what needed to be done, which coincidentally would also just have been a simple enforcement of resolutions.

No, I probably would have called for balancing the budget or a UN action/large coalition that would have kept costs way down. If it was decided we had to attack someone, I would have chosen Iran or SA instead of Iraq.

We worked through the U.N. until it was obvious they were never going to enforce resolutions. And we did have a coalition of about thirty nations. You need education severely. This was not that long ago. Do you have alzheimers?

No I don't, I vote basically on the Economy only. I don't care about all these "value" systems. I'm not gay, I can't have an abortion, I'll own a gun or do drugs whether they're legal or not. If legal consequences dictate a course of action then it doesn't matter what's "right," it's only "wrong" if you get caught and convicted. I'll stick to my own moral code, not the governments.

Economy is not fully separated from values. the best "value system" as you call it: freedom, is also the best economic one: capitalism.

Really, where did I say I didn't want to eliminate spending.

I assumed it when you posted propaganda saying tax cuts were the problem. Sorry. People will make assumptions about you consisten with the ideas you post.

I'm a Republican because I believe in the Laffer curve. That's the basic premise behind taxation, and the Bush administration argued we were on the right hand side of it. Well guess what, now we're farther away from the middle on the left hand side than we were before. You do notice that all of these attacks are alternatives to the War on Iraq. Our defense spending could use quite a bit of cutting.

You make me laff.

What you're saying is that you're a true Republican unlike me, because you want your warning to be expensive multiple wars instead of inexpensive diplomatic action. Right .

I want my warning to be one the enemy actually respects and fears. Plus, saddam was a bad bad man, and yes we should go after other tyrants when the time and budget is right.

 

[IControlThePast]

Whatever. Why did you bring up the charter then, just to hear your gums flap? You're all over the map.

Why did I bring up the charter, simple.

You want to ignore the charter but hold the resolutions. You're in the conundrum.

It's because we didn't really attack Iraq because they violated UN resolutions. You can't seriously say "look they violated resolutions" and then go violate the charter.

I'm saying deposing these theocracies will stop these imams from brainwashing their poverty stricken victims with nothing but xenophobia and an irrational fear of modernity, turning them into human bullets against the west.

So then why are you against deposing these Theocracies, as my position is and, as you claimed was beneficial for the Theocracies.

Case? The u.n. is not a court of law. And our "allies" in the u.n. were fully behind controlling soddam until it came time to actually do something. Then they rallied the world to not support us in doing what needed to be done, which coincidentally would also just have been a simple enforcement of resolutions.

The "case" as you first put it and used the analogy, is for the UN to attack Iraq. Would you like to address:

If you're going to do something to someone who is actually guilty, but is judged "not guilty", you don't have to particularly worry about providing a convincing case about them

or just concede that point?

We worked through the U.N. until it was obvious they were never going to enforce resolutions. And we did have a coalition of about thirty nations. You need education severely. This was not that long ago. Do you have alzheimers?

Actually I believe the Coalition was about 40 nations, and guess what. We didn't provide only 1/40th of the armed forces and funding. I'd be ok with a Coalition of 5 nations if we only had to provide 1/5th the manpower and funding. Apparently our Coalition of 40 wasn't quite large enough to meet their side of that figure.

Economy is not fully separated from values. the best "value system" as you call it: freedom, is also the best economic one: capitalism.

Oddly some people seem to think that freedom isn't the best value system. Our legal system has Judeo-Christian foundations, not foundations in JS Mill's harm principle of freedom.

I assumed it when you posted propaganda saying tax cuts were the problem. Sorry. People will make assumptions about you consisten with the ideas you post.

I thought we had already learned from another post that making assumptions was bad. Tax cuts are a problem if you have a war. We can't just call off the war or the funding for it now, so the only solution until it's over is to fix the taxes. We do need to cut our domestic spending, but that is only accounting for a small proportion of defecit.

I want my warning to be one the enemy actually respects and fears. Plus, saddam was a bad bad man, and yes we should go after other tyrants when the time and budget is right.

That warning would be threat of military violence. If they ignore that warning, well then one war is better than two. Saddam was a bad bad man, and that's why we attacked, not because he had violated UN resolutions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why did I bring up the charter, simple.

It's because we didn't really attack Iraq because they violated UN resolutions. You can't seriously say "look they violated resolutions" and then go violate the charter.

