NationStates Jolt Archive

You fail to realize that Bush isn't the one in charge here. It's his daddy, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Rummy and their friends at the PNAC. THEY fixed the intel, but I must give you credit for accepting that Bush is the retard that he is.
you for got Darth Va... i mean Cheney

So you still think there were WMD's in Iraq, Rogue Newbie...

You're a fucking retard. That's all i have to say. :p

who's flaming?
Phosphore?+ benzine is not a flaming recipe....well Good luck and welcome to the circus

and if you want flame look here (http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/brghtsd.mp3)

of here (http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html)
that is flame? or not?

jeez, im really sick of all these conspiracy stories travelling around about the bush admin. they really make no rational sense at all, stop making excuses for yourselves and tryiing to blame all your problems on, and put down the president. the war was justified in one way or another. these conspiracies are made by people who cant take the fact that they didnt have kerry or gore win the elections.. just let it go, you lost, stop trying to blame the president for your problems and insecurities

So you still think there were WMD's in Iraq, Rogue Newbie...

You're a fucking retard. That's all i have to say. :p


yourea fucking retard for thinking that there werent any.. all of the other nations knew they were their b/c they sold the 'parts' to saddam. obviously he hid them or moved them!!! common sense... he see's were going into afghanistan, then bush gives him an ultimatum, he doesnt give us proof that he deestroyed his weapons, he knows were coming in after him, so he hides them somewhere else (my bet is syria)!!!
do you honestly think that he was turning down un weapons inspectors and fucking with the UN and the US for 10 years for nothing?... get a hint!

jeez, im really sick of all these conspiracy stories travelling around about the bush admin. they really make no rational sense at all, stop making excuses for yourselves and tryiing to blame all your problems on, and put down the president. the war was justified in one way or another. these conspiracies are made by people who cant take the fact that they didnt have kerry or gore win the elections.. just let it go, you lost, stop trying to blame the president for your problems and insecurities
sentence for sentence:
1. I like how labeling something a conspiracy makes it immediately impossible
2. why dont they make sense? whos blaming there problems on the president? why shouldn't we put down the president? is your politically ideology modeled after Britney Spears or something?
3. how was the war justified? they justified the war by saying Iraq has WMD. there is no WMD. if everyone knew there was no WMD, we wouldn't have gone.
4. not really
5. so instead of holding Nixon accountable, we should've just said, "ok well let it go." No true patriot will ever just "let it go," whatever the trespass may be. and again who is blaming the president for their problems and insecurities. maybe some of the countries problems and insecurities, but not their personal problems and insecurities.

please nobody awnser to the borg,please.

Not my president. I rejected him long ago. You can call me whatever name you want over this--I don't care--but Bush is not my president. He does not speak for me or for the country I love.

The Nazz, though its already been responded too. I don't care. You sir, have just shown how little you know. He DOES speak for the Country because the PEOPLE elected him. You know those elections we had in November? The people voted him to be our President. Wether you like it or not, he speaks for you and the nation you love.

is napalm considered a chemical weapon?

Nope. Napalm isn't a chemical weapon at all.

Nope. Napalm isn't a chemical weapon at all.
explain?

explain?

Why don't you ask Celtland since he said it first and you didn't ask him. I like to know how you think it is.

Why don't you ask Celtland since he said it first and you didn't ask him. I like to know how you think it is.
ah rhetorics and debates,my question stand

ah rhetorics and debates,my question stand

So does mine!

So does mine!
so a guys(or a girl) who know killing and telling you (s)he is right, knows that a phosfore bomb is not chemical,but he could agree with nuclear munition as not beeing WMD?
Knowing (s)he can burn you alive,wow,(s) he is a WMD and the most dangerous one.

Nope. Napalm isn't a chemical weapon at all.
Naaawww, it isn't a chemical weapon (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm) in the slighest:

As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices. The most infamous of these was napalm, a mixture of petrol and a chemical thickner which produces a tough sticky gel that attaches itself to the skin. The igniting agent, white phosphorus, continues burning for a considerable amount of time. A reported three quarters of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone (fifth degree burns). The pain caused by the burning is so traumatic that it often causes death.

It is a "friendly" incendiary weapon:

Apparently, neither napalm nor white phosphorous officially count as chemical weapons. They are "incediary weapons". That doesn't make them any less horrible, of course. Napalm is banned by a treaty ratified by many countries (not including the US), and white phosphorous is similar in its effects on people to napalm. Also, it is not yet clear whether napalm was used in Fallujah, but white phosphorous definitely was.

A little soap and water ought to do the trick?

good night


As the United States is the most advanced industrial nation in world it was able to make full use of the latest developments in technology in its war against North Vietnam. B-52 bombers, that could fly at heights that prevented them being seen or heard, dropped 8 million tons of bombs on Vietnam between 1965 and 1973. This was over three times the amount of bombs dropped throughout the whole of the Second World War and worked out at approximately 300 tons for every man, woman and child living in Vietnam.

As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices. The most infamous of these was napalm, a mixture of petrol and a chemical thickner which produces a tough sticky gel that attaches itself to the skin. The igniting agent, white phosphorus, continues burning for a considerable amount of time. A reported three quarters of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone (fifth degree burns). The pain caused by the burning is so traumatic that it often causes death.

The US also made considerable use of anti-personnel bombs. The pineapple bomb was made up of 250 metal pellets inside a small canister. Gloria Emerson, a reporter in Vietnam, witnessed their use: "An American plane could drop a thousand pineapples over an area the size of four football fields. In a single air strike two hundred and fifty thousand pellets were spewed in a horizontal pattern over the land below, hitting everything on the ground."

The United States also experimented with the use of plastic rather than metal needles and pellets in their antipersonnel bombs. The advantage of plastic was they could not be identified by X-Ray machines. Dropped on highly populated areas, antipersonnel bombs could severely disrupt the functioning of North Vietnam. It has been claimed that the major objective of the US bombing raids on North Vietnam was not to kill its 17 million population but to maim them. As was pointed out at the time, serious injury is more disruptive than death as people have to be employed to look after the injured where they only have to bury the dead.

One of the major problems of the US forces was the detection of the National Liberation Front hiding in the forests of Vietnam. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy approved Operation Ranch Hand. This involved the spraying of chemicals from the air in an attempt to destroy the National Liberation Front hiding places. In 1969 alone, Operation Ranch Hand destroyed 1,034,300 hectares of forest. Agent Orange, the chemical used in this defoliation programme not only destroyed trees but caused chromosomal damage in people.

Chemicals were also sprayed on crops. Between 1962 and 1969, 688,000 agricultural acres were sprayed with a chemical called Agent Blue. The aim of this exercise was to deny food to the NLF. However, research suggests that it was the civilian population who suffered most from the poor rice harvests that followed the spraying.

When a report appeared in the St. Louis Dispatch about the dropping of "poison" on North Vietnam the United States denied the herbicide they were using was a chemical weapon. It was claimed that Agent Orange and Agent Blue were harmless to humans and only had a short-lived impact on the environment.

This was disputed by international experts and 5,000 American scientists, including 17 Nobel prize winners and 129 members of the Academy of Sciences, signed a petition against chemical and biological weapons being used in Vietnam. However, it was not until 1974 that the United States government stopped using Agent Orange and Agent Blue.

During the war about 10% of Vietnam was intensively sprayed with 72 million litres of chemicals, of which 66% was Agent Orange. Some of this landed on their own troops and soon after the war ended veterans began complaining about serious health problems. There was also a high incidence of their children being born limbless or with Down's syndrome and spina bifida. The veterans sued the defoliant manufacturers and this was settled out of court in 1984 by the payment of $180 million.

The TCCD dioxin used in Agent Orange seeped into the soil and water supply, and therefore into the food chain. In this way it passed from mother to foetus in the womb. In Vietnam the dioxide remains in the soil and is now damaging the health of the grandchildren of the war's victims.

A report published in 2003 claimed that 650,000 people in Vietnam were still suffering from chronic conditions as a result of the chemicals dropped on the country during the war. Since the war the Vietnamese Red Cross has registered an estimated one million people disabled by Agent Orange. It is estimated that 500,000 people in Vietnam have died from the numerous health problems created by these chemical weapons.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical3.JPG

The Nazz, though its already been responded too. I don't care. You sir, have just shown how little you know. He DOES speak for the Country because the PEOPLE elected him. You know those elections we had in November? The people voted him to be our President. Wether you like it or not, he speaks for you and the nation you love.
At best, 30% of the country voted for him. The rest either voted for someone else or stayed home--I am of that number, and I say here and now that while Bush may be the president of and speak for that 30% of the country, he does not speak for me. He is not my president, and never will be. I offer him no loyalty, and I offer him no service. He is destroying what I hold dear, and I will never forgive him for that.

