Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JRK]

Umm, remember your first statement?

You made a judgement about me from the start.

I've no idea if I'm a liberal or not, I suspect that anyone that disagrees with your myopic world view is a liberal in your eyes.

I don't feel the need to belittle anyone, but if you feel belittled...oh well.

It's not necessarily that I disagree with you JRK.
It's that you have one bandwagon and you use it to try garner affirmation from other posters on this board to boost your self-image.

I've never seen you change or even modify your opinion on the strength of someone else's arguments and you certainly won't accept that any position contrary to your own might have any merit whatsoever.

I don't see any critical thinking on your part (which you confirmed with your statement above regarding not having to think about facts) beyond searching for websites that reinforce your entrenched ideas - you can find confirmation of anything you want on the 'net, the skill is in analysing it.

Now go on, call me a liberal again.

idb is BHO the president of this great nation?
now that is a fact i do not need to think about is it? he is the president

If Blix came out on 1-23-2003 and says all Saddam has is 500 old and wore out munitions that will not fly that have gas in the war heads and he also said there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake that was secure, then us invading would have been stupid, Now there some information in there that needed some thought

Dude you never discuss the issues, all you do is attack me and i have no idea why, its all you know how to do
The only way you can make good decisions in life is to have accurate information, once I know that information is accurate then why give it any more thought other than the use of it?

My point is simple, I dont debate issues, i supply information. If you dis agree with me then just dis agree with me, that is not what you do
you make joke out of this, why?

when you get to where I am in life you will find that you cannot skip around with your choices in life, it is a by product of being responsible for 100s of people, every day, thats what I do usually, that is what made me who I am

With the Iraq war what is there to analyze?
You act like being called a liberal is a bad thing, the analyzing comment gives you away, besides it does not make you a bad person, being impossible to communicate with and thinking just because we dis agree makes me a dumb or (non critical thinker) has no merit. You go right back to trying to prove your better than me. People are different ibd

The Iraq war was about 9-11
followed by Saddam not doing what he said he would do.
The UN said keep giving us money, let us keep getting kick backs from Saddam oil for food and dont worry about it
The US congress and GWB said thanks, but no thanks

What else is there? we spent 18 months analyzing it while Saddam and Al Qaeda got ready
That is what analyzing does

Before now, I haven't attacked you.
This rant is born out of frustration of the impossibility of trying to debate with you.
Yet again, you have uncritically spouted a load of opinion from your favourite bandwagon.

You are the one that constantly uses the term 'liberal' as an insult - it's a default form of abuse for you.

I'm not sure how analysing and thinking critically about information is a bad thing - or 'gives me away'.
Is that what makes me a liberal?

it was not first attack, in the past you made a joke of the subject matter. I use the term liberal as a way to define people.
Being a lib is only a bad thing if you think it is. As far as to debate, I am a fact orientated person, I have to be
Band wagon? its just information, that is all it is. If we would all make our decisions based on accurate information this country would not be in the mess it is in

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There seems to be a lack of focal discussion on this thread. I'm trying to understand why the left believes that terrorist 'civil liberties' were some how being violated under the Bush Administration? I have YET to see one single argument that backs the belief that terrorists captured overseas should be granted any rights under the United States Constitution.

1. Where are the articles and clauses that backs your argument of terrorists having Constitutional rights, if you believe in such a stance?

2. Am I to otherwise conclude, through a lack of any response, that this 'civil liberties' argument is strickly based upon the left's ideological belief rather than the basis of any Constituional authority?


I've presented my case with regard to the sixth Amendment, lets see if someone is willing to stand up and present theirs.

The Sixth Amendment
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"

 

[JRK]

There seems to be a lack of focal discussion on this thread. I'm trying to understand why the left believes that terrorist 'civil liberties' were some how being violated under the Bush Administration? I have YET to see one single argument that backs the belief that terrorists captured overseas should be granted any rights under the United States Constitution.

1. Where are the articles and clauses that backs your argument of terrorists having Constitutional rights, if you believe in such a stance?

2. Am I to otherwise conclude, through a lack of any response, that this 'civil liberties' argument is strickly based upon the left's ideological belief rather than the basis of any Constituional authority?


I've presented my case with regard to the sixth Amendment, lets see if someone is willing to stand up and present theirs.

