Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[BlindBoo]

what in gods name are you guys debating about?
The UN has no jurisdiction in our matters, none


This war has support from congress from the start
and every time they funded it, it was justified (legal)


what are you 2 guys hung up on?

Reasons why the Iraq invasion and occupation was a failure. It was a strategic blunder that will haunt us for a generation. Yes the Democrats who voted to give President Bush the deciding power should have resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responisblibity.

The only sucess I see is that our military did a near perfect invasion. After that everthing became FUBAR.

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

There is nothing better than defining the mission of a war after it is over. That way, you always win.

lets see what the Google says to that
Bush Says U.S. Will Achieve Objectives in Iraq

IRAQ UPDATE: BUSH ADMINISTRATION PRE-WAR PLANNING

 

[Mr. Shaman]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

While being obsessed with the distraction of taking Saddam Hussein's international oil-contracts from him, BUSHCO allowed bin Laden to escape.



I'd say that qualifies as a failure (i.e. one more Dumbya fuck-up).​

 

[M14 Shooter]

The USA is one of the founding members of the UN. The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?

No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state.

The argument I responsed to makes no such distinction.
The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States, or it is not - you do not get to pick and choose.

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

While being obsessed with the distraction of taking Saddam Hussein's international oil-contracts from him, BUSHCO allowed bin Laden to escape.



I'd say that qualifies as a failure (i.e. one more Dumbya fuck-up).​

So your telling me that from 10-2001 thru 3-2003 we did not find Bin Ladin because we waited until 17 months after we invaded afhan to invade Iraq?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

The UN does not have grounds for such. The UN, by its nature and build in to its structure, has a specific scope. Notice how the UN does not pass resolutions that deal things like abortion, murder, etc? That is not the scope of the UN, or of the UN charter.

You are dodging the question.

 

[JRK]

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

The UN does not have grounds for such. The UN, by its nature and build in to its structure, has a specific scope. Notice how the UN does not pass resolutions that deal things like abortion, murder, etc? That is not the scope of the UN, or of the UN charter.

You are dodging the question.

I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Unite nations would have any jurisdiction in the united states
and
why anyone would
I HAVE GOT IT
DESPERATION

 

[M14 Shooter]

It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal

Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities.

:shrug:

As a matter of fact the Ceasefire was with the UN.

No.... the ceasefire was between the states in conflict. It was later then 'approved' by the UN in a resolution, but the insturment of cease-fire itself was between the states in question. It remains that way until an actual peace treaty is signed.

In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses...

Really? Like here?
FindLaw: Korean War Armistice Agreement: July 27, 1953
When the terms of a cease-fire are brokem the cease-fire is no longer binding. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal

Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities.

:shrug:

Hey stupid....

I'm sorry... There's no need for me to further response to such petulance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Congratulations tearing down that straw man.

Straw man? You're the one claiming that the President with 2/3rds of the Senate can send everyone in Arizona off to be slaves.

Nobody said that a treaty can otherwise violate a provision of the constitution.

Actually, you did. The scenario I provided violates the 5th and the 13th amendments at the very least, yet you stood up and proudly beamed "Our SUPREME ruler could do that!"

The question is whether, according to the constitution treaties to which the US is a part are binding law.

What you fail to grasp is that treaties by nature are INFERIOR to the constitution. Whereas a resolution violates the constitution, it cannot and does not act as law.

FURTHER, which the UN charter was ratified by the Senate, resolution 768 (or whatever) is NOT ratified, is NOT a treaty and has ZERO weight in American jurisprudence. You of the left viewed joining the UN as the establishment of a world government and the dissolution of the sovereignty of these United States - it ain't the case.

Again, congrats on another straw man. Nobody is talking about discarding the constitution.

The fuck they're not; that is precisely what you're angling for. You place the UN Charter and the resolutions made by foreign bodies above the US Constitution, effectively rendering it null and void.

We're talking about whether treaties to which the US is a party are US law. The constitution says they are.

As stated, resolutions from the UN are not treaties, even actual treaties cannot violate the US Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

yes.. The murder ten of thousands of woman and children.... Engaginge in imperialistic nation building...invading sovereign nations... Bankrupting the country financially and morally

So you're claiming that Iraq is a colony of the USA? Or are you just a dumbass spouting words you don't comprehend, such as "imperialism?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state.

Nor do they have the authority to determine the defense posture and actions of the USA.

Empty pockets again, BlindBoo.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
Look up Iraq birth defects.....just for shits and giggles.
Take paper towels cuz you'll probably get off on what you see.

Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing

January 2004

Pentagon Whistleblower Reveals How
Iraq War Intel Was Cooked​

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man

​

 

[Uncensored2008]

I served over in the Persian Gulf during that time.

Were you part of the Republican Guard?

 

[8537]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Gad dammit - how did he become so f'ing dumb just 6 short years later? It's almost like he forgot to read his own playbook.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gad dammit - how did he become so f'ing dumb just 6 short years later? It's almost like he forgot to read his own playbook.

Maybe he didn't change, maybe the hive hadn't released the pheromones instructing you to hate him him prior to 2000....

 

[Charles_Main]

It was a failure because we took all this heat for going to war to steal oil, then like a bunch of dumb fucks we forgot to steal the oil and let others gobble up the contracts

 

[GWV5903]

Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
Look up Iraq birth defects.....just for shits and giggles.
Take paper towels cuz you'll probably get off on what you see.

Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing

January 2004

Pentagon Whistleblower Reveals How
Iraq War Intel Was Cooked​

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man

​

OOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH made them say this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gekaap]

You are dodging the question.

How have I dodged the question? You asked if the UN can pass a resolution that would make abortion illegal in the US. The answer is no, they do not. By being party to the UN, the US did not cede any jurisdiction for the UN to determine inner American policy. That is not the scope of the UN charter. The UN is a body that deals with international relations.

Your question is like asking whether the commerce clause of the US constitution allows the federal government to set tax rates of the state of Alabama. Just because Alabama is a willing member of the union does not mean that they have ceded jurisdiction over to the federal government to decide inner Alabamian policies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are dodging the question.

How have I dodged the question? You asked if the UN can pass a resolution that would make abortion illegal in the US.

No, I did not.
I asked that if the UNSC passed such a resolution, would abortion then be illegal?
You did not answer that question.
Well?