LOL
Right, not the people who voted for bush. This must be that "personal responsibility" I hear so much about.
Drunk Driving lesson for Paris and other drunks
- Thread starter Robdawg
- Start date
LOL
Right, not the people who voted for bush. This must be that "personal responsibility" I hear so much about.
Battleborne
Terminator
Lol....
You may have a point here..maybe we are of the same ilk..all seems to relate to sex and rock and roll...how we fight for it is just a matter of semantics...I suppose..carry on..this is getting interesting! The only thing we both seem to share is total honesty..we both see the world in real terms..albeit from a different perspective...lol
You may have a point here..maybe we are of the same ilk..all seems to relate to sex and rock and roll...how we fight for it is just a matter of semantics...I suppose..carry on..this is getting interesting! The only thing we both seem to share is total honesty..we both see the world in real terms..albeit from a different perspective...lol
It is the "no UN authority" that is problematic, the resolution gave the US a ton of wiggle room, they took full advantage.
I see. I think that's a matter of opinion, and personally find it to be BS. I'd have to read International law, and then the resolution to be certain though.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"How can invading a sovereign, with no UN authority, be legal under International law?"
1) Gulf War occurred
2) Ceasfire agreement was made
3) Saddam in 12 years did not live up to the ceasefire agreement
4) Ceasefire agreement was invalidated by Saddam... we go in and remove him
AGAIN... this is not to say that Bush was right in his timing or that he did anything remotely close to a good job at managing this war. But this war is legal... whether our personal emotions agree with that or not.
1) Gulf War occurred
2) Ceasfire agreement was made
3) Saddam in 12 years did not live up to the ceasefire agreement
4) Ceasefire agreement was invalidated by Saddam... we go in and remove him
AGAIN... this is not to say that Bush was right in his timing or that he did anything remotely close to a good job at managing this war. But this war is legal... whether our personal emotions agree with that or not.
Only to find out that he had no wmds, and that's why we kicked the inspectors out, because we didn't want them to find...nothing.
An interesting read on the Constitution, and the reality of the "supercedes the Constitution" argument.
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html
The State Constitutions are abrogated, not the US Constitution. Treaties are still subject to the constitutionality of the US Constitution. It is State Constitutions and laws specifically mentioned in Article VI that are subject to the Treaty to the point that if it violates the constitution of the state, or the law of the state they are to obey the Treaty. However, the US Constitution is not, and justifiably so, mentioned in such abrogation of power.
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html
The State Constitutions are abrogated, not the US Constitution. Treaties are still subject to the constitutionality of the US Constitution. It is State Constitutions and laws specifically mentioned in Article VI that are subject to the Treaty to the point that if it violates the constitution of the state, or the law of the state they are to obey the Treaty. However, the US Constitution is not, and justifiably so, mentioned in such abrogation of power.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"LOL
Right, not the people who voted for bush. This must be that "personal responsibility" I hear so much about."
Sorry... meant to put a little winking smiley by that. I was being sarcastic and overly dramatic. But I do think there is some truth to it. Had the dems put up Lieberman or Clark... Bush would not be President right now. (IMO)
Even after Bush's FUBAR of Iraq... I still believe Kerry would have been a worse choice.
Right, not the people who voted for bush. This must be that "personal responsibility" I hear so much about."
Sorry... meant to put a little winking smiley by that. I was being sarcastic and overly dramatic. But I do think there is some truth to it. Had the dems put up Lieberman or Clark... Bush would not be President right now. (IMO)
Even after Bush's FUBAR of Iraq... I still believe Kerry would have been a worse choice.
1) Can you please provide an example of how the resolution was detrimental to the safety of the country?
2) http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm There is a link to resolution 687 (I'm going out on a limb and assuming you're referring to this. If I'm wrong, please advise).
Can you point out the article that gives the United States of America legal rights to invade?
Excuse me Lieberman? They guy who wants to bomb Iran?
yeah, that's who we should have put up SF!
For someone who always hampers on the context of a quote, I'm a little surprised that you'd give me this with no context as to the context of this quote and what resolution.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Only to find out that he had no wmds, and that's why we kicked the inspectors out, because we didn't want them to find...nothing."
THAT is not the point. The point is, Saddam had twelve years to let the inspectors in to show them he had nothing. He did not do anything until our forces were built up and he realized we were coming in. Why was the UN not successful during these 12 years? Suddenly in three months they were sure? Please. Again, given the ongoing war in Afghanistan at the time, going into Iraq in 2003 was a mistake... but a legal one.