The Sixth Amendment
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"

It is not rocket science. We see things as they are with a few exceptions. Being anti war does not mean you have to lie to support being anti war

 

[JakeStarkey]

idb is BHO the president of this great nation?
now that is a fact i do not need to think about is it? he is the president

If Blix came out on 1-23-2003 and says all Saddam has is 500 old and wore out munitions that will not fly that have gas in the war heads and he also said there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake that was secure, then us invading would have been stupid, Now there some information in there that needed some thought

Dude you never discuss the issues, all you do is attack me and i have no idea why, its all you know how to do
The only way you can make good decisions in life is to have accurate information, once I know that information is accurate then why give it any more thought other than the use of it?

My point is simple, I dont debate issues, i supply information. If you dis agree with me then just dis agree with me, that is not what you do
you make joke out of this, why?

when you get to where I am in life you will find that you cannot skip around with your choices in life, it is a by product of being responsible for 100s of people, every day, thats what I do usually, that is what made me who I am

With the Iraq war what is there to analyze?
You act like being called a liberal is a bad thing, the analyzing comment gives you away, besides it does not make you a bad person, being impossible to communicate with and thinking just because we dis agree makes me a dumb or (non critical thinker) has no merit. You go right back to trying to prove your better than me. People are different ibd

The Iraq war was about 9-11
followed by Saddam not doing what he said he would do.
The UN said keep giving us money, let us keep getting kick backs from Saddam oil for food and dont worry about it
The US congress and GWB said thanks, but no thanks

What else is there? we spent 18 months analyzing it while Saddam and Al Qaeda got ready
That is what analyzing does

Before now, I haven't attacked you.
This rant is born out of frustration of the impossibility of trying to debate with you.
Yet again, you have uncritically spouted a load of opinion from your favourite bandwagon.

You are the one that constantly uses the term 'liberal' as an insult - it's a default form of abuse for you.

I'm not sure how analysing and thinking critically about information is a bad thing - or 'gives me away'.
Is that what makes me a liberal?

it was not first attack, in the past you made a joke of the subject matter. I use the term liberal as a way to define people.
Being a lib is only a bad thing if you think it is. As far as to debate, I am a fact orientated person, I have to be
Band wagon? its just information, that is all it is. If we would all make our decisions based on accurate information this country would not be in the mess it is in

JRK does not understand that he has to do moe than post facts; he has to evaluate them for reliability, to avoid bias. He can't do that because he is a right wing progressive neo-con with a skewed and fixed world view. He will willing call any who disagree with him as liberals, a pejorative term for him, yet resent being defined himself in return.

That is why his arguments are almost always fail.

 

[JRK]

Before now, I haven't attacked you.
This rant is born out of frustration of the impossibility of trying to debate with you.
Yet again, you have uncritically spouted a load of opinion from your favourite bandwagon.

You are the one that constantly uses the term 'liberal' as an insult - it's a default form of abuse for you.

I'm not sure how analysing and thinking critically about information is a bad thing - or 'gives me away'.
Is that what makes me a liberal?

it was not first attack, in the past you made a joke of the subject matter. I use the term liberal as a way to define people.
Being a lib is only a bad thing if you think it is. As far as to debate, I am a fact orientated person, I have to be
Band wagon? its just information, that is all it is. If we would all make our decisions based on accurate information this country would not be in the mess it is in

JRK does not understand that he has to do moe than post facts; he has to evaluate them for reliability, to avoid bias. He can't do that because he is a right wing progressive neo-con with a skewed and fixed world view. He will willing call any who disagree with him as liberals, a pejorative term for him, yet resent being defined himself in return.

That is why his arguments are almost always fail.

I am amazed at these people who think being a lib is a bad thing. Skewed world view? I think a person who murdered over 1 million of his own people, attacked his neighbor and lied to the world for 12 years is a bad person, one who should be removed?

The war in Iraq was about Saddam, I believe that and that makes my view skewed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

it was not first attack, in the past you made a joke of the subject matter. I use the term liberal as a way to define people.
Being a lib is only a bad thing if you think it is. As far as to debate, I am a fact orientated person, I have to be
Band wagon? its just information, that is all it is. If we would all make our decisions based on accurate information this country would not be in the mess it is in

JRK does not understand that he has to do moe than post facts; he has to evaluate them for reliability, to avoid bias. He can't do that because he is a right wing progressive neo-con with a skewed and fixed world view. He will willing call any who disagree with him as liberals, a pejorative term for him, yet resent being defined himself in return.

