Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JakeStarkey]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

The UN 1441 resolution, was approved by the UN to put consequences to Iraqs actions, with language that does not disclude the possibility of a military strike. You have provided no facts to the contrary.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

 

[JRK]

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 to a council that benefited and profited from working with Iraq? This is what I have thus far uncovered and posted on this thread, regarding the mounting violations and decisions leading up to the US attack on Iraq. I have yet to see any supported facts (links), other than your own "view / opinion", that defends your argument.

There is another thread that had over 3000 posts in it of people trying to change that simple truth you have been sharing
it is what it is and the UN on 1/27/2003 told the world Saddam was not playing along

 

[JRK]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

Shak he will never stop, he has no reason nor proof to back up 1 claim he has made

 

[BlindBoo]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

The UN 1441 resolution, was approved by the UN to put consequences to Iraqs actions, with language that does not disclude the possibility of a military strike. You have provided no facts to the contrary.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

There are two camps. The first takes the view that military action can be justified without a further resolution either on the basis of self-defence or on the basis that previous UN resolutions, including resolution 1441, authorise the use of force. The second takes the opposite view that, as things stand, there is no actual or imminent threat from Iraq that would justify a "self-defence" response by the UK and that nothing in resolution 1441, or any other UN resolution, authorises the use of force without a further resolution giving clear authority to do so.

The government has been advised on the issue by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general. His advice is to be disclosed today. All the prime minister has been prepared to say so far is that the UK will not take any action that does not have a "proper legal basis", as he made clear in his answers in parliament last week.



Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force | Politics | The Guardian

The government has a point when it grumbles about permanent members of the security council, such as France and Russia, threatening to veto any further UN resolution. But that does not justify the US or the UK acting outside the UN. It merely highlights the need for reform of the undemocratic security council structure which they put in place at the end of the second world war. Article 2 of the UN charter requires all states to refrain from the threat or use of force that is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN, which emphasises that peace is to be preserved if at all possible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "corruption" is merely right wing neo-con progressive opinion: does not matter among those who count. And does not legalize an aggressive pre-emptive ar.

All of the facts have been given about the illegality and failure of the war. Don't expect neo-cons to listen; otherwise, they would have to admit they are wrong. Think Dick Cheney.

Their day of punishment will come.

 

[jgarden]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst. What does this make BHO?

Seriously

I'm beginning to get the feeling that "JRK" is "GWB's" mother - only Barbara would consider her son's presidency a success!

 

[JRK]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst. What does this make BHO?

Seriously

I'm beginning to get the feeling that "JRK" is "GWB's" mother - only a mother would consider his presidency a success!

what about it do you feel was a failure?
I gave him a C+, not sure that is the grade i would have been looking for and without his tax reform I would have gave him a C-
but hey 5% UE and deficits in the 2-300 billion dollar range is an absolute failure. My god what is it you would call BHO?

 

[JRK]

You know the liberals are not use to having facts used in these discussions. I have no relationship with W other than =the respect he deserves
5% UE
smallish deficits while fighting 2 war and having the decade of hurricanes to deal with as well as the last 2 years as a lame duck (would not even sign the 09 budget)
Guys there is no great love here, just a dose of the truth

 

[JakeStarkey]

BHO ended Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, led from behind in Libya, got UBL, got several other bad guys, and is doing his level best to repair the GOP congressional damage to America's economy rooted in their Congresses from 1994 to 2006.

JRK, you are a pathetic progressive neo-con hack.

 

[JRK]

BHO ended Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, led from behind in Libya, got UBL, got several other bad guys, and is doing his level best to repair the GOP congressional damage to America's economy rooted in their Congresses from 1994 to 2006.

JRK, you are a pathetic progressive neo-con hack.

The troops and the Iraqi people ended Irq
Libya? that's a joke
yea from 94-06 we had 4% UE
today its real close to 20%

Good job on the repair Jake, thanks
from 2010
Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

 

[8537]

BHO ended Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, led from behind in Libya, got UBL, got several other bad guys, and is doing his level best to repair the GOP congressional damage to America's economy rooted in their Congresses from 1994 to 2006.

JRK, you are a pathetic progressive neo-con hack.

The troops and the Iraqi people ended Irq
Libya? that's a joke
yea from 94-06 we had 4% UE
today its real close to 20%

Good job on the repair Jake, thanks
from 2010
Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

For someone who claims not to be intellectually dishonest, why would you compare two very different measures of unemployment?

 

[JRK]

BHO ended Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, led from behind in Libya, got UBL, got several other bad guys, and is doing his level best to repair the GOP congressional damage to America's economy rooted in their Congresses from 1994 to 2006.