He also committed purjery which is lying under oath.
No, he did not. He was aquitted of perjury for the reasons we are discussing here: He made a statement that was false, but without the intention to mislead that is required for perjury.

yourea fucking retard for thinking that there werent any.. all of the other nations knew they were their b/c they sold the 'parts' to saddam. obviously he hid them or moved them!!! common sense... he see's were going into afghanistan, then bush gives him an ultimatum, he doesnt give us proof that he deestroyed his weapons, he knows were coming in after him, so he hides them somewhere else (my bet is syria)!!!
do you honestly think that he was turning down un weapons inspectors and fucking with the UN and the US for 10 years for nothing?... get a hint!
Eeee gads, lets invade syria now just to make sure that he didn't hide them there. It should be a surprise attack, just so we can make sure!!!!

hey guys i have a great idea. go to Google Images and search for "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq". see if there are any pictures there that actually supports that statement made by bush.

rightist retards.

The Nazz, though its already been responded too. I don't care. You sir, have just shown how little you know. He DOES speak for the Country because the PEOPLE elected him. You know those elections we had in November? The people voted him to be our President. Wether you like it or not, he speaks for you and the nation you love.
You're incorrect. He speaks for the 59 million evangelical, manipulated majority that actually voted for him. It's not like he had a mandate therefore speaking for EVERYONE in the country. He speaks for the few, the elite and the brainwashed majority, too stupid to realize what the Administration is doing to this country. Bush definately does not voice the opinions of the 58 million or however many people didn't vote for him. He may speak for the country on a political level, but he doesn't speak for the country as a whole. The world knows there are still some smart people left in the United States of America, we are not all jerks.

You're incorrect. He speaks for the 59 million evangelical, manipulated majority that actually voted for him. It's not like he had a mandate therefore speaking for EVERYONE in the country. He speaks for the few, the elite and the brainwashed majority, too stupid to realize what the Administration is doing to this country. Bush definately does not voice the opinions of the 58 million or however many people didn't vote for him. He may speak for the country on a political level, but he doesn't speak for the country as a whole. The world knows there are still some smart people left in the United States of America, we are not all jerks.

Ummm, I'm an agnostic, and I support the majority of what he stands for. Sure, you can say the evangelical bible-thumping right made a moderate impact on the outcome, but for any Democrat you can say that blacks and uneducated poor people and potheads and crack whores made a moderate impact on the outcome. Both are equally true.

At best, 30% of the country voted for him. The rest either voted for someone else or stayed home--I am of that number, and I say here and now that while Bush may be the president of and speak for that 30% of the country, he does not speak for me. He is not my president, and never will be. I offer him no loyalty, and I offer him no service. He is destroying what I hold dear, and I will never forgive him for that.

He sure does speak for you wether you voted for him or not. Welcome to Democracy 101. Doesn't matter if you voted for him or not, he is still your President. Dot, Period, end of story.

Ummm, I'm an agnostic, and I support the majority of what he stands for. Sure, you can say the evangelical bible-thumping right made a moderate impact on the outcome, but for any Democrat you can say that blacks and uneducated poor people and potheads and crack whores made a moderate impact on the outcome. Both are equally true.
thank you for saying it's bad to make blanket statements by making a blanket statement.

No, he did not. He was aquitted of perjury for the reasons we are discussing here: He made a statement that was false, but without the intention to mislead that is required for perjury.

CSW, he did lie under oath and committed perjurty. In reality he wasn't acquitted. The Majority of senators voted him guilty but did not reach the number required to toss him from office.

Lying under oath, which is precisely what he did, is perjury and an impeachable offense. To bad the Democrats didn't allow in all the evidence. If they did, 3 to 1 odds Gore would've been President for the remainder of the term.

CSW, he did lie under oath and committed perjurty. In reality he wasn't acquitted. The Majority of senators voted him guilty but did not reach the number required to toss him from office.

Lying under oath, which is precisely what he did, is perjury and an impeachable offense. To bad the Democrats didn't allow in all the evidence. If they did, 3 to 1 odds Gore would've been President for the remainder of the term.
Um...no.

Kindly show the court documents where he was shown to have committed the crime of perjury.

Besides, in the words of the chief justice:
"The Senate, having tried William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein: it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in this said article."

He sure does speak for you wether you voted for him or not. Welcome to Democracy 101. Doesn't matter if you voted for him or not, he is still your President. Dot, Period, end of story.
So what if he's our prez? That doesn't mean my opinions should coincide with his does it? More Americans voted for him than for anyone else, but does that mean he speaks on behalf of ALL Americans? Certainly not.

He sure does speak for you wether you voted for him or not. Welcome to Democracy 101. Doesn't matter if you voted for him or not, he is still your President. Dot, Period, end of story.
:rolleyes:

Go bother someone else, child--I have no time for you. Whether you are unable or unwilling to grasp my position doesn't matter--I have made it clear and plain and others understand me, and that is enough for me.

Um...no.

Kindly show the court documents where he was shown to have committed the crime of perjury.

Aren't they sealed? "I did not have sex with that woman" Gee....He lied about that to a grand jury. That's perjury. I don't know about you but I think you need to stop being blinded by the propaganda that people put out saying he's innocent when infact he isn't. Even my mothe, who is about as politically neutral as one can get, said he should've been impeached.

Besides, in the words of the chief justice:
"The Senate, having tried William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein: it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in this said article."

Notice the words 2/3 of the senators not finding him guilty. Over 50% of them did however. I already stated that he stayed in office because of that however, he was found guilty but not guilty enough to be tossed out of office.

So what if he's our prez? That doesn't mean my opinions should coincide with his does it? More Americans voted for him than for anyone else, but does that mean he speaks on behalf of ALL Americans? Certainly not.

Since he's the President, he surely does speak for all of us. As for your 1st question, no your opinions don't have to coincide with his. I don't like his immigration policy so my opinions don't match his there. I don't like the base closings either so my opinions don't match those of his administration there either.

The Gov't report stated clearly that no weapons of mass distruction, or research programs thereof, were found in Iraq AT THE TIME OF INVASION, AND THEREAFTER.

Well, in light of recent events, it appears the Russians helped Saddam hide the nuclear weapons programs that HE DID HAVE. A Russian network had apparently set up a contingency plan for an American invasion, and smuggled the programs and weapons out of the country into Syria, Iran, and other surrounding nations... I'm trying to find the report which discovered the plot, and then when I do, I'll post the link...

I'm surprised we haven't brought Saddam's accomplices, namely Putin, Chirac, and Schrodinger to an international court... Oh, wait, that's right... The UN is useless in any function other than the corrupt distribution of American wealth, with a little rape and scandal thrown in...

:rolleyes:

Go bother someone else, child--I have no time for you. Whether you are unable or unwilling to grasp my position doesn't matter--I have made it clear and plain and others understand me, and that is enough for me.

I grasped it just fine. You don't like him and therefor you think he isn't your president when infact he is since the people elected him.

Aren't they sealed? "I did not have sex with that woman" Gee....He lied about that to a grand jury. That's perjury. I don't know about you but I think you need to stop being blinded by the propaganda that people put out saying he's innocent when infact he isn't. Even my mothe, who is about as politically neutral as one can get, said he should've been impeached.

Sigh...Clinton was a lawyer. Sexual relations was rigidly defined earlier in that trial to mean one thing. What he did did not fall under that definition. His statement, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, was not perjury, as it had no intent to mislead (rather, no intent period), as it was correct under the definitions being used.

Remember, perjury is not lying under oath, it is intentionally lying under oath with the intention to mislead. Clinton did not intentionally lie, he thought that the definition of sexual relation was clearly understood. If you actually look into the legal matters of this case, you'll see that the vote was clearly politically motivated indeed, but not towards accquital but towards finding him guilty. The Republicans really had no case.


Notice the words 2/3 of the senators not finding him guilty. Over 50% of them did however. I already stated that he stayed in office because of that however, he was found guilty but not guilty enough to be tossed out of office.
No, actually less then 50% did for article I and 50% on the nose for article II (not including Gore). Quite frankly, if they couldn't even get 2/3rds of the senators on their side, they had no real case. In my opinion, the barrier should be every last damn senator, same as it is in a criminal trial.

No, actually less then 50% did for article I and 50% on the nose for article II (not including Gore). Quite frankly, if they couldn't even get 2/3rds of the senators on their side, they had no real case. In my opinion, the barrier should be every last damn senator, same as it is in a criminal trial.

Actually no. We even talked about this in 2 of my poli sci classes and yea he was found guilty by over 50 senators.

Actually no. We even talked about this in 2 of my poli sci classes and yea he was found guilty by over 50 senators.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rollcall1_021299.htm

Role call on the perjury vote (Not Guilty/Guilty)
Not Guilty 55
Guilty: 45
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rollcall2_021299.htm
Role call on the Obstruction of Justice vote (Not guilty/guilty)
Not Guilty: 50
Guilty: 50

One crap polisci class you've got there. That took me all of three seconds to find on google.

Secondly, I am very insenced at the insults which have been directed at republicans, and moral, ethical, principaled, and religious people in general. We are not 'brainwashed' or 'bushwhacked,' nor are we idiots. We simply have convictions, believe in a right and a wrong, we believe in a Supreme God who will judge all things in the end, we believe that there are absolutes, we believe the murder of human beings (embryonic stem cell research, abortion) is wrong, we also believe that homosexuality is against God's law, as well as (for the atheists) natural law.