That is why his arguments are almost always fail.

I am amazed at these people who think being a lib is a bad thing. Skewed world view? I think a person who murdered over 1 million of his own people, attacked his neighbor and lied to the world for 12 years is a bad person, one who should be removed? The war in Iraq was about Saddam, I believe that and that makes my view skewed?

We are not the world's policeman, though the neo-cons act like it. You have so much in common with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, progressive right wing and left wing neo-cons, respectively.

 

[JRK]

JRK does not understand that he has to do moe than post facts; he has to evaluate them for reliability, to avoid bias. He can't do that because he is a right wing progressive neo-con with a skewed and fixed world view. He will willing call any who disagree with him as liberals, a pejorative term for him, yet resent being defined himself in return.

That is why his arguments are almost always fail.

I am amazed at these people who think being a lib is a bad thing. Skewed world view? I think a person who murdered over 1 million of his own people, attacked his neighbor and lied to the world for 12 years is a bad person, one who should be removed? The war in Iraq was about Saddam, I believe that and that makes my view skewed?

We are not the world's policeman, though the neo-cons act like it. You have so much in common with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, progressive right wing and left wing neo-cons, respectively.

Now Jake is that so hard?
Its not personal and you have a right to feel the way you do without attacking people

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the one who has attacked people, then whined when you got slammed. You need to accept responsibility for your misbehavior. I guarantee no one mistakes you for what you are: a mean-spirited neo-con who does not like being corrected, much like Dick Cheney. Live with it.

 

[JRK]

You are the one who has attacked people, then whined when you got slammed. You need to accept responsibility for your misbehavior. I guarantee no one mistakes you for what you are: a mean-spirited neo-con who does not like being corrected, much like Dick Cheney. Live with it.

Well I tried
Jake I give up, I am not the first person in your life who has told you that am I

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a typical narcisstic progressive right wing neo-con who cannot be told he is wrong, even though the facts clearly, objectively, flatly controvert your OP.

You are what you are.

 

[JRK]

You are a typical narcisstic progressive right wing neo-con who cannot be told he is wrong, even though the facts clearly, objectively, flatly controvert your OP.

You are what you are.

Jake you have gone so far of the res I cannot do this any more. I really am trying to help you Jake
There is nothing here worth were you have gone with it Jake
Chill dude

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

If that were true President Clinton wouldn't have tried to assassinate him with cruise missiles. Here's how he viewed the terrorist after the bombing of our embassies. Not quite the "ONLY CRIMINALS" view you have claimed.

"Last May, at the Naval Academy commencement, I said terrorist and outlaw states are extending the world's fields of battle, from physical space to cyberspace, from our earth's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault, which you've heard about today: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready -- "

From: REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
ON KEEPING AMERICA SECURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

President William Jefferson Clinton's Speech-National Academy of Sciences

Was the cruise missiles an assassination attempt on Bin Laden? Was Bin Laden actually EVER reported to be there in the first place or simply an attempt at media diversion? Wasn't Monica Lewinski a MAJOR front page headline that embarrassed Clinton during that same year President Clinton used those cruise missiles, yes or no? President Clinton only just have happened upon using cruise missiles during one very important time of his administration. Where was Bin Laden reported to have been found AFTER this missile strike?

Jan. 21, 1998 Several news organizations report the alleged sexual relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton. Clinton denies the allegations as the scandal erupts.

Jan. 22, 1998 Clinton reiterates his denial of the relationship and says he never urged Lewinsky to lie. Starr issues subpoenas for a number of people, as well as for White House records. Starr also defends the expansion of his initial Whitewater investigation. Jordan holds a press conference to flatly deny he told Lewinsky to lie. Jordan also says that Lewinsky told him that she did not have a sexual relationship with the president.

April 9, 1998 A second White House steward is called to testify before the grand jury in a supposed effort to learn of meetings between the president and Monica Lewinsky.

April 14, 1998 Kenneth Starr files a sealed motion in U.S. District Court to compel testimony of uniformed Secret Service agents, according to the Wall Street Journal.

April 18, 1998 U.S. News World Report says retired Secret Service office Louis Fox testified before the grand jury that during a visit by Lewinsky to the White House in the fall of 1995, Clinton told him, Close the door. Shell be in here for a while.