Like kathianne said, the U.N. was not intended as a suicide pact. That aspect of the charter was rather wishful thinking anyway. Again. My selective enforcement favors the U.S. and modern civilization. your selective enforcement helps tyrants and barbarians. Why?

So then why are you against deposing these Theocracies, as my position is and, as you claimed was beneficial for the Theocracies.

I'm not. Just not right now, Not all at once. You're only SAYING you want to depose them because Bush DIDN'T. You're lying. You would suggest anything bush didn't do and will criticize anything he has done. You're a petulant child.

The "case" as you first put it and used the analogy, is for the UN to attack Iraq. Would you like to address:



or just concede that point?

I concede nothing. Saddam was in obvious violation of many resolutions, convincing further resolutions to be passed and congress to give Bush the authority to use force. Remember?

Actually I believe the Coalition was about 40 nations, and guess what. We didn't provide only 1/40th of the armed forces and funding. I'd be ok with a Coalition of 5 nations if we only had to provide 1/5th the manpower and funding. Apparently our Coalition of 40 wasn't quite large enough to meet their side of that figure.

It's so charming when you denigrate the contributions of our REAL allies.

Oddly some people seem to think that freedom isn't the best value system.

Yeah. They're called tyrants.

Our legal system has Judeo-Christian foundations, not foundations in JS Mill's harm principle of freedom.

Christianity thrives in freedom, as it works well as a blueprint for an individual life well lived.

I thought we had already learned from another post that making assumptions was bad. Tax cuts are a problem if you have a war. We can't just call off the war or the funding for it now, so the only solution until it's over is to fix the taxes. We do need to cut our domestic spending, but that is only accounting for a small proportion of defecit.

It's funny how you libs only care about the budget when a war is on. You're sad.

That warning would be threat of military violence. If they ignore that warning, well then one war is better than two. Saddam was a bad bad man, and that's why we attacked, not because he had violated UN resolutions.

The resolution violations were part of the reason. Definitely. to claim otherwise is idiocy in the extreme.

 

[IControlThePast]

Like kathianne said, the U.N. was not intended as a suicide pact. That aspect of the charter was rather wishful thinking anyway. Again. My selective enforcement favors the U.S. and modern civilization. your selective enforcement helps tyrants and barbarians. Why?

You're just stuck in a loop, and you've probably got there by assumptions. Which part am I selectively enforcing? I'm not enforcing any of it. You can't pick and chose which parts of the UN you like and enforce those. You can't pick and chose which US laws you like and decide not to enforce the rest.

I'm not. Just not right now, Not all at once. You're only SAYING you want to depose them because Bush DIDN'T. You're lying. You would suggest anything bush didn't do and will criticize anything he has done. You're a petulant child.

You want to provide any evidence for your petulant assertions here, or do you only have straw men arguments for responses?

I concede nothing. Saddam was in obvious violation of many resolutions, convincing further resolutions to be passed and congress to give Bush the authority to use force. Remember?

So you think that Congress would have decided differently if the (false) intelligence said Iran or SA instead of Iraq?

It's so charming when you denigrate the contributions of our REAL allies.

Another straw man argument and assumption. If anyone is denigrating them, it's you. I just said we couldn't get enough of them to meet a good manpower ratio for us. You said we got 30. Now do you still disagree that 30 is not enough to meet that ratio, or do you think our allies aren't doing everything they can to help us, in which case you are denigrating their efforts.

Yeah. They're called tyrants.

So you think most people in the Republican party are tyrants? People who want to restrict individual liberty by say, the Patriot Act, or the new Flag Burning Amendment, or who don't believe in legal personal drug use, or assisted suicide, or exactly what the ACLU stands for are tyrants? I expected to only hear this from liberals.

Christianity thrives in freedom, as it works well as a blueprint for an individual life well lived.

You're missing some thinking in there. Freedom involves freedom to be able to have a life not well lived or defined in that manner by Christianity, through personal choice. Do you deny that Mill's harm principle actually gives more personal freedom than Christianity?

It's funny how you libs only care about the budget when a war is on. You're sad.

Suprise, another straw man and assumption lacking any evidence whatsoever. I would hope most other Republicans aren't as much of a disgrace as you.

The resolution violations were part of the reason. Definitely. to claim otherwise is idiocy in the extreme.

So then, why, to the extreme, are we not attacking ourselves for violating the charter? We aren't even holding it against ourselves.