We know that there is no such thing as a perfect politician. We also realize that this country must be kept intact, and it seems that the Republicans are the only group trying to keep even a semblance of intelligence, civilization, and so forth within this country. Men and women once had to work to survive, not simply live on government subsidies to do nothing but become a burden upon the economy and society. Once upon a time, morals and ethics and God could be mentioned and, OH MY GOSH! even taught, in schools. Maybe that's why previous generations weren't so crime-oriented, and why they worked and were decent people.

If the Democrats as they are now gain control, they will destroy this country. In fact, I believe I shall refer to them as Psuedo-Democrats, because Democrats in the past were once a respectable party interested in the good of the citizens and the country, not illegals and the 'world body.'

I shake my head when I think of the state of our Nation today. The United States is rapidly declining. And to think, my beloved party, the Republicans, sways to the minority of screaming, whiny psuedo-democrats. We must not give in, because the Dems have become used to being able to make US compromise, but seem never to give an inch themselves.

Anyway, that's all for now, folks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rollcall1_021299.htm

Role call on the perjury vote (Not Guilty/Guilty)
Not Guilty 55
Guilty: 45
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rollcall2_021299.htm
Role call on the Obstruction of Justice vote (Not guilty/guilty)
Not Guilty: 50
Guilty: 50

One crap polisci class you've got there. That took me all of three seconds to find on google.

He's still guilty and its only because evidence was blocked from entering that he got off.

He's still guilty and its only because evidence was blocked from entering that he got off.
On what earth does a 50-50 vote make someone guilty of a crime? In the US, on juries, you have to have 100% of the vote against you to be guilty, even if one person dissents, the jury is deadlocked and a mistrial is called.

Oh, and the evidence that "proves" him guilty, may I see it? This is a highly serious alligation and should be brought infront of the Senate right away.

(pardon the misspelling, my head hurts)

thank you for saying it's bad to make blanket statements by making a blanket statement.

I didn't say it was bad, did I? Good job reading. I was just pointing out that it works both ways, so saying things like, "Most stupid cracker rednecks are Republicans," is kind of pointless, since the other side can just say, "Most stupid crackpot blacks are Democrats," and neither side can be disputed, because both are true.

He's still guilty and its only because evidence was blocked from entering that he got off.
You just can't admit that you might possibly be wrong about something, can you? It's the clearest sign of a small mind.

You just can't admit that you might possibly be wrong about something, can you? It's the clearest sign of a small mind.

Everyone's human.

Everyone's human.
Am I do take that as a "I was wrong CSW"?

I didn't say it was bad, did I? Good job reading. I was just pointing out that it works both ways, so saying things like, "Most stupid cracker rednecks are Republicans," is kind of pointless, since the other side can just say, "Most stupid crackpot blacks are Democrats," and neither side can be disputed, because both are true.
Whatever, it's not that important to you is it?

Whatever, it's not that important to you is it?
LOL, "Whatever, I can't read so I make up what people say. It's not that big a deal."

Am I do take that as a "I was wrong CSW"?
That is incredible. You pinned Corny on his own BS and he still lives in denial. Hard to argue with that kind of logic?

Good job!! :)

I grasped it just fine. You don't like him and therefor you think he isn't your president when infact he is since the people elected him.

He is indeed the president elected by the (slim) majority. However, his bare win (remember, Bush got the most votes in history, but Kerry got second) does not give him the mandate he proclaims. This actually points out the weakness of the American system, where one so easily misrepresented man can hold so much power.

Indeed, I find your adherence to Bush (not the Republican party at large as, surprisingly enough, the the GOP has disagreed with him in the past and the typical "Republisheep" backs Bush, not the Republican congressmen) quite sad. I will be the first to admit that, say, Clinton was far and away not the best president ever (in fact, the best thing that happened during his term was a Republican Congress, meaning deadlock. Isn't it funny how the country runs best when the government isn't doing anything?). Indeed, I will go as far as to say we haven't had a genuinely good president from either party since the Roosevelts. Of course, there are stand-outs like Ike and JFK, but both had enough faults that they fall through the cracks.

Secondly, I am very insenced at the insults which have been directed at republicans, and moral, ethical, principaled, and religious people in general. We are not 'brainwashed' or 'bushwhacked,' nor are we idiots. We simply have convictions, believe in a right and a wrong, we believe in a Supreme God who will judge all things in the end, we believe that there are absolutes, we believe the murder of human beings (embryonic stem cell research, abortion) is wrong, we also believe that homosexuality is against God's law, as well as (for the atheists) natural law.

We know that there is no such thing as a perfect politician. We also realize that this country must be kept intact, and it seems that the Republicans are the only group trying to keep even a semblance of intelligence, civilization, and so forth within this country. Men and women once had to work to survive, not simply live on government subsidies to do nothing but become a burden upon the economy and society. Once upon a time, morals and ethics and God could be mentioned and, OH MY GOSH! even taught, in schools. Maybe that's why previous generations weren't so crime-oriented, and why they worked and were decent people.


Unfortunately, GZ, unsubstantiated beliefs have no place in a system of law.

Also, welfare is broken, you'll find a lot of people will admit to that. However, most sane people are for fixing it, not getting rid of it so those who toe the Republican party-line can live their wet dream only to find themselves screwed when they hit hard times.

In fact, the concept of welfare is one of the few things I genuinely agree with the Democrats on.


If the Democrats as they are now gain control, they will destroy this country. In fact, I believe I shall refer to them as Psuedo-Democrats, because Democrats in the past were once a respectable party interested in the good of the citizens and the country, not illegals and the 'world body.'


Typical partisan trash. Neither party will destroy the country (unless PNAC Republicans stay in power, something I doubt will happen after Bush), neither wants to. Indeed, your typical Bush support (NOT REPUBLICAN) is more out for destroying this country and everything it was founded on than anyone else. Thank goodness they're only truely represented by the Constitution Party, eh?


I shake my head when I think of the state of our Nation today. The United States is rapidly declining. And to think, my beloved party, the Republicans, sways to the minority of screaming, whiny psuedo-democrats. We must not give in, because the Dems have become used to being able to make US compromise, but seem never to give an inch themselves.

Ironic you say the country is in a sad state considering the Republicans have been in power since Reagen. Notice I mentioned I liked Clinton's years not because of the president but because of the stalemate the government was in?

LOL, "Whatever, I can't read so I make up what people say. It's not that big a deal."
Sometimes I just get tired of argueing pointless things, constantly having to scrutinize every word I say only to have it blown out of context. Sorry. ;) :eek:

That is incredible. You pinned Corny on his own BS and he still lives in denial. Hard to argue with that kind of logic?

Good job!! :)

And this coming from a guy who has yet to admit that I am right that the US has yet to sign a treaty taking away its right to wage war on another country. Your still in denial about that soooo.

And this coming from a guy who has yet to admit that I am right that the US has yet to sign a treaty taking away its right to wage war on another country. Your still in denial about that soooo.
Your selective memory is kicking into high gear now that you've been caught once again?

I don't live in denial because it is a sorry place to be. We have gone over this argument far too many times, and you should clearly understand my position by now?

In regards to the war on Iraq, the US is a signator to the UN Charter. The UN Charter is recognized by your Constitution and by invading Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council, the US violated the UN Charter and the US Constitution. When it comes to denial, it is you that does not recognize the legality of the treaty signed with the UN. That would be your problem not mine, even though I have posted direct quotes from people such as Richard Perle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html) that would back my claim.

I have zero desire to go through another 20 or 30 posts for you to stay stuck on your point and in the end when all else has failed, you fall back to your bottom line position, and use your father knows best syndrone.

I know you don't like losing a debate, and you just proved it. CSW bested you and your comment to him:

"He's still guilty and its only because evidence was blocked from entering that he got off."

You cannot except the "democratic" outcome. Is this the kind of "democracy" that you want to give Iraq?

Be gracious in defeat and move forward.

Secondly, I am very insenced at the insults which have been directed at republicans, and moral, ethical, principaled, and religious people in general. We are not 'brainwashed' or 'bushwhacked,' nor are we idiots. We simply have convictions, believe in a right and a wrong, we believe in a Supreme God who will judge all things in the end, we believe that there are absolutes, we believe the murder of human beings (embryonic stem cell research, abortion) is wrong, we also believe that homosexuality is against God's law, as well as (for the atheists) natural law.

We know that there is no such thing as a perfect politician. We also realize that this country must be kept intact, and it seems that the Republicans are the only group trying to keep even a semblance of intelligence, civilization, and so forth within this country. Men and women once had to work to survive, not simply live on government subsidies to do nothing but become a burden upon the economy and society. Once upon a time, morals and ethics and God could be mentioned and, OH MY GOSH! even taught, in schools. Maybe that's why previous generations weren't so crime-oriented, and why they worked and were decent people.

If the Democrats as they are now gain control, they will destroy this country. In fact, I believe I shall refer to them as Psuedo-Democrats, because Democrats in the past were once a respectable party interested in the good of the citizens and the country, not illegals and the 'world body.'

I shake my head when I think of the state of our Nation today. The United States is rapidly declining. And to think, my beloved party, the Republicans, sways to the minority of screaming, whiny psuedo-democrats. We must not give in, because the Dems have become used to being able to make US compromise, but seem never to give an inch themselves.

Anyway, that's all for now, folks.