June 25, 1998 The Supreme Court rules 63 that attorneyclient privilege extends beyond the grave, exempting Vince Fosters conversations with his lawyers from being called as evidence in Ken Starrs presidential investigations.

June 26, 1998 Ken Starr presents arguments to a federal appeals court requesting that Secret Service personnel be required to testify in the Lewinsky case. Linda Tripp is called to appear before the grand jury on Tuesday, June 30.

July 21, 1998 The U.S. Court of Appeals holds a hearing on alleged leaks of grand jury information to the media by Ken Starrs office. The hearings center on Judge Norma Holloway Johnsons secret sanctions against Starr and his subsequent appeal. The sanctions would require Starr to turn over documents and other evidence related to the alleged leaks.

July 22, 1998 Clintons personal secretary, Betty Currie, testifies before the grand jury, in what is most likely her final appearance.

July 29, 1998 President Bill Clinton agrees to testify voluntarily and Starrs office withdraws the subpoena. Clintons testimony is set for Aug. 17 at the White House.

September 24, 1998 The House Judiciary Committee announces the committee will consider a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton in an open session on October 5 or October 6.
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-09-06/...ves-taping-conversations/11?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

From what you have previously supplied that I have read, each case referred to President Clinton as not having received enough "evidence" with respect to Bin Laden or with regard to terrorist attacks. Hardly the kind of approach for somone who doesn't view terrorism from a legal stand point. Can you provide ANY documentation to which Clinton referred to terrorists as "enemy combatants" and DROPPED his legal stance towards terrorism? From your own FactsCheck article, among the links you presented:

Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States. There was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Iraq war was about 9-11
followed by Saddam not doing what he said he would do.
The UN said keep giving us money, let us keep getting kick backs from Saddam oil for food and dont worry about it
The US congress and GWB said thanks, but no thanks

What else is there? we spent 18 months analyzing it while Saddam and Al Qaeda got ready
That is what analyzing does

The only conection between 9-11 and the Iraq war is that 9-11 was used by the Bush Administration as political capital to invade Iraq.

Saddam had not reconsitutied Iraqs chemical, biological or nuclear programs.

Iraqi warheads and tougher talk
INSPECTORS
January 16, 2003

As U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq entered a new level Thursday, one team discovered empty chemical warheads and international officials began talking tougher about Iraq's responsibility to be more forthcoming about its disarmament efforts in order to avoid a possible military confrontation.

In another milestone Thursday, U.N. inspectors paid their first-ever visit to the private homes of Iraqi scientists as part of the hunt for evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The homes were not listed as declared sites by Iraq, suggesting that inspectors may be working on an intelligence tip.

About 150 kilometers (93 miles) southwest of Baghdad, another team of arms inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads and another one that needed further evaluation at the Ukhaider ammunition storage area, according to a U.N. spokesman, who said they were all in "excellent condition."

Dimitri Perricos, leader of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, said the find may not be a "smoking gun" that indicates Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions.

The chemical warheads the inspectors found were on 122 mm rockets similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s, the spokesman said.

. . . "Very dangerous" was how Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix described the situation in Iraq as he announced Thursday that Baghdad had illegally imported arms-related material to the country. He said it is not yet clear if the material is related to weapons of mass destruction which Iraq is prohibited from possessing or manufacturing.

UN Resolution in Dealing with Iraq

Resolution 1441 was the result of seven weeks of intense diplomacy. Initially, the United States insisted that any new resolution include an automatic trigger for military action; that is, although it insisted it already had the legal authority to use force against Iraq (under the doctrine of self-defense and on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions), it wanted the resolution to explicitly authorize U.N. member states to use "all necessary means" if Iraq refused to comply with the resolution's demands. But France, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, insisted that any response to Iraqi noncompliance be determined in a second round of council debates and spelled out in a second resolution.

Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.

Resolution 1441 then mandates the creation of an enhanced inspection regime and lays out the process to be implemented if Iraq fails to comply. Paragraph 4 of the resolution makes clear that false statements, omissions, and failures to cooperate with the requirements of the resolution will be considered a material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12. Paragraph 11 directs Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) to report any Iraqi noncompliance to the Security Council. Paragraph 12 directs the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report under either Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 11 to determine how to respond.

