Obama Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to UN

[BlindBoo]

Um, national jurisdiction extends only 12 miles (with a few exceptions in goegraphically more complex areas). A nation's EEZ extends 200 miles or to the continental shelf, whichever is longer but not exceeding 350 miles.

If the USA signs this, all mining (and oil extraction) will have to be approved by the ISA, and if the ISA approves it, they also decide how the royalties and proceeds from that get distributed.

That's per Article XI of the UNCLOS, which is and has been one of the bones of contention keeping the USA from signing it.

Your link disputes what you post. I posted a link to the entire treaty. Read it if you dare.

Each coastal State may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea that extends seaward up to 200 nm from its baselines (or out to a maritime boundary with another coastal State). Within its EEZ, a coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in international law with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and (c) other rights and duties provided for under international law.

The U.S. claimed a 200 nm EEZ in 1983 (Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983). The U.S. EEZ overlaps its 12 nm - 24 nm contiguous zone.

Maritime Zones and Boundaries, International Section, NOAA Office of General Counsel

Nothing in what you've posted contradicts what the ISA can do. We have not signed the UNCLOS. That is not what the UNCLOS says. That is what we currently do, but signing and ratifying the UNCLOS would change that.

It seems we are talking past each other and I don't know why.

It is my understanding that if the treaty is ratified we will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Only in waters and sea beds outside that zone.

 

[Si modo]

Your link disputes what you post. I posted a link to the entire treaty. Read it if you dare.

Each coastal State may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea that extends seaward up to 200 nm from its baselines (or out to a maritime boundary with another coastal State). Within its EEZ, a coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in international law with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and (c) other rights and duties provided for under international law.

The U.S. claimed a 200 nm EEZ in 1983 (Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983). The U.S. EEZ overlaps its 12 nm - 24 nm contiguous zone.

Maritime Zones and Boundaries, International Section, NOAA Office of General Counsel

Nothing in what you've posted contradicts what the ISA can do. We have not signed the UNCLOS. That is not what the UNCLOS says. That is what we currently do, but signing and ratifying the UNCLOS would change that.

It seems we are talking past each other and I don't know why.

It is my understanding that if the treaty is ratified we will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Only in waters and sea beds outside that zone.

I agree, we won't give up those exclusive rights to mine and drill in our EEZ. We will be the only nation permitted to seek such permission. However, our rights are thinned out by requiring us to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ. And, if we do manage to get that permit, the ISA also decides how the royalties an proceeds from that activity are distributed. They likely won't be unfair, though, but they will still have that authority.

 

[Flopper]

The United States has accepted all parts of Conventions on the Law of the Sea many years ago with the exception of Part XI. Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones).

Since it's outside US waters, how can you claim US waters are being ceded to the UN?

The 1994 amendment to Part VI addressed US concerns that were first brought up by Reagan, which concerns deep-sea mining. Reagan was in favor of the treaty. Both Clinton and Bush pushed for approval by the Senate, however no action was taken. Now it seems, the Obama administration will have a try.

The fact is this treaty has little or nothing to do with global warming and primarily effects waters outside of the US territorial limits. It's important in protecting US fishing interest. The U.S. oil and gas industry benefits from the Convention’s rules concerning offshore resources. The navigational freedoms recognized under the Convention provide a stable environment for global commerce. However, once again right wingers who are oppose to just about any treaty involving the UN, are trying to block a treaty that would benefit the US for political reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

http://archive1.globalsolutions.org/...licy-paper.pdf

So, what of it. The UN has it's own problems and dirty laundry enough. What are the key aspects here? Who is best in place to accomplish those ends? Key Word.... Treaty. So we comprise, ourselves, that which is our best foot forward, without corrupting value, principle, and ideal, and we encourage other Nations to sign on. We have Constitutional Authority to do just that. It sure beats, surrendering Sovereignty to the UN losing all sense of due process to a corrupted Kangaroo Court. True enough, we contribute to that corruption, bribery needs to end. It is a poor tool in effecting what is in truth Just Resolution. You would think we would know that by now. Instead, we take loans and pay interest on those loans, to bribe foreign nations. Lovely. Why do we keep refusing to take the high road, and continue to make excuses for our poor choices?

This treaty provides protection to our oil & gas industry, fishing fleets, and protects navigational. It addresses problems outside of US territorial waters. It does not cede control of US waters to the UN and the treaty makes this quite clear. This treaty has been praised and backed by every president since 1980.

Diverse voices—including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Navy, the oil and gas industry, the fishing industry and major environmental groups—have expressed strong support for U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. The U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy, appointed by President Bush pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2000, unanimously recommended U.S. ratification, as did the privately appointed Pew Oceans Commission. This breadth of support reflects the many benefits the United States would enjoy from ratifying the Convention.

The accusations from the Right that this is an Obama plot to cede control of US waters to the UN is laughable.

