Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JRK]

Sure, no problem, JRK.

Your question is what law makes international treaties THE LAW, right?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.


This law establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." .

The above means that if Congress ratifies an international treaty?

It become US law.

Yes it was legal. It was NOT an example of a TREATY, tho.


You're welcome.





Irrelvant to the question whether WMDs were there. The invasion by Bush II was LEGAL (not necessarily wise, but certainly legal) because it wass authorized by Congress.

FWIW, I was answering your question.

provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

My answer addressed that specic question, which really has nothing whatever do do with the Iraqi invasion.

As I recall the item congress stipulated was the enforcement of UN resolution 1441,or should I say all UN resolutions
WMDs were to be 100% accounted for and destroyed
Old, worthless, missiles found in Iraq that had no chance of working, with Mustard and Syrian gas in the war heads became the legal "widget" if ever needed that UN resolution 1442 had not been enforced, there fore we took upon ourselves as mandated by congress to enforce it ourselves, with about 50 other countries

 

[JakeStarkey]

again for the 1000th time
provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

Sure, no problem, JRK.

Your question is what law makes international treaties THE LAW, right?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.


This law establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." .

The above means that if Congress ratifies an international treaty?

It become US law.

SNIP

JRK does not understand the Constitution, does not understand the international treaty process, does not understand any attempt to withdraw from a treaty in order to commit war crimes without reprisal is not defensible and the crimes are still punishable by international tribunal --

JRK just digs himself in deeper.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA did not have authorization from the UN to enforce UN resolutions. JRK has to stop lying.

 

[JRK]

Sure, no problem, JRK.

Your question is what law makes international treaties THE LAW, right?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.


This law establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." .

The above means that if Congress ratifies an international treaty?

It become US law.

SNIP

JRK does not understand the Constitution, does not understand the international treaty process, does not understand any attempt to withdraw from a treaty in order to commit war crimes without reprisal is not defensible and the crimes are still punishable by international tribunal --

JRK just digs himself in deeper.

Jake which congress mandate out weighs the other?
Do not understand the constitution?
Jake the defense of this country is in the constitution, the answer to the UN is not

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.

 

[JRK]

JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?

 

[idb]

JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?

Charter of the United Nations

 

[JRK]

JRK does not understand that (1) the Constitution provides for the adoption of treaty agreements as US law, and (2) the US is bound by it.

JRK wants the Constitution to rule the world: it does not.

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?

Charter of the United Nations

So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part

Really?

good luck, when you find it let me know

 

[idb]

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?

Charter of the United Nations

So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part

Really?

good luck, when you find it let me know

No

 

[JakeStarkey]

exactly what agreement did the US congress and president GWB sign off on with the UN?

Charter of the United Nations

So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part

Really?

good luck, when you find it let me know

You, in other words, know full well that you can't prove the US has immunity from violating interational treaties concerning the law of war in Iraq.

Thought so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK is the working American equivalent of Goebbels or a Streicher, defending the indefensible. Amazing. But he is, after all, a progressive right winger.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Charter of the United Nations

So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part

Really?

good luck, when you find it let me know

You, in other words, know full well that you can't prove the US has immunity from violating interational treaties concerning the law of war in Iraq.

Thought so.

Are you still rambling on? Did you even READ the acrticle pertaining to UNresolution 1441, or do you normally waste people's time going on about your ideological belief without backing it up? Where are the facts for the basis of your arguments?

President Bush wanted a provision to include the use of military force, UN resolution 1441 was admitted to have been written very vague without a clear statement outlining if and the UN authority with reguard to the use of military force.

Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own.
International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

I even increased the font for you to make it easier for you to read, since you like to simply skip over information thats been provided to you. There are the facts. Case closed, end of discussion.

Maybe if you provided some "facts" yourself you might actually HAVE an argument. It appears you'd much rather just stict to some ideology "unsupported opinion" over anything else.
You lost the argument here JakeStarkey with regard to any UN violation by President Bush, you haven't been able to prove you can redeem yourself, now move along to another thread

 

[JRK]

So in this document you are going to find for me a page in which GWB, the speaker of the house and the president of the senate have for ever signed off any and all jurisdiction/guidance/chain of command and law as mandated by our constitution in favor of the UN and there resolutions/law especially when it comes to the law part

Really?

good luck, when you find it let me know

You, in other words, know full well that you can't prove the US has immunity from violating interational treaties concerning the law of war in Iraq.

Thought so. [/QUOTE

Are you still rambling on? Did you even READ the acrticle pertaining to UNresolution 1441, or do you normally waste people's time going on about your ideological belief without backing it up? Where are the facts for the basis of your arguments?