THAT is not the point. The point is, Saddam had twelve years to let the inspectors in to show them he had nothing. He did not do anything until our forces were built up and he realized we were coming in. Why was the UN not successful during these 12 years? Suddenly in three months they were sure? Please. Again, given the ongoing war in Afghanistan at the time, going into Iraq in 2003 was a mistake... but a legal one.
More bull$hit from Bush voters.
Saddam was actually complying with the UN at the time of the invasion.
This is a mere diversion from the issue. And completely irrelevant because our not invading Iraq is not an infringement on our rights or laws. Additionally, congress would have to approve said treaty.
Battleborne
Terminator
No he wasn't...
However taking this aside...I actually believe GW hit Iraq rather than Iran and Syria as a vendetta to make right the threats Saddam made against his Dad Bush 41..he should have followed the military assessment and took out Iran and Syria...then Saddam would have collapsed...but hey I was just a 'Grunt' so what the hell do I know anyhoo! It really does not matter now as we are in a Crusade anyone who does not see this is just plain living in a fantasy world...'Ottoman Empire' revisted again in the 21st Century!
However taking this aside...I actually believe GW hit Iraq rather than Iran and Syria as a vendetta to make right the threats Saddam made against his Dad Bush 41..he should have followed the military assessment and took out Iran and Syria...then Saddam would have collapsed...but hey I was just a 'Grunt' so what the hell do I know anyhoo! It really does not matter now as we are in a Crusade anyone who does not see this is just plain living in a fantasy world...'Ottoman Empire' revisted again in the 21st Century!
No no no. There were inspectors in there before bush. clinton too pulled them out when he bombed them in 98. Saddam did screw around with not always giviing them full access, but they were there. And before the 2003 invasion, he gave them full access, no holds barred, and Bush PULLED THEM OUT, because he didn't want to make sure there were no wmds. He wanted to invade.
He f'ing lied, and I do not understand how you people are not pissed about being lied to. But I guess if someone has an R after their name, you don't mind it.
Actually, it looks like they were sure in 3 months. And according to you in the months leading up ot the ILLEGAL invasion, Saddam was complying making you're initial points about him no complying in 12 years mute and invalid.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;
(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below; "
Please tell me how Saddam lived up to any of the above?
Also, we could visit the oil for food fiasco as well. Yet another failing of the UN.
In addition, I did not say the ceasefire agreement was detrimental to the US. I said IF a treaty becomes detrimental to our safety, then it is the duty of our leaders to protect us. Regardless of the treaty.
An example (not in any way based on the situation in Iraq) If a country, say Afghanistan, harbors a terrorist group who just flew planes into say... the WTC... and a member of the security council had decided to use their veto to prohibit any UN approval for taking military action against Afghanistan... would you have the US sit on its hands and do nothing? Again, NOT saying this is what happened in Iraq.
Iraq under Saddam failed to live up to the ceasefire agreement. THAT provided justification for his removal legally.... not to say that it was necessary at the time.
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;
(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below; "
Please tell me how Saddam lived up to any of the above?
Also, we could visit the oil for food fiasco as well. Yet another failing of the UN.
In addition, I did not say the ceasefire agreement was detrimental to the US. I said IF a treaty becomes detrimental to our safety, then it is the duty of our leaders to protect us. Regardless of the treaty.
An example (not in any way based on the situation in Iraq) If a country, say Afghanistan, harbors a terrorist group who just flew planes into say... the WTC... and a member of the security council had decided to use their veto to prohibit any UN approval for taking military action against Afghanistan... would you have the US sit on its hands and do nothing? Again, NOT saying this is what happened in Iraq.
Iraq under Saddam failed to live up to the ceasefire agreement. THAT provided justification for his removal legally.... not to say that it was necessary at the time.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"More bull$hit from Bush voters.
Saddam was actually complying with the UN at the time of the invasion."
More bullshit from Bush haters. Saddam playing games with the UN for a few months does not explain away the fact that for 12 years he didn't comply, the UN didn't do its job. Nor does it change the fact that it was legal to go in based on the terms of the ceasefire agreement.
Saddam was actually complying with the UN at the time of the invasion."
More bullshit from Bush haters. Saddam playing games with the UN for a few months does not explain away the fact that for 12 years he didn't comply, the UN didn't do its job. Nor does it change the fact that it was legal to go in based on the terms of the ceasefire agreement.