First point of business. Your convictions are a good thing. The fact that you believe in what you do does not mean you are necessarily brainwashed, but the fact is there are brainwashed people out there. There are brainwashed party-liners, and yes there are brainwashed Christians. The fact is, many Christians only believe what they do because they were told to; not because they truly believe it. Infact, most people are brainwashed. It's a fact of life. People are, for a lack of better words, stupid.

Republicans the only semblance of intelligence... RIGHT. Watch C-SPAN. You'll get an appreciation for the government all around. Frankly, there are good Republicans and good Democrats, it's just that they're not heavy hitters. Take a look at Tom Delay, for example. Hardly what I would call a benchmark. Simply put, most politicians have stopped caring about the American public. They only cater to what helps them, or what helps their party. If you think otherwise, take a look at the benefits they get. THAT causes a HUGE burden on society. And they won't give one of them up, because why would they? They get them, we don't. They can buy $1.65 packs of cigarrettes, they get ALL of they're gas miles payed for, they get first-class air travel to anywhere for free of course. Simply put, the majority of politicians couldn't give a damn about the American populace. Money and power, it's what makes em go.

As for teaching about God in school, realize this: The Government pays money for your schooling. If you want to learn about your religion, it is not the Government priority or job to worry about. Nor should they. "The wall between Church and State must be kept high and impenetrable". Our government was not made to cater to religion, nor should it. If it does, bias and unfair treatment ensues. Learn about religion on your own time. Oh, and you can mention God in school. You just can't make a scene. If you do, such as yelling repeatedly "GOD IS AWESOME" in the middle of class, then you are disrupting the class. There is no law which says you can't mention God. And how about a turn-about: What if Hindu were taught in school. I'm pretty sure you'd be in an uproar. Oh, and Constitution yada yada yada.

Hey, guess what, also? Most criminals in Jail are Christians that "lost their way"... hmm. Guess this blows you're whole theory. The reason is because of the Television, and bad parenting. Now, television is a good invention, that I do not advocate as "rotting children's minds". No, it is the parents who sit their damn kids infront of the TV all day. The parents are too busy doing whatever the hel they do to give a damn about their children. And guess what. Christians do this to. I've never been in trouble with anything, and have no need to act out or break the law, whereas the majority of my friends(The majority of which are christian) have gotten in trouble many times. I'm atheist. Obviously, under your theory, I'd be the bad one. I have many atheist friends, none have been in trouble with the law. Don't talk about what you don't know about.

You think the Democrats are bad? Republicans are the same way. Do you truly believe that they actually give a damn about anything they say? Don't be so naive'. Most politicians only care about how to cater to themselves and their party. Hey, do you think that Pro-Life is a Republican ideal? It's not. There are plenty of Democrats who are against abortion, and are not Pro-Choice. Didn't know that, did you? And there are plenty of Republicans for Stem Cell Research. These things have nothing to do with political parties. Well, welcome to brainwash city. If you open your eyes and ears, you may learn a few things. You may actually find that you agree with the Democrat Party on many things.

Democrats destroy this nation... this either proves that you are either a Republican trying to use emotional appeal to cause unjust fear, or you are a brainwashed republican. Care to back this statement up? Where's your proof? I can tell you right now that this is complete bull, used as emotional appeal. However, I agree America is declining, but not in the same respects you think. No, the two major parties are way to busy flinging the mud at each other, and trying to find ways to make themselves more powerful and line their pockets, that they have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing: Making this country a better place. It's a sad day really.

Sorry to sound harsh, but I'm getting so bloody sick and tired of propagandist ploys from everybody. Nobody knows what they're talking about because nobody even cares to make up their own minds: They only listen to what they're party says, and answers with a hardy "Yes, sir".

Frankly, neither party is any good any more. They both used to be, but that was long ago. Now, they only care about their pocket and their power.
Thus is the Decline of America.

...

In regards to the war on Iraq, the US is a signator to the UN Charter. The UN Charter is recognized by your Constitution and by invading Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council, the US violated the UN Charter and the US Constitution. When it comes to denial, it is you that does not recognize the legality of the treaty signed with the UN. That would be your problem not mine, even though I have posted direct quotes from people such as Richard Perle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html) that would back my claim.

...
I'd like to add that the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (AKA the Kellogg-Briand Pact) of 1928 is still in force. ;)

My point of view. The Iraqi War of 2003 was a violation of the international law. The US could not credibly invoke the right of self-defence (Iraq had not invaded the American territory) and the right of collective defence (Kuwait and the Saudis were not under attack). There is no other justification for military action in the international law, AFAIK, except for the resolution of the UN Security Council.

The US and the UK went to the UN floor to obtain the necessary resolution, and they failed. Then the governments 'stretched' the preceding SC resolutions dealing with Iraq to cover their actions, and the war commenced.

Why did the US and the UK attack Iraq? Saddam's regime was an avowed enemy of the United States, most of the world regarded the regime with well-deserved detestation, the US wanted to establish there some military bases (just in case), and America was eager to put the Americand hand on the Iraqi valve.

The highest level of Bush government desired that war. I suppose we won't know what parts of WMD warnings were written by intelligence people in order to please the country leaders, who wanted to show the US and the world how troublesome Saddam is, and what parts were 'sexed up' by the administration.

The invasion of Iraq served Saddam right, but it was still illegal.

I'd like to add that the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (AKA the Kellogg-Briand Pact) of 1928 is still in force. ;)

My point of view. The Iraqi War of 2003 was a violation of the international law. The US could not credibly invoke the right of self-defence (Iraq had not invaded the American territory) and the right of collective defence (Kuwait and the Saudis were not under attack). There is no other justification for military action in the international law, AFAIK, except for the resolution of the UN Security Council.

The US and the UK went to the UN floor to obtain the necessary resolution, and they failed. Then the governments 'stretched' the preceding SC resolutions dealing with Iraq to cover their actions, and the war commenced.

Why did the US and the UK attack Iraq? Saddam's regime was an avowed enemy of the United States, most of the world regarded the regime with well-deserved detestation, the US wanted to establish there some military bases (just in case), and America was eager to put the Americand hand on the Iraqi valve.

The highest level of Bush government desired that war. I suppose we won't know what parts of WMD warnings were written by intelligence people in order to please the country leaders, who wanted to show the US and the world how troublesome Saddam is, and what parts were 'sexed up' by the administration.

The invasion of Iraq served Saddam right, but it was still illegal.
Thank you for your post. You have succinctly stated my exact sentiments of this whole controversy. :)

Your selective memory is kicking into high gear now that you've been caught once again?

I don't live in denial because it is a sorry place to be. We have gone over this argument far too many times, and you should clearly understand my position by now?

In regards to the war on Iraq, the US is a signator to the UN Charter. The UN Charter is recognized by your Constitution and by invading Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council, the US violated the UN Charter and the US Constitution. When it comes to denial, it is you that does not recognize the legality of the treaty signed with the UN. That would be your problem not mine, even though I have posted direct quotes from people such as Richard Perle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html) that would back my claim.

However the UN Charter IS NOT A TREATY!!!! Look up the word Treaty and Charter in the Dictionary. They are two, repeat TWO, different things. The US HAS NOT, nor will ever sign, a treaty that limits its rights to wage war. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL!!!!!

Be gracious in defeat and move forward.

Only when you admit that you are wrong in your assertion that the US signed a treaty to limit its right to wage war when in fact we have not.

I'd like to add that the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (AKA the Kellogg-Briand Pact) of 1928 is still in force. ;)

Are you sure its still in effect?

My point of view. The Iraqi War of 2003 was a violation of the international law. The US could not credibly invoke the right of self-defence (Iraq had not invaded the American territory) and the right of collective defence (Kuwait and the Saudis were not under attack). There is no other justification for military action in the international law, AFAIK, except for the resolution of the UN Security Council.

It isn't a violation of International Law. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions as well as a UN Cease-Fire. The US just enforced said resolutions despite the fact that France, Germany, and Russia tried to stop it. We know why too. Hell, Russia sold Iraq GPS Jammers (A violation of UN Resolution)! Didn't matter anyway because we used GPS bombs on buildings with these Jammers. Anyway.....I'm still waiting on that treaty that we signed that gave up our right to wage war. As for the UN SC resolution, there are 17 of them on the books as well as a cease-fire. All the justification we need is using those resolutions. Next arguement please?

The US and the UK went to the UN floor to obtain the necessary resolution, and they failed. Then the governments 'stretched' the preceding SC resolutions dealing with Iraq to cover their actions, and the war commenced.

Actually they didn't fail. Resolution 1441 authorized "Serious Consequences" if things weren't met. I don't know about you but Serious Consequences in this case ment war. :rolleyes:

Why did the US and the UK attack Iraq? Saddam's regime was an avowed enemy of the United States, most of the world regarded the regime with well-deserved detestation, the US wanted to establish there some military bases (just in case), and America was eager to put the Americand hand on the Iraqi valve.

Enemy of the US is right. Also an enemy to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Britain, and various other nations that blasted him from Kuwait the first time. France and Russia are his friends. To bad they couldn't protect him from the Coalition of the Willing from enforcing UN Resolutions.