President Bush wanted a provision to include the use of military force, UN resolution 1441 was admitted to have been written very vague without a clear statement outlining if and the UN authority with reguard to the use of military force.

Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own.
International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

I even increased the font for you to make it easier for you to read, since you like to simply skip over information thats been provided to you. There are the facts. Case closed, end of discussion.

Maybe if you provided some "facts" yourself you might actually HAVE an argument. It appears you'd much rather just stict to some ideology "unsupported opinion" over anything else.
You lost the argument here JakeStarkey with regard to any UN violation by President Bush, you haven't been able to prove you can redeem yourself, now move along to another thread

shack those guys make it up as they go
we hold no allaince to any-one but the people
for the people, by the people
it would not matter, your thread is so true and spot on. The left is so scared people will find out the truth
Obama was elected on lies, this 7 year lie is the biggest. The US senate voted on the same information W had and the UN had in October of 2002 to attack Saddam if he did not to adhere to UN resolutions as they pertained to Iraq
On 1-27-2003 hans blix stated such, we invaded 8 weeks later. Thats all there is to it

 

[BlindBoo]

You, in other words, know full well that you can't prove the US has immunity from violating interational treaties concerning the law of war in Iraq.

Thought so. [/QUOTE

Are you still rambling on? Did you even READ the acrticle pertaining to UNresolution 1441, or do you normally waste people's time going on about your ideological belief without backing it up? Where are the facts for the basis of your arguments?

President Bush wanted a provision to include the use of military force, UN resolution 1441 was admitted to have been written very vague without a clear statement outlining if and the UN authority with reguard to the use of military force.



I even increased the font for you to make it easier for you to read, since you like to simply skip over information thats been provided to you. There are the facts. Case closed, end of discussion.

Maybe if you provided some "facts" yourself you might actually HAVE an argument. It appears you'd much rather just stict to some ideology "unsupported opinion" over anything else.
You lost the argument here JakeStarkey with regard to any UN violation by President Bush, you haven't been able to prove you can redeem yourself, now move along to another thread

shack those guys make it up as they go
we hold no allaince to any-one but the people
for the people, by the people
it would not matter, your thread is so true and spot on. The left is so scared people will find out the truth
Obama was elected on lies, this 7 year lie is the biggest. The US senate voted on the same information W had and the UN had in October of 2002 to attack Saddam if he did not to adhere to UN resolutions as they pertained to Iraq
On 1-27-2003 hans blix stated such, we invaded 8 weeks later. Thats all there is to it

I truly love how you pseudo's ignore that which does not agree with you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eing-re-wrote-as-we-watch-21.html#post4321868

Did they ever find the huge stockpile of newly produced WMD that the Bush Administration claimed was a dire threat to the worlds remaining superpower?

 

[JRK]

shack those guys make it up as they go
we hold no allaince to any-one but the people
for the people, by the people
it would not matter, your thread is so true and spot on. The left is so scared people will find out the truth
Obama was elected on lies, this 7 year lie is the biggest. The US senate voted on the same information W had and the UN had in October of 2002 to attack Saddam if he did not to adhere to UN resolutions as they pertained to Iraq
On 1-27-2003 hans blix stated such, we invaded 8 weeks later. Thats all there is to it

I truly love how you pseudo's ignore that which does not agree with you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eing-re-wrote-as-we-watch-21.html#post4321868

Did they ever find the huge stockpile of newly produced WMD that the Bush Administration claimed was a dire threat to the worlds remaining superpower?

This si the largest lie of all
1) the UN resolution was for Saddam to resolve the issue without fault. 10 years later there was so much that was still not known
2) the 500 junk missiles proves that. no resolution mandated the shape or age of the items Saddam was to document and destroy. there are 6000 still un accounted for per HIS CLAIM and it is the very reaon we invaded
3) GWB claimed nothing, the UN made those claims based on what Saddam claimed as did many others, including Kerry 1-2003. GWB, Kerry, every-one was repeating what the UN had documented from 1991

 

[BlindBoo]

I truly love how you pseudo's ignore that which does not agree with you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eing-re-wrote-as-we-watch-21.html#post4321868

Did they ever find the huge stockpile of newly produced WMD that the Bush Administration claimed was a dire threat to the worlds remaining superpower?

This si the largest lie of all
1) the UN resolution was for Saddam to resolve the issue without fault. 10 years later there was so much that was still not known
2) the 500 junk missiles proves that. no resolution mandated the shape or age of the items Saddam was to document and destroy. there are 6000 still un accounted for per HIS CLAIM and it is the very reaon we invaded
3) GWB claimed nothing, the UN made those claims based on what Saddam claimed as did many others, including Kerry 1-2003. GWB, Kerry, every-one was repeating what the UN had documented from 1991

Your re-write is debunked again.