JRK, you are a pathetic progressive neo-con hack.

The troops and the Iraqi people ended Iraq
Libya? that's a joke
yea from 94-06 we had 4% UE
today its real close to 20%

Good job on the repair Jake, thanks
from 2010
Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

For someone who claims not to be intellectually dishonest, why would you compare two very different measures of unemployment?

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center
from 6-2010 over 16%
what is your problem dude, you see something dis -honest?
I said it was close to 20%, I chose a under employed poll, I could have chose the one I just posted


My god dude, you go from one intelligent comment to being a dick head in a milla second
Its call Bi Polar 8537, its real and you are all about it

 

[8537]

The troops and the Iraqi people ended Iraq
Libya? that's a joke
yea from 94-06 we had 4% UE
today its real close to 20%

Good job on the repair Jake, thanks
from 2010
Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

For someone who claims not to be intellectually dishonest, why would you compare two very different measures of unemployment?

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center
from 6-2010 over 16%
what is your problem dude, you see something dis -honest?
I said it was close to 20%, I chose a under employed poll, I could have chose the one I just posted

You compared the U3 unemployment rate from 1994 to 2006 with a U6 rate for 2010. The two are not comparable - they are completely different metrics using different definitions.

Perhaps it wasn't intellectual dishonesty but simple ignorance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BHO ended Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, led from behind in Libya, got UBL, got several other bad guys, and is doing his level best to repair the GOP congressional damage to America's economy rooted in their Congresses from 1994 to 2006.

JRK, you are a pathetic progressive neo-con hack.

The troops and the Iraqi people ended Irq Libya? that's a joke yea from 94-06 we had 4% UE today its real close to 20% Good job on the repair Jake, thanks from 2010
Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

Bush did not win Iraq, Obama and the Americans did. Libya is anything but a joke, and neither is Afghanistan. You ignored UBL and the others Obama's people got.

You can run but you can't hide, JRK. We are in shape we are today BECAUSE of your progressive neo-con mistakes that have harmed us for the next twenty years.

My GOP is going to lose the presidency and possibly the House because of your neo-con errors. You can't walk it back, you can't talk it back, all you can do is own it.

 

[idb]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

The UN 1441 resolution, was approved by the UN to put consequences to Iraqs actions, with language that does not disclude the possibility of a military strike. You have provided no facts to the contrary.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

Corruption?
What has that got to do with anything?
Did the UN give authorisation to go in or not?
The answer is 'no' as you said yourself.

 

[JRK]

For someone who claims not to be intellectually dishonest, why would you compare two very different measures of unemployment?

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center
from 6-2010 over 16%
what is your problem dude, you see something dis -honest?
I said it was close to 20%, I chose a under employed poll, I could have chose the one I just posted

You compared the U3 unemployment rate from 1994 to 2006 with a U6 rate for 2010. The two are not comparable - they are completely different metrics using different definitions.

Perhaps it wasn't intellectual dishonesty but simple ignorance.

what?

You know calling a man a liar that has provided third party information to prove his point is one thing
well lets do it this way the shall we?

1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524


does that make you happy?
Is all you do in life is sit around and pretend that the 6 million jobs we have lost from 08 matter if its data from U3-U6 or z1awxpt?
what a ******* dick head you are, you have nothing to offer in life or on this message board
just go away

 

[JRK]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

The UN 1441 resolution, was approved by the UN to put consequences to Iraqs actions, with language that does not disclude the possibility of a military strike. You have provided no facts to the contrary.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

Corruption?
What has that got to do with anything?
Did the UN give authorisation to go in or not?
The answer is 'no' as you said yourself.

what does the UN have to do with this country?
no-one asked your opinion any-way
congress gave the go ahead 10-2002
we dont answer to the UN

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK wants to sweep away the Reaganista foreign adventurism and unsustainable economic policies as if they never happened and were not responsible for the Bush administration crashing the economy and conducting an illegal war that will send his senior folks to prison forever if they travel to certain parts of western Europe.

 

[idb]

The UN 1441 resolution, was approved by the UN to put consequences to Iraqs actions, with language that does not disclude the possibility of a military strike. You have provided no facts to the contrary.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

Corruption?
What has that got to do with anything?
Did the UN give authorisation to go in or not?
The answer is 'no' as you said yourself.

what does the UN have to do with this country?
no-one asked your opinion any-way
congress gave the go ahead 10-2002
we dont answer to the UN

You fool.
Bush used the UN as a justification for going into Iraq, that's what it has to do with the US.

No-one asked my opinion?
You had better stop posting on a public forum then, just send PMs to those that agree with you - it would save you a lot of stress and heartache.