Law of the Sea Convention: Should the U.S. Join? - Brookings Institution

 

[candycorn]

1. "President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

2. ...an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean....
based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order.

3. The Task-force’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by KleinOnline.

4. The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention.

5. States the report: “The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.

6. Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

7. Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

8. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

9. Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

10. CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch....the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

11. The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya."
Obama quietly seeking to cede U.S. oceans to UN law: Shock recommendation buried in White house report. « Klein Online



Read carefully....a vote for Obama is a vote to end United States sovereignty.

There are no U.S. Oceans. Try again.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

1. "President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

2. ...an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean....
based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order.

3. The Task-force’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by KleinOnline.

4. The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention.

5. States the report: “The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.

6. Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

7. Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

8. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

9. Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

10. CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch....the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

11. The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya."
Obama quietly seeking to cede U.S. oceans to UN law: Shock recommendation buried in White house report. « Klein Online



Read carefully....a vote for Obama is a vote to end United States sovereignty.

There are no U.S. Oceans. Try again.

This would affect the waters off our coast that we currently control, the same waters we drill for a lot of our oil in.

 

[Flopper]

Nothing in what you've posted contradicts what the ISA can do. We have not signed the UNCLOS. That is not what the UNCLOS says. That is what we currently do, but signing and ratifying the UNCLOS would change that.

It seems we are talking past each other and I don't know why.

It is my understanding that if the treaty is ratified we will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Only in waters and sea beds outside that zone.

I agree, we won't give up those exclusive rights to mine and drill in our EEZ. We will be the only nation permitted to seek such permission. However, our rights are thinned out by requiring us to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ. And, if we do manage to get that permit, the ISA also decides how the royalties an proceeds from that activity are distributed. They likely won't be unfair, though, but they will still have that authority.

BlindBoo is correct. We will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Furthermore, we would not be required to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ.

"Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection"
Overview - Convention & Related Agreements

What seems to be neglected in this discussion is that the treaty establishes the 12 mile limit on territorial waters, something the US did years ago. Other nations have claimed territoriality limits at 200 miles. The treaty clarifies the territorial limits of archipelagic states, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters. The definition of these limits has been a source of a number disputes particular as it relates to fishing and oil drilling.

This is a good treaty which benefits the US and should be approved.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. "President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

2. ...an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean....
based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order.

3. The Task-force’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by KleinOnline.

4. The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention.

5. States the report: “The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.

6. Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

7. Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

8. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

9. Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

10. CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch....the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

11. The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya."
Obama quietly seeking to cede U.S. oceans to UN law: Shock recommendation buried in White house report. « Klein Online



Read carefully....a vote for Obama is a vote to end United States sovereignty.

The EEZ is not sovereign U.S. soil - sovereignty only extends to the 12 mile limit. We own the mineral sources in the EEZ but not sovereignty.

 

[Flopper]

1. "President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

2. ...an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean....
based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order.

3. The Task-force’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by KleinOnline.

4. The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention.

5. States the report: “The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.

6. Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

7. Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

8. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

9. Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

10. CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch....the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

11. The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya."
Obama quietly seeking to cede U.S. oceans to UN law: Shock recommendation buried in White house report. « Klein Online



Read carefully....a vote for Obama is a vote to end United States sovereignty.

There are no U.S. Oceans. Try again.

This would affect the waters off our coast that we currently control, the same waters we drill for a lot of our oil in.

How? The treaty does not effect our territorial waters (12 mile mile limit), nor does it effect our EEZ.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There are no U.S. Oceans. Try again.

This would affect the waters off our coast that we currently control, the same waters we drill for a lot of our oil in.

How? The treaty does not effect our territorial waters (12 mile mile limit), nor does it effect our EEZ.

It doesn't even affect our EEZ?

Really?

I guess the right thinks all fhe world's oceans belong to the U.S?

 

[BlindBoo]

This would affect the waters off our coast that we currently control, the same waters we drill for a lot of our oil in.

How? The treaty does not effect our territorial waters (12 mile mile limit), nor does it effect our EEZ.

It doesn't even affect our EEZ?

Really?

I guess the right thinks all fhe world's oceans belong to the U.S?

Why do you think our EEZ extends over all the world oceans? It's about 200 mile out from our coasts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How? The treaty does not effect our territorial waters (12 mile mile limit), nor does it effect our EEZ.

It doesn't even affect our EEZ?

Really?

I guess the right thinks all fhe world's oceans belong to the U.S?

Why do you think our EEZ extends over all the world oceans? It's about 200 mile out from our coasts.

I don't think that.

 

[BlindBoo]

It doesn't even affect our EEZ?

Really?

I guess the right thinks all fhe world's oceans belong to the U.S?

Why do you think our EEZ extends over all the world oceans? It's about 200 mile out from our coasts.