The highest level of Bush government desired that war. I suppose we won't know what parts of WMD warnings were written by intelligence people in order to please the country leaders, who wanted to show the US and the world how troublesome Saddam is, and what parts were 'sexed up' by the administration.

Intelligence believed by: Russia, France, Germany, Britian, Poland, US, Canada, Italy, Spain, China, etc etc etc. Heck, it was the same intel that Clinton used to justify his 4 day air attack on Iraq dubbed "Operation Desert Fox" Shall we go after him too for lying? Oh wait, it was faulty intel and not a lie by the administration. Oops.

The invasion of Iraq served Saddam right, but it was still illegal.

Nope. Not illegal.

However the UN Charter IS NOT A TREATY!!!! Look up the word Treaty and Charter in the Dictionary. They are two, repeat TWO, different things. The US HAS NOT, nor will ever sign, a treaty that limits its rights to wage war. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL!!!!!


...
You're wrong. The UN Charter is a binding international treaty, which was ratified by the US Senate on 28 July 1945 by a vote 89 to 2.

So, according to the US constitution, Article VI - paragraph 2, the UN Charter is 'the supreme Law of the Land'.

Nevertheless, you may find something interesting in Article 1 of the UN Charter. ;)

Are you sure its still in effect?

Yes, the Kellogg-Briand pact was not repealed.



It isn't a violation of International Law. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions as well as a UN Cease-Fire. The US just enforced said resolutions despite the fact that France, Germany, and Russia tried to stop it. We know why too. Hell, Russia sold Iraq GPS Jammers (A violation of UN Resolution)! Didn't matter anyway because we used GPS bombs on buildings with these Jammers. Anyway.....I'm still waiting on that treaty that we signed that gave up our right to wage war. As for the UN SC resolution, there are 17 of them on the books as well as a cease-fire. All the justification we need is using those resolutions. Next arguement please?
So what Colin Powell was doing before the Security Council in early 2003? Wasn't he asking for a new resolution? And wasn't Tony Blair doing the same thing?



Actually they didn't fail. Resolution 1441 authorized "Serious Consequences" if things weren't met. I don't know about you but Serious Consequences in this case ment war. :rolleyes:
I've always thought that Iraq accepted resolution 1441...



Enemy of the US is right. Also an enemy to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Britain, and various other nations that blasted him from Kuwait the first time. France and Russia are his friends. To bad they couldn't protect him from the Coalition of the Willing from enforcing UN Resolutions.
No, Saddam wasn't right. He was a bloody, murderous, detestable tyrant.

You're wrong. The UN Charter is a binding international treaty, which was ratified by the US Senate on 28 July 1945 by a vote 89 to 2.

Its a C-H-A-R-T-E-R! That spells Charter! There is a difference between a Charter and a treaty. Under the US Constitution, We don't ratify any treaty will be ratified if it violates the US Constitution. Since this doesn't affect our soveriegnty we signed the CHARTER.

Charter: n. 1. An act of incorporation of a municipality, company, institution, or the like. 2. A writing permitting the establishment of a branch or chapter of a society. 3. A document granting special rights or privileges. 4. A lease, as of a vessels, or the contract by which it is lease: also Charter party. 5. Written evidence of agreement or contract as a deed. v.t. 1. To hire by charter. 2. To hire by contract, as a train or car. 3 To establish by charter; give a charter to, as a bank railroad, colony, etc.

Treaty: n 1. A formal agreement or compact, duly concluded and ratified, between two or more states. 2. Obs. The act of negotiating for an agreement; also, the agreement so made. 3 Obs. An entreaty.

By these two definitions, the UN CHARTER (notice the word charter) Established the UN and various nations into this ORGANIZATION! That is all the UN is, is an organization of nations where nations can come together to air the grievences against other nations. That is all it is. It is not a treaty.

So, according to the US constitution, Article VI - paragraph 2, the UN Charter is 'the supreme Law of the Land'.

But it has to make sure that it didn't violate the US Constitution in the process otherwise, the US would've rejected it. Since it doesn't violate the US Constitution we ratified it. We ratified it because our SOVERIEGNTY is still in tact.

Nevertheless, you may find something interesting in Article 1 of the UN Charter. ;)

After reading Article 1 of the UN Charter, no where do I see the word treaty. What precisely am I supposed to find interesting? As far as I'm concerned, the UN has done nothing even close to resembling Article I of the UN Charter. I could just rip on Section 1 alone.

Its a C-H-A-R-T-E-R! That spells Charter! There is a difference between a Charter and a treaty. Under the US Constitution, We don't ratify any treaty will be ratified if it violates the US Constitution. Since this doesn't affect our soveriegnty we signed the CHARTER.

Charter: n. 1. An act of incorporation of a municipality, company, institution, or the like. 2. A writing permitting the establishment of a branch or chapter of a society. 3. A document granting special rights or privileges. 4. A lease, as of a vessels, or the contract by which it is lease: also Charter party. 5. Written evidence of agreement or contract as a deed. v.t. 1. To hire by charter. 2. To hire by contract, as a train or car. 3 To establish by charter; give a charter to, as a bank railroad, colony, etc.

Treaty: n 1. A formal agreement or compact, duly concluded and ratified, between two or more states. 2. Obs. The act of negotiating for an agreement; also, the agreement so made. 3 Obs. An entreaty.

By these two definitions, the UN CHARTER (notice the word charter) Established the UN and various nations into this ORGANIZATION! That is all the UN is, is an organization of nations where nations can come together to air the grievences against other nations. That is all it is. It is not a treaty.

Of course it is a treaty - the US Senate does not, as a rule, ratify 'acts of incorporation of a municipality, company, institution, or the like.' The UN Charter was (and is) 'a formal agreement or compact, duly concluded and ratified, between two or more states.' An international treaty can be called 'pact', 'convention', or 'agreement', or even 'piece of crap' - its name does not matter.



But it has to make sure that it didn't violate the US Constitution in the process otherwise, the US would've rejected it. Since it doesn't violate the US Constitution we ratified it. We ratified it because our SOVERIEGNTY is still in tact.

Hm... some senators in 1945 were saying something resembling this, about infringement on sovereignty... although I can be wrong.


After reading Article 1 of the UN Charter, no where do I see the word treaty. What precisely am I supposed to find interesting? As far as I'm concerned, the UN has done nothing even close to resembling Article I of the UN Charter. I could just rip on Section 1 alone.
You better don't. ;)

It can be argued that the US and its allies took 'effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace', thus adhering to the spirit of the UN Charter, isn't it?

hey some niews from the UK

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.

On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone.

"It reminded me of a boxing match in which one of the boxers is told not to move while the other is allowed to punch and only stop when he is convinced that he has weakened his opponent to the point where he is defeated before the fight begins," says former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck, a thirty-year career diplomat who was the top UN official in Iraq from 1998 to 2000. During both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington has consistently and falsely claimed these attacks were mandated by UN Resolution 688, passed after the Gulf War, which called for an end to the Iraqi government's repression in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. Von Sponeck dismissed this justification as a "total misnomer." In an interview with The Nation, Von Sponeck said that the new information "belatedly confirms" what he has long argued: "The no-fly zones had little to do with protecting ethnic and religious groups from Saddam Hussein's brutality" but were in fact an "illegal establishment...for bilateral interests of the US and the UK."

These attacks were barely covered in the press and Von Sponeck says that as far back as 1999, the United States and Britain pressured the UN not to call attention to them. During his time in Iraq, Von Sponeck began documenting each of the airstrikes, showing "regular attacks on civilian installations including food warehouses, residences, mosques, roads and people." These reports, he said, were "welcomed" by Secretary General Kofi Annan, but "the US and UK governments strongly objected to this reporting." Von Sponeck says that he was pressured to end the practice, with a senior British diplomat telling him, "All you are doing is putting a UN stamp of approval on Iraqi propaganda." But Von Sponeck continued documenting the damage and visited many attack sites. In 1999 alone, he confirmed the death of 144 civilians and more than 400 wounded by the US/UK bombings.

After September 11, there was a major change in attitude within the Bush Administration toward the attacks. Gone was any pretext that they were about protecting Shiites and Kurds--this was a plan to systematically degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself from a foreign attack: bombing Iraq's air defenses, striking command facilities, destroying communication and radar infrastructure. As an Associated Press report noted in November 2002, "Those costly, hard-to-repair facilities are essential to Iraq's air defense."

Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" against a variety of targets. But the full significance of this dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these spikes "had become a full air offensive"--in other words, a war.

Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers has called the latest revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in Congress.

It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.

But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this "smoking gun" would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill (here to read)
Who was lying,the satelittes imaging tricks(remember Cuba?)or the one who can trick it.To lie or not to lie this is the question

Of course it is a treaty - the US Senate does not, as a rule, ratify 'acts of incorporation of a municipality, company, institution, or the like.' The UN Charter was (and is) 'a formal agreement or compact, duly concluded and ratified, between two or more states.' An international treaty can be called 'pact', 'convention', or 'agreement', or even 'piece of crap' - its name does not matter.


I'm going to offer you an email address of one Professor Terry Foster. He was my Intro to Global Politics Professor. He has more experience in this matter than either one of us. I can provide you that address as well as one to someone else I know. You can tell them its a treaty and explain why. My professor knows its not a treaty. He knows its a charter. I know its a charter. It just establishes the UN but little else. Nowhere in the ENTIRE CHARTER do I see the word Treaty. Unless I'm missing something that your seeing. Care to point to the Section, Article number and section number of something that I am missing?