The resolution makes clear that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply with the resolution's demands.

. . . .When President Bush pressed his case at the U.N. on Sept. 12, 2002, he made clear that the organization's continuing relevance was being put to the test. "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" he asked
International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

Why did nations, particularly Russia and France, so strongly oppose a US strike on Iraq?

How the UN Helped Saddam
Key to France, Russia Position on Iraq: Cash - Los Angeles Times
Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says


Nations Supplying weapons to Iraq:
French connection armed Saddam - Washington Times

The underlining issue here is the United Nations has a very poor historical record of enforcing [putting teeth" into] its resolutions. The United Nations has also failed, when it was previously referred to as the League of Nations, in its role as a "watch-dog" to prevent a hostile nation (at that time Germany after World War I) from becoming a World threat. Along with the oil for food scandal corruption that has even went to the top of UN, there will always remain the question of any true relivance with regard to the United Nations.

 

[JRK]

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

If that were true President Clinton wouldn't have tried to assassinate him with cruise missiles. Here's how he viewed the terrorist after the bombing of our embassies. Not quite the "ONLY CRIMINALS" view you have claimed.

"Last May, at the Naval Academy commencement, I said terrorist and outlaw states are extending the world's fields of battle, from physical space to cyberspace, from our earth's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault, which you've heard about today: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready -- "

From: REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
ON KEEPING AMERICA SECURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

President William Jefferson Clinton's Speech-National Academy of Sciences

From what you have previously supplied that I have read, each case referred to President Clinton not as having received enough "evidence" with respect to Bin Laden or with regard to terrorist attacks. Hardly the kind of approach for somone who doesn't view terrorism from a legal stand point. Can you provide ANY documentation to which Clinton referred to terrorists as "enemy combatants" and DROPPED his legal stance towards terrorism?

The attack on our Sovereign ground in Nairobi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this was a declaration of war and this is when Bill should have gotten busy

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are the one who has attacked people, then whined when you got slammed. You need to accept responsibility for your misbehavior.

Wow! Talk about calling the kettle black here. That would be like an alcolohic accusing somone ELSE of a drinking problem.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are a typical narcisstic progressive right wing neo-con who cannot be told he is wrong, even though the facts clearly, objectively, flatly controvert your OP.

You are what you are.

It helps to have facts FIRST to prove your point, rambling on about "opinion" without the ability to back it up doesn't help your argument.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, and sonny, if your gonna spam the boards, could you make some feeble attempt to get the grammar right in your thread titles?
It hurts your cause.
Really, its a genuine, true-to-life, no shitter.

spam?
JW what does it feel like to just be a dick head?
Am I bothering you?
Have I ever pointed you out?
This is not legitimate?

What amazes me is you make joke of this, you accuse me of spamming, its the typical liberal agenda
accuse, but not with reason

GWB is being called the worst president in this countries history and I ask so what does that make BHO and your response is that is spam?
it is a serious question, you elected him
hows he doing?

People aren't as stupid as you had thought when you hit "post thread," numbnuts.

It's glaringly obvious to anyone with a half a brain that you simply CAN'T make new threads without mention of your Iraq argument.

It would be funny if it weren't................sad.

You're literally obsessed, sir. No disrespect, but it's obvious and people aren't bad people for uh...making it apparent to you.

The left's argument on Iraq is always the same, and these days obviously hypocritical.

When is it not enough to boot a despot out of power?

Answer: When he's a Republican.

Liberals made the same mistake that some made after Saddam was hanging from the end of a rope. You can bet your paycheck the slobbering press is just about done covering it.

Who cares if hundreds of people have been shot and buried in a mass grave!

Who cares that peace hasn't been restored!

It's time to move on!

These are not the Droids you're looking for.

 

[JRK]

The Iraq war was about 9-11
followed by Saddam not doing what he said he would do.
The UN said keep giving us money, let us keep getting kick backs from Saddam oil for food and dont worry about it
The US congress and GWB said thanks, but no thanks

What else is there? we spent 18 months analyzing it while Saddam and Al Qaeda got ready
That is what analyzing does

The only conection between 9-11 and the Iraq war is that 9-11 was used by the Bush Administration as political capital to invade Iraq.

Saddam had not reconsitutied Iraqs chemical, biological or nuclear programs.