The UN? Really? I never heard them ever say these:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. "

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "

"We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

-GWB

"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-rummy

And the answer is, "No they never found any stock piles of newly created WMD"!

 

[JRK]

This si the largest lie of all
1) the UN resolution was for Saddam to resolve the issue without fault. 10 years later there was so much that was still not known
2) the 500 junk missiles proves that. no resolution mandated the shape or age of the items Saddam was to document and destroy. there are 6000 still un accounted for per HIS CLAIM and it is the very reaon we invaded
3) GWB claimed nothing, the UN made those claims based on what Saddam claimed as did many others, including Kerry 1-2003. GWB, Kerry, every-one was repeating what the UN had documented from 1991

Your re-write is debunked again.

The UN? Really? I never heard them ever say these:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. "

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "

"We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

-GWB

"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-rummy

And the answer is, "No they never found any stock piles of newly created WMD"!

and your point is?
when did this speech take place
what was the date this intel was collected

Un-like Obama, Bush did this in the public. He bombed Somaolia as an attack on Al-Qaeda. You think Saddam just sit while we waited for the UN to end this mess?
Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria
Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun
saddam moved weapons - Bing Videos
Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD
PJ Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

No-one but Saddam knew the truth. Why was it 550 metric tons of yeloow cake sit in Iraq until 2008?
Why is it GWB needed ti lie? the truth was good enough and the truth was the reason we invaded
That intel was not from GWB personal file, that intel went to everyone that mattered

You keep trying to re direct the debate to events that have 2 sides to that story. Your problem is you ignore the side that makes sense and had history on its side in 2003 to be correct
as my thread states, history, the truth will be re written. Its to late, it got BHO elected and we are now paying for it

 

[BlindBoo]

Your re-write is debunked again.

The UN? Really? I never heard them ever say these:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. "

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "

"We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

-GWB

"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-rummy

And the answer is, "No they never found any stock piles of newly created WMD"!

and your point is?
when did this speech take place
what was the date this intel was collected

Un-like Obama, Bush did this in the public. He bombed Somaolia as an attack on Al-Qaeda. You think Saddam just sit while we waited for the UN to end this mess?
Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria
Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun
saddam moved weapons - Bing Videos
Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD
PJ Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

No-one but Saddam knew the truth. Why was it 550 metric tons of yeloow cake sit in Iraq until 2008?
Why is it GWB needed ti lie? the truth was good enough and the truth was the reason we invaded
That intel was not from GWB personal file, that intel went to everyone that mattered

You keep trying to re direct the debate to events that have 2 sides to that story. Your problem is you ignore the side that makes sense and had history on its side in 2003 to be correct
as my thread states, history, the truth will be re written. Its to late, it got BHO elected and we are now paying for it

The point is Bush did in fact make claims that the UN did not.

Those are quotes from various speeches.

Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD.

I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write.

 

[JRK]

and your point is?
when did this speech take place
what was the date this intel was collected

Un-like Obama, Bush did this in the public. He bombed Somaolia as an attack on Al-Qaeda. You think Saddam just sit while we waited for the UN to end this mess?
Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria
Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun
saddam moved weapons - Bing Videos
Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD
PJ Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

No-one but Saddam knew the truth. Why was it 550 metric tons of yeloow cake sit in Iraq until 2008?
Why is it GWB needed ti lie? the truth was good enough and the truth was the reason we invaded
That intel was not from GWB personal file, that intel went to everyone that mattered

You keep trying to re direct the debate to events that have 2 sides to that story. Your problem is you ignore the side that makes sense and had history on its side in 2003 to be correct
as my thread states, history, the truth will be re written. Its to late, it got BHO elected and we are now paying for it

The point is Bush did in fact make claims that the UN did not.

Those are quotes from various speeches.

Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD.

I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write.

It is easy to debunk with 1/2 of the story boo
Saddam buried fighter jets Boo, is this a manned delivary tool?
any way Boo I have never tried to de bunk what we found, all I have ever done is offer what the whole story is, not the story that was told after 3-2003
and even some of that never gets told

 

[BlindBoo]

The point is Bush did in fact make claims that the UN did not.

Those are quotes from various speeches.

Yellow cake does not constitute a WMD.

I'm not redirecting anything. Just debunking your usual re write.

It is easy to debunk with 1/2 of the story boo
Saddam buried fighter jets Boo, is this a manned delivary tool?
any way Boo I have never tried to de bunk what we found, all I have ever done is offer what the whole story is, not the story that was told after 3-2003
and even some of that never gets told

You do not offer the whole story. You never answer the question. Did we find the WMD programs or stockpiles the Bush Administration claimed Iraq had?