The Charter was ratified yes. I'm not disputing that. However, I am disputing the fact that it is only a charter and not a treaty. If it was a treaty, don't you think it would've been called the UN Treaty and not the UN Charter? Even the USSR didn't call this thing a treaty nor did Britain. All it is, is a charter establishing the United Nations Organization. That is all it does. Its guidelines and mission statement. It fits the profile of a charter and not a treaty.


Hm... some senators in 1945 were saying something resembling this, about infringement on sovereignty... although I can be wrong.

However, it really doesn't infringe, at least at first, when it first went into affect. Now ever, it has infringed on the Soveriegnty of many nations.

You better don't. ;)

Oh I could. It is just so tempting to rip Article I section 1 to shreds. It deserves it too because the UN has done none of those things that section 1 states.

It can be argued that the US and its allies took 'effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace', thus adhering to the spirit of the UN Charter, isn't it?

You just made the case that the Iraq war was legal. Thanks. :)

I'm going to offer you an email address of one Professor Terry Foster. He was my Intro to Global Politics Professor. He has more experience in this matter than either one of us. I can provide you that address as well as one to someone else I know. You can tell them its a treaty and explain why. My professor knows its not a treaty. He knows its a charter. I know its a charter. It just establishes the UN but little else. Nowhere in the ENTIRE CHARTER do I see the word Treaty. Unless I'm missing something that your seeing. Care to point to the Section, Article number and section number of something that I am missing?

The Charter was ratified yes. I'm not disputing that. However, I am disputing the fact that it is only a charter and not a treaty. If it was a treaty, don't you think it would've been called the UN Treaty and not the UN Charter? Even the USSR didn't call this thing a treaty nor did Britain. All it is, is a charter establishing the United Nations Organization. That is all it does. Its guidelines and mission statement. It fits the profile of a charter and not a treaty.

I'd happily exchange a couple of e-mails with Prof Foster. :) but I'm at present not into argumentum ad verecundiam.


So, what circumstances forced the US Senate to vote upon it, if it is a lowly charter? Why the UN Charter was signed and ratified as an international treaty?

Do all international treaties called 'treaties', or not?

OFF: Is the Treaty of Waitangi a treaty, according to the international law?



However, it really doesn't infringe, at least at first, when it first went into affect. Now ever, it has infringed on the Soveriegnty of many nations.

What do you mean?


You just made the case that the Iraq war was legal. Thanks. :)
Not at all... well, that international law is one strange thing... :)

Read the story a little more closely--the stuff that's missing was completely legal dual-use equipment, and the rest of the story is full of conditionals, could have, might have, etc. UNMOVIC knew the stuff was there and also said that it wasn't being used for WMD purposes.

Jeez, you righties are touchy about all this--just admit that you got suckered by the administration on this and move forward. You'll feel a whole lot better about it.

regardless of reason for entry, Saddam is now removed, which is a good thing... check out the charges against him.

I'd happily exchange a couple of e-mails with Prof Foster. :) but I'm at present not into argumentum ad verecundiam.

lol!

So, what circumstances forced the US Senate to vote upon it, if it is a lowly charter? Why the UN Charter was signed and ratified as an international treaty?

Read up on the UN Charter. It has great ideals. Ideals that are reachable. However, with the massive corruption in the UN, they are not attainable.

Do all international treaties called 'treaties', or not?

When they are Treaties, they are called as such. Should the Organization of American States have a treaty? No, it has a charter. The UN has a Charter. NATO is a military treaty. SEATO was a treaty as well.

OFF: Is the Treaty of Waitangi a treaty, according to the international law?

I need to know more about it before I can make a judgement on it.


What do you mean?

The UN is trying to assert itself over every nation on this planet. It isn't a world government but it is trying to act like it.

Not at all... well, that international law is one strange thing... :)

Nice back peddle. You truly did make a case for the Iraq War being legal since we did it under 17 UN Resolutions, a UN Cease-fire and then Article one section 1. I still thank you for making that case for me. It was much appreciated.

i wonder why the news i presented was forgoten :rolleyes:

Read up on the UN Charter. It has great ideals. Ideals that are reachable. However, with the massive corruption in the UN, they are not attainable.

Still I don't understand how the great ideals forced the Senate to vote.



When they are Treaties, they are called as such. Should the Organization of American States have a treaty? No, it has a charter. The UN has a Charter. NATO is a military treaty. SEATO was a treaty as well.

http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp

Are you satisfied now? :)


Nice back peddle. You truly did make a case for the Iraq War being legal since we did it under 17 UN Resolutions, a UN Cease-fire and then Article one section 1. I still thank you for making that case for me. It was much appreciated.
What is that, a 'back peddle'? I no peddle nothin'! :)

Indeed, I've tried to show that the international law is open to interpretation. I think I've succeeded. :)

i wonder why the news i presented was forgoten :rolleyes:
Well... I can think of two reasons - a treaty and a charter. :)

BTW, what do you mean by 'the satelittes imaging tricks(remember Cuba?)'?

Still I don't understand how the great ideals forced the Senate to vote.

Read the UN Charter and you'll see why we agreed to it.



http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp

Are you satisfied now? :)

So some people call it a treaty. Doesn't make your case that its a treaty and not a Charter. Not to mention its from the UN.

What is that, a 'back peddle'? I no peddle nothin'! :)

Indeed, I've tried to show that the international law is open to interpretation. I think I've succeeded. :)

So I'm interpretting International Law to mean that our Actions in Iraq are legal. I've shown why the war in Iraq is legal using International Law. So I've been interprtetting it to mean this.

You are right that its open to interpretation. I won't dispute it. However, I'm still disputing the fact that this is indeed a charter and not a treaty.

Read the UN Charter and you'll see why we agreed to it.

I am not in the least interested why the US senators voted 'Yes'. No, I'd like to find out why they HELD the vote.



So some people call it a treaty. Doesn't make your case that its a treaty and not a Charter. Not to mention its from the UN.

Sorry, I've supposed that the US is a UN member. :)



So I'm interpretting International Law to mean that our Actions in Iraq are legal. I've shown why the war in Iraq is legal using International Law. So I've been interprtetting it to mean this.

You are right that its open to interpretation. I won't dispute it. However, I'm still disputing the fact that this is indeed a charter and not a treaty.

You've every right to interprete international law as you like. :)


Well, are you disputing this UN statement?
The term "charter" is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organization. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organization of American States of 1952.

I don't see why Corneliu is so bent out of shape about the whole "treaty vs. charter" issue. It's not like being in violation of international law has ever stopped the US--or any other power--from doing whatever the hell they wanted to anyway. And the bigger the country, the fewer the ramifications. The UN is largely toothless, and yet Corneliu stamps his feet and screams, like a three-year-old "It's not a treaty, it's a charter!" Have a lollipop, kid, and chill the fuck out. In the end, the US violated international law when they invaded Iraq, and also in the end, it doesn't change a goddamn thing about the situation there. The US isn't facing international sanctions, and there's no multinational task force massing on the borders to toss us out of there, so get over yourself.

I don't see why Corneliu is so bent out of shape about the whole "treaty vs. charter" issue. It's not like being in violation of international law has ever stopped the US--or any other power--from doing whatever the hell they wanted to anyway. And the bigger the country, the fewer the ramifications. ...
It has always been so. The governments of great powers (including the government of my country) always act as they want to...

And I console myself with delving into the murky fog of international law. :)

Indeed, I've tried to show that the international law is open to interpretation. I think I've succeeded. :)
You have succeeded very well. :) Once again Corneliu is stuck on his point. Perhaps HE should send an email to Richard Perle and ask him why he stated the war against Iraq was illegal?

I do believe that Mr. Perle would have more qualifications than Corneliu or his "Intro to Global Politics Professor" (Mr. Foster)?

Once again Corny is stuck in the land of denial.

I am not in the least interested why the US senators voted 'Yes'. No, I'd like to find out why they HELD the vote.

Because the damn charter has merits Olantia. I've said it every friggin time. Even I can agree with the principles in the Charter.



Sorry, I've supposed that the US is a UN member. :)


Yes we are. However, it has become quite relevent lately that the UN doesn't care about the Citizens of this planet. If they did, then they'll be doing something about the Congo, Liberia, Sierre Leon, Somalia, Sudan, IRAQ, and various other nations. They are not because they are to inept and have no clue on what to do. So much for the UN being the Forfront of the New World Order. Instead, the United States apparently has taken the lead in that regard. GO USA.

You've every right to interprete international law as you like. :)

We'll agree on this.

Well, are you disputing this UN statement?

The term "charter" is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organization. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organization of American States of 1952.

Notice the word CHARTER of the United Nations and the CHARTER of the Organization of American States. As far as I know, these two are not treaties but a place where nations can come together to aire grievences and better the world (UN) and the Americas (OAS)! Both ratified by the United States because of the Ideals that are expressed in them. There's that word Ideals again.