Iraqi warheads and tougher talk
INSPECTORS
January 16, 2003

As U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq entered a new level Thursday, one team discovered empty chemical warheads and international officials began talking tougher about Iraq's responsibility to be more forthcoming about its disarmament efforts in order to avoid a possible military confrontation.

In another milestone Thursday, U.N. inspectors paid their first-ever visit to the private homes of Iraqi scientists as part of the hunt for evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The homes were not listed as declared sites by Iraq, suggesting that inspectors may be working on an intelligence tip.

About 150 kilometers (93 miles) southwest of Baghdad, another team of arms inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads and another one that needed further evaluation at the Ukhaider ammunition storage area, according to a U.N. spokesman, who said they were all in "excellent condition."

Dimitri Perricos, leader of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, said the find may not be a "smoking gun" that indicates Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions.

The chemical warheads the inspectors found were on 122 mm rockets similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s, the spokesman said.

. . . "Very dangerous" was how Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix described the situation in Iraq as he announced Thursday that Baghdad had illegally imported arms-related material to the country. He said it is not yet clear if the material is related to weapons of mass destruction which Iraq is prohibited from possessing or manufacturing.

UN Resolution in Dealing with Iraq

Resolution 1441 was the result of seven weeks of intense diplomacy. Initially, the United States insisted that any new resolution include an automatic trigger for military action; that is, although it insisted it already had the legal authority to use force against Iraq (under the doctrine of self-defense and on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions), it wanted the resolution to explicitly authorize U.N. member states to use "all necessary means" if Iraq refused to comply with the resolution's demands. But France, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, insisted that any response to Iraqi noncompliance be determined in a second round of council debates and spelled out in a second resolution.

Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.

Resolution 1441 then mandates the creation of an enhanced inspection regime and lays out the process to be implemented if Iraq fails to comply. Paragraph 4 of the resolution makes clear that false statements, omissions, and failures to cooperate with the requirements of the resolution will be considered a material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12. Paragraph 11 directs Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) to report any Iraqi noncompliance to the Security Council. Paragraph 12 directs the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report under either Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 11 to determine how to respond.

The resolution makes clear that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply with the resolution's demands.

. . . .When President Bush pressed his case at the U.N. on Sept. 12, 2002, he made clear that the organization's continuing relevance was being put to the test. "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" he asked
International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

Why did nations, particularly Russia and France, so strongly oppose a US strike on Iraq?

How the UN Helped Saddam
Key to France, Russia Position on Iraq: Cash - Los Angeles Times
Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says


Nations Supplying weapons to Iraq:
French connection armed Saddam - Washington Times

The underlining issue here is the United Nations has a very poor historical record of enforcing [putting teeth" into] its resolutions. The United Nations has also failed, when it was previously referred to as the League of Nations, in its role as a "watch-dog" to prevent a hostile nation (at that time Germany after World War I) from becoming a World threat. Along with the oil for food scandal corruption that has even went to the top of UN, there will always remain the question of any true relivance with regard to the United Nations.

There is so much information and good reason to have done what our troops did in Iraq its hard to know where to start
These guys like Jake thought this thing would blow up in our faces. It didn't

they feel like there is some event going to happen that will make this war turn out like there leaders told them it would

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles and JRK continue to ignore the obvious: we won a war without international legal authority, we have lost a peace as Iraq continues to cozy up to Iran, and the 800 billion dollars spent supplementally helped to wreck our budget.

These are facts, no way to get around them. Progressive neo-con imperialism is bad for America.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles and JRK continue to ignore the obvious: we won a war without international legal authority, we have lost a peace as Iraq continues to cozy up to Iran, and the 800 billion dollars spent supplementally helped to wreck our budget.

These are facts, no way to get around them. Progressive neo-con imperialism is bad for America.

You continue to side step and ignore the corruption and benefit, from those nations in the UN, that stood opposed to such a United States strike on Iraq. A statement supported by various news articles from the left and right.

There was also the UN 1441 resolution that the United States used to justify the attack, a resolution written AND supported through a UN vote. A resolution that was used to give the United States legal authority it needed (if you had bothered to read the article). In addition, how can you go before a Security Council that benefited and profited from working with Iraq? You never bothered to answer that question, because you cannot provide an answer. I have yet to see any supported facts (links), other than your own "view / opinion", that defends your argument.