I don't think that.

My misunderstanding. Sorry.

 

[Flopper]

This would affect the waters off our coast that we currently control, the same waters we drill for a lot of our oil in.

How? The treaty does not effect our territorial waters (12 mile mile limit), nor does it effect our EEZ.

It doesn't even affect our EEZ?

Really?

I guess the right thinks all fhe world's oceans belong to the U.S?

I don't see anything in the treaty that changes our control over our EEZ.

Overview - Convention & Related Agreements

 

[Si modo]

It is my understanding that if the treaty is ratified we will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Only in waters and sea beds outside that zone.

I agree, we won't give up those exclusive rights to mine and drill in our EEZ. We will be the only nation permitted to seek such permission. However, our rights are thinned out by requiring us to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ. And, if we do manage to get that permit, the ISA also decides how the royalties an proceeds from that activity are distributed. They likely won't be unfair, though, but they will still have that authority.

BlindBoo is correct. We will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Furthermore, we would not be required to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ.

"Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection"
Overview - Convention & Related Agreements

What seems to be neglected in this discussion is that the treaty establishes the 12 mile limit on territorial waters, something the US did years ago. Other nations have claimed territoriality limits at 200 miles. The treaty clarifies the territorial limits of archipelagic states, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters. The definition of these limits has been a source of a number disputes particular as it relates to fishing and oil drilling.

This is a good treaty which benefits the US and should be approved.

This simply is untrue.

The activities of nations in their EEZ's will need approval from the UN and restrictions are placed on those activities.

Read it. It was linked to before.

This is spelled out quite clearly in Part XI, Section 3, Article 151. Crystal clear.

Please read it rather than believe me or anyone else.

 

[Intense]

Yes they were right Saddam had no active WMD programs. The sanctions keep Saddam's regime contained. And from rebuilding his conventional army as well as keep him from further WMD programs. They also caused widespread suffering and death of Iraqi citizens.

Yes he did. True, he may have no fully assembled WMD, he was awaiting to move on past those pesty inspections, huh. Your gullibility does surprise me though. Nah, just kidding.

No it's not true. No active programs. Of course he had hopes of one day restarting from some vile hidden in a scientists frig. or remnant buried equipment. Not in any way an immediate threat to the worlds remaining superpower! Certainly not worth the lives we've lost there.

Fail.

 

[BlindBoo]

I agree, we won't give up those exclusive rights to mine and drill in our EEZ. We will be the only nation permitted to seek such permission. However, our rights are thinned out by requiring us to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ. And, if we do manage to get that permit, the ISA also decides how the royalties an proceeds from that activity are distributed. They likely won't be unfair, though, but they will still have that authority.

BlindBoo is correct. We will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Furthermore, we would not be required to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ.

"Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection"
Overview - Convention & Related Agreements

What seems to be neglected in this discussion is that the treaty establishes the 12 mile limit on territorial waters, something the US did years ago. Other nations have claimed territoriality limits at 200 miles. The treaty clarifies the territorial limits of archipelagic states, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters. The definition of these limits has been a source of a number disputes particular as it relates to fishing and oil drilling.

This is a good treaty which benefits the US and should be approved.

This simply is untrue.

The activities of nations in their EEZ's will need approval from the UN and restrictions are placed on those activities.

Read it. It was linked to before.

This is spelled out quite clearly in Part XI, Section 3, Article 151. Crystal clear.

Please read it rather than believe me or anyone else.

Article 151 deals with production policies. I didn't see any reference to any nations EEZ.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes he did. True, he may have no fully assembled WMD, he was awaiting to move on past those pesty inspections, huh. Your gullibility does surprise me though. Nah, just kidding.

No it's not true. No active programs. Of course he had hopes of one day restarting from some vile hidden in a scientists frig. or remnant buried equipment. Not in any way an immediate threat to the worlds remaining superpower! Certainly not worth the lives we've lost there.

Fail.

Go on then where were the active programs?

 

[Vidi]

Were they Tuck? How many UN Nations were undermining the Sanctions? You are confusing corruption, and complicity, with insight and good judgement. I can understand why, though.

Yes they were right Saddam had no active WMD programs. The sanctions keep Saddam's regime contained. And from rebuilding his conventional army as well as keep him from further WMD programs. They also caused widespread suffering and death of Iraqi citizens.

Yes he did. True, he may have no fully assembled WMD, he was awaiting to move on past those pesty inspections, huh. Your gullibility does surprise me though. Nah, just kidding.

LOL the CIE report clearly stated PRIOR to the ramp up to the Invasion of Iraq that not only did Saddam NOT possess WMD...but also that he posed NO THREAT to the US at all.

 

[candycorn]

The US has no oceans; just another lie by the right. We're tired of the lies people.

 

[rightwinger]

Which oceans are ours?