I don't see why Corneliu is so bent out of shape about the whole "treaty vs. charter" issue. It's not like being in violation of international law

Ok for the last time, where are we in violation of the International Law?

The UN is largely toothless

For once, I agree with you and it goes as to why the UN does nothing.

In the end, the US violated international law when they invaded Iraq, and also in the end, it doesn't change a goddamn thing about the situation there.

Again, where did we violate International Law by going into Iraq. How is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is enforcing a UN Cease-Fire a violation of International Law? I'm not seeing where we violated International Law.

You have succeeded very well. :) Once again Corneliu is stuck on his point. Perhaps HE should send an email to Richard Perle and ask him why he stated the war against Iraq was illegal?

Perhaps i should give you the email addresses to people who actually have to abide by international law while in a warzone? Oh that's right. I can't use those people because they actually know what the hell they are talking about. Oops.

I will ask you the same questions. How is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is Enforcing a UN Cease-Fire a violation of International Law?

I do believe that Mr. Perle would have more qualifications than Corneliu or his "Intro to Global Politics Professor" (Mr. Foster)?

Once again Corny is stuck in the land of denial.

Did Perle serve in the Military? Professor Foster (could be a doctor though it wasn't on the Sylabas) did. He even agrees with me that this wasn't Illegal because we were enforcing 17 UN resolutions as well as a UN Cease-fire. I still like to know how enforcing these 2 things constitute a violation of international law.

Corneliu, the ways in which the US is in violation of international law in re iraq have been explained in this thread and elsewhere numerous times. I'm not going to reiterate them here simply because you're too fucking hardheaded to get beyond your own talking points. You've closed your mind off to any possibility that this administration broke its international agreements when it invaded Iraq, and nothing I or anyone else here types is apparently going to change that point of view. So go on--live in your own little fantasy world where the US is justified in doing whatever it damn well pleases. The rest of us will reside in the reality-based world, thank you very much.

Corneliu, the ways in which the US is in violation of international law in re iraq have been explained in this thread and elsewhere numerous times. I'm not going to reiterate them here simply because you're too fucking hardheaded to get beyond your own talking points. You've closed your mind off to any possibility that this administration broke its international agreements when it invaded Iraq, and nothing I or anyone else here types is apparently going to change that point of view. So go on--live in your own little fantasy world where the US is justified in doing whatever it damn well pleases. The rest of us will reside in the reality-based world, thank you very much.

You didn't answer my questions and I didn't think you were going too. It was to much to hope for even though they are valid questions. Apparently you love listening to what one side has to say and not the other.

How is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is enforcing a UN Cease-fire a violation of International Law?

Notice the word CHARTER of the United Nations and the CHARTER of the Organization of American States. As far as I know, these two are not treaties but a place where nations can come together to aire grievences and better the world (UN) and the Americas (OAS)! Both ratified by the United States because of the Ideals that are expressed in them. There's that word Ideals again.

You're dodging my question.

The US Senate (not the House of representatives) in 1945 voted upon the UN Charter. Why did it happen? I'll tell you.

The Supreme Court (in INS vs Chadha, 1983) named the Senate's power of advice and consent to treaties submitted by the President 'as one of only four provisions in the Constitution, explicit and unambiguous, by which one House may act alone with the unreviewable force of law, not subject to the President's veto.'

Were the senators of 1945 ignorant of the Constitution? I don't think so.

I'll continue. Yes, the UN Charter is an international treaty. The Legal Asviser, US Department of State, seems to be of the same opinion.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifindex.html

You'll find the UN Charter among the international treaties in force as of 1 January 2000, p 476... (BTW, the Kellogg-Briand pact is also there, p 452.)

You're dodging my question.

The US Senate (not the House of representatives) in 1945 voted upon the UN Charter. Why did it happen? I'll tell you.

The Supreme Court (in INS vs Chadha, 1983) named the Senate's power of advice and consent to treaties submitted by the President 'as one of only four provisions in the Constitution, explicit and unambiguous, by which one House may act alone with the unreviewable force of law, not subject to the President's veto.'

Were the senators of 1945 ignorant of the Constitution? I don't think so.

I'll continue. Yes, the UN Charter is an international treaty. The Legal Asviser, US Department of State, seems to be of the same opinion.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifindex.html

You'll find the UN Charter among the international treaties in force as of 1 January 2000, p 476... (BTW, the Kellogg-Briand pact is also there, p 452.)

He's a LEGAL ADVISOR. That's all he is. Anyway, you have yet to point to the part of this charter that says the word Treaty. I'm still waiting.

As for the Supreme Court Case. The President signs the treaty or charter or agreement and it gets ratified by the Senate. Comeon, I learned this in elementary school. Don't insult my intelligence.

And if you want to get technical, some people even call this a Constitution. In some circles mind you. Not all.

...

How is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is enforcing a UN Cease-fire a violation of International Law?
It is quite simple. No UN resolution explicitly demanded the regime change in Iraq. Iraq had not enough time to comply with UNSCR 1441 (now we know that Iraq likely accepted the resolution honest-mindedly, US having found no WMDs).

The resolution declaring that Iraq had 'failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441' was withdrawn, so legally Iraq remained in compliance with UNSCR 1441.

Invading and occupying the country is, IMHO, one exemplary enforcement of a UN ceasefire.

He's a LEGAL ADVISOR. That's all he is. Anyway, you have yet to point to the part of this charter that says the word Treaty. I'm still waiting.

As for the Supreme Court Case. The President signs the treaty or charter or agreement and it gets ratified by the Senate. Comeon, I learned this in elementary school. Don't insult my intelligence.

...
So, you hold the opinion the US Department of State gets its legal advice from some kind of cousin Vinny?

Why are you so eager to have the T-word? Treaties can be called by many names...

Your elementary school has failed you. No, the Senate votes alone only upon international treaties. Just read the Constitution.

'He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...'

Executive agreements do not require the Senate vote, however, they are considered treaties for the purposes of international law.

It is quite simple. No UN resolution explicitly demanded the regime change in Iraq. Iraq had not enough time to comply with UNSCR 1441 (now we know that Iraq likely accepted the resolution honest-mindedly, US having found no WMDs).

I suggest you read the Cease-fire agreement. I believe it states something along the lines of he has 15 days to come clean or else he's gone from power. Interesting that it took 12 years to oust him.

The resolution declaring that Iraq had 'failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441' was withdrawn, so legally Iraq remained in compliance with UNSCR 1441.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You really are naive aren't you? If you truly believe he was in compliance with 1441, there's a beach for sale in Miami and a bridge in San Fran for sale too.

Invading and occupying the country is, IMHO, one exemplary enforcement of a UN ceasefire.

Once again, you made the case that the War in Iraq is legal.

So, you hold the opinion the US Department of State gets its legal advice from some kind of cousin Vinny?

He's a state department legal advisor. That is all he is. An advisor. However, if this was a treaty, wouldn't it be called the Treaty of the United Nations instead of The Charter of the United Nations? Still waiting on that Article and section number for the answer to this.

Why are you so eager to have the T-word? Treaties can be called by many names...

The TREATY of Ghent! The TREATY of Paris! The North Atlantic TREATY Organization! Every Treaty I've seen has the word TREATY somewhere in the Title or in the body of the treaty. This doesn't have either.

Your elementary school has failed you. No, the Senate votes alone only upon international treaties. Just read the Constitution.

No didn't fail me. Not in the least. Actually I was one of the smartest people in the class. Go figure. The Senate has to approve ANY DOCUMENT regarding INTERnational Affairs be it a charter or treaty. Therefor, it doesn't make your case.

'He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...'

In that case then the US Senate violated the Constitution with an Illegal vote. However, I know its a charter because it fits the definition of a charter and not the definition of a treaty.

Executive agreements do not require the Senate vote, however, they are considered treaties for the purposes of international law.

In that case then, we're not part of the UN due to it being an illegal vote. Interesting piece of logic if you want to sit and think about it.

He's a state department legal advisor. That is all he is. An advisor. However, if this was a treaty, wouldn't it be called the Treaty of the United Nations instead of The Charter of the United Nations? Still waiting on that Article and section number for the answer to this.


So you are saying that the Geneva Conventions are to be disregarded since they are not named the Treaty of Geneva?

So you are saying that the Geneva Conventions are to be disregarded since they are not named the Treaty of Geneva?

Actually they are called conventions for a reason! They were conventions held in Geneva. So the name is right so no they aren't to be disregarded.

Actually they are called conventions for a reason! They were conventions held in Geneva. So the name is right so no they aren't to be disregarded.
Ah! but they are not treaty under your definition.
So, in essence, they are not considered the supreme law of the land and any president can say "f*?& off! I don't follow that piece of paper anymore!"

So why would a "convention" must be respected but not a "charter"?

Ah! but they are not treaty under your definition.
So, in essence, they are not considered the supreme law of the land and any president can say "f*?& off! I don't follow that piece of paper anymore!"

Actually they are treaties. The UN however is not! The Geneva Conventions are a series of FOUR TREATIES! They are also referred to as the Rules of War.

So why would a "convention" must be respected but not a "charter"?

I ask myself that same question.

Perhaps i should give you the email addresses to people who actually have to abide by international law while in a warzone? Oh that's right. I can't use those people because they actually know what the hell they are talking about. Oops.
Back at post #299, I stated:

"I have zero desire to go through another 20 or 30 posts for you to stay stuck on your point and in the end when all else has failed, you fall back to your bottom line position, and use your father knows best syndrone."

And here we are, at post 336 and you are still living in denial, despite the valiant efforts of Nazz and Olantia. And whose email address "in the warzone" would you give me? Oh I know....your father's? How predictable.

I will ask you the same questions. How is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions a violation of International Law? How is Enforcing a UN Cease-Fire a violation of International Law?
You have been owned by so many people on this point, that it would be ridiculous to continue the discussion. You have convinced yourself that your truth is the only truth, even if you are totally wrong.

Did Perle serve in the Military? Professor Foster (could be a doctor though it wasn't on the Sylabas) did. He even agrees with me that this wasn't Illegal because we were enforcing 17 UN resolutions as well as a UN Cease-fire. I still like to know how enforcing these 2 things constitute a violation of international law.
Your professor probably agrees with you, because he knows it would be too painful to disagree with you, as many on here are finding out.

As far as Mr. Perle's qualifications, I think that they kinda overshadow those of your professor just a tad?

Institutional Affiliations

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: Member, Board of Advisors (2)
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Member, Board of Advisors (3)
Hudson Institute: Member, Board of Trustees (4)
Center for Security Policy: Member, National Security Advisory Council (7)
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Golden Circle Supporter (8)
Council on Foreign Relations: Chairman, Study Group on non-lethal options in overseas contingencies (report published in 1995) (2)
Project for the New American Century: Signed numerous PNAC advocacy letters (14)
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Member (13)
Committee on the Present Danger: Member (15)
Middle East Forum/U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Signed 2000 document sponsored by both groups calling on the United States to force Syria from Lebanon (12)
American Enterprise Institute: Resident Fellow

Government Service

Department of Defense: Member, Defense Policy Board (was chairman until 2003) (1)
Department of Defense: Consultant to the Secretary (current) (4)
Department of Defense: Assistant Secretary of Defense (1981-87) (1)
U.S. Senate: Staff (1969-1980) (served on the staff of Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, the Senate Committee on Government Operations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Arms Control Subcommittee) (4)

Corporate Connections/Business Interests

Hollinger International Co-Chairman (1, 4)
Trireme Partners L.P.: Managing Partner (9)
Global Crossings: Consultant (11)
Morgan Crucible: Co-chairman (4)
Jerusalem Post: Co-chairman (4)

Education

Princeton University: M.A., Political Science (1967) (4)
University of Southern California: B.A., International Relations (1964) (4)
London School of Economics: Honors Examinations (1962-1963) (4)

Now I may not agree with everything Mr. Perle states, but I do agree with him on this quote:

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone",

Suck it up Corneliu and move forward. Twice in one thread is more than enough?

Believe what you will. I know it isn't a treaty and if you want to go on to live like it is, who am I to stand in your way.

Have fun living in denial. And you talk about me.

Back at post #299, I stated:

"I have zero desire to go through another 20 or 30 posts for you to stay stuck on your point and in the end when all else has failed, you fall back to your bottom line position, and use your father knows best syndrone."

Well since he does have to deal with International Law every friggin day including in Baghdad, he does know what International law is. Sorry if you don't understand this but he is in the Military and has served in Combat and has been shot at. I will continue to use him as a source because he's been there and done that.

And here we are, at post 336 and you are still living in denial, despite the valiant efforts of Nazz and Olantia. And whose email address "in the warzone" would you give me? Oh I know....your father's? How predictable.

I could too considering he is going back in 2 weeks. Unless my cousin has gone back to Iraq. I might even ask my cousin-in-law for his email address. Would you also like my professor's email address too while we're at it?

You have been owned by so many people on this point, that it would be ridiculous to continue the discussion. You have convinced yourself that your truth is the only truth, even if you are totally wrong.

Actually I haven't been owned and that is such a childish word it makes me sick to call you or anyone else who used that word. I admit I used it once or twice but no one owns anybody in these debates.

Your professor probably agrees with you, because he knows it would be too painful to disagree with you, as many on here are finding out.

I have had professors disagree with me. I listen to what they have to say and if they have a valid point I acknowledge it. Case in point with my Social and Political Philosophy Professor. He was a liberal and we got along great because we listened to eachother's point of view without resolving to name calling. Got a B in that class too.

As far as Mr. Perle's qualifications, I think that they kinda overshadow those of your professor just a tad?

You don't know what my professor has done so.....
Snip

Very nice qualifications. Has he served in the military? I didnt see that on there. Who deals more with international law than anyone else? The Military. Who do you think will have more knowledge of international law? The military and maybe even diplomats.

Suck it up Corneliu and move forward. Twice in one thread is more than enough?

Nice childish comment. BTW: What treaty did we sign that forgo our right to wage war on another country? How is enforcing 17 UN Resolutions violating International Law? How is enforcing a UN cease-Fire a violation of international law? I'm still waiting for answers to these questions that you have yet to provide. Not to mention the answer to what Article and Section number calls the UN Charter a Treaty. No one has yet to answer that either.

Well since he does have to deal with International Law every friggin day including in Baghdad, he does know what International law is. Sorry if you don't understand this but he is in the Military and has served in Combat and has been shot at. I will continue to use him as a source because he's been there and done that.
Ahhh, the "father knows best syndrone". How predictable.

I could too considering he is going back in 2 weeks. Unless my cousin has gone back to Iraq. I might even ask my cousin-in-law for his email address. Would you also like my professor's email address too while we're at it?
Gonna extend it to "cousin-in-law knows best" too?

I have had professors disagree with me. I listen to what they have to say and if they have a valid point I acknowledge it.
Yet you won't acknowledge that you have erred, even when irrefutable facts have been presented, such as the case with the Clinton perjury charges.

Very nice qualifications. Has he served in the military? I didnt see that on there. Who deals more with international law than anyone else? The Military. Who do you think will have more knowledge of international law? The military and maybe even diplomats.
I find your challenge to Mr. Perle's qualifications in this matter totally unbelievable. I am sure that you would be able to persuade him to see things your way, given your infinite wisdom, and solid information from your dad?

Nice childish comment.
You know Corneliu, I have a son who is about the same age as you, and when I have suggested to him to "suck it up", he knows how to react in a positive manner and move forward. Why are you stuck?

Ahhh, the "father knows best syndrone". How predictable.

So your going to discount his 32 year service in the USAF? Participated in Kosovo, Persian Gulf 1 and 2? Not to mention other places on this planet where he was shot at trying to do his job as the "father knows best syndrome"? Jee! No wonder no one can get a point through your head! Your to thick skulled for one to penetrate.

Gonna extend it to "cousin-in-law knows best" too?

Was in Afghanistan and Iraq. Knows the situation there. Also knows international law too due to his job in the USN.

Yet you won't acknowledge that you have erred, even when irrefutable facts have been presented, such as the case with the Clinton perjury charges.

Clinton did Commit Perjury wether you believe it or not. Lying under oath is perjury by definition.

I find your challenge to Mr. Perle's qualifications in this matter totally unbelievable. I am sure that you would be able to persuade him to see things your way, given your infinite wisdom, and solid information from your dad?

I'm not going to try to persuade him on anything. He has his opinions and I have mine. That's the beauty of this country where everyone can have different opinions and no one cares.

You know Corneliu, I have a son who is about the same age as you, and when I have suggested to him to "suck it up", he knows how to react in a positive manner and move forward. Why are you stuck?

I know how to react too but no one tells me to suck it up unless its at a sporting event that I'm in. Since I don't play sports anymore no one tells me to suck it up. Though I do enjoy telling liberals to suck it up when they complain about losing elections. Since this debate has no more value, I won't waste my time anymore.

He's a state department legal advisor. That is all he is. An advisor. However, if this was a treaty, wouldn't it be called the Treaty of the United Nations instead of The Charter of the United Nations? Still waiting on that Article and section number for the answer to this.



The TREATY of Ghent! The TREATY of Paris! The North Atlantic TREATY Organization! Every Treaty I've seen has the word TREATY somewhere in the Title or in the body of the treaty. This doesn't have either.

...
OK, OK, maybe the official website of US Department of State is full of mistakes, I dunno...

Let's leave alone the long-suffering UN Charter, which was adopted as an international treaty by some clueless senators (the Senate of 1945 had Democratic majority, so its opinion can be discounted, isn't it ;)).

OK, 'come see the paradise'. You desire to have the T-word. Now you have it.

'Treaty providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. Signed in Paris August 27, 1928; entered into force July 24, 1929.'

Yes, the Kellogg-Briand Pact is still in force. Moreover, the US is still a party. So, the US are 'Persuaded that the time has, come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated'.

Is this a treaty, Corneliu, or is this a contemptible pact, or a lowly charter?

...
I know how to react too but no one tells me to suck it up unless its at a sporting event that I'm in. Since I don't play sports anymore no one tells me to suck it up. Though I do enjoy telling liberals to suck it up when they complain about losing elections. Since this debate has no more value, I won't waste my time anymore.
Oh... I've overlooked this concise and mature statement. I' m sorry, I didn't want to waste your precious time.