Drunk Driving lesson for Paris and other drunks

Oh my...

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.



Please ya were on a roll...until you sided with Saddam...he was a pathological liar...he and his perverted Kids got their just reward...Like I said we should have taken out Iran and Syria then Saddam would have collapsed..without all this debate and suffering on both sides! Armchair quarterbacking at it's best...on both sides of this aisle!
 
"Anyway SF, I'm still anxiously awaiting to see where in whatever resolution you're talking that the US was given explicit permission to invade Iraq unilaterally or with a coalition of the willing."

They were not "given permission". We do not need permission of the UN to protect ourselves if we deem the UN has failed to do their job. Please tell ME how you can justify the complete ineptitude of the UN in their handling of Iraq. They failed to live up to their duties under the ceasefire agreement. They failed to hold Saddam accountable as they said they would. They failed to monitor the oil for food program. They allowed the Iraqi people to starve while they played games with Saddam. The UN failed... miserably. The US most certainly does not have to have their "permission" if we feel we are in danger.
 
Where did it say we could remove the elected ruler of a sovergn nation if he did not live up to the UN mandate ?
 
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.

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but where in the resolution does it give the US the authority to unilaterally (or witha coalition of the willing to) attack Iraq? As far as I recall the secretary general was calling this war an illegal invasion.
 
we need one iof these resoloutions on torture and due process so we can get rid of Bush if he does not give trials , quit renditions, close Gitmo, etc
 
"34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. "

Failed.
 
"Where did it say we could remove the elected ruler of a sovergn nation if he did not live up to the UN mandate ?"

Do you understand the concept of a ceasefire agreement?
 
"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."

Bullshit. If they were capable of determining "for sure" in three months, then what the hell were they doing for 12 years?

Saddam making gestures of compliance simply because we had built up forces on his border in NO WAY invalidates 12 years of failing to comply. Had we pulled those forces, do you think that compliance would have continued? How completely naive.
 
Trials....for who and what???

we need one iof these resoloutions on torture and due process so we can get rid of Bush if he does not give trials , quit renditions, close Gitmo, etc


After all even their own countries of origin do not want them...where do you and your ilk propose we send them...never mind Oregon would be a great place... next door to y'all..like your sig says..."Think";)
 
Last edited:
"Anyway SF, I'm still anxiously awaiting to see where in whatever resolution you're talking that the US was given explicit permission to invade Iraq unilaterally or with a coalition of the willing."

They were not "given permission". We do not need permission of the UN to protect ourselves if we deem the UN has failed to do their job. Please tell ME how you can justify the complete ineptitude of the UN in their handling of Iraq. They failed to live up to their duties under the ceasefire agreement. They failed to hold Saddam accountable as they said they would. They failed to monitor the oil for food program. They allowed the Iraqi people to starve while they played games with Saddam. The UN failed... miserably. The US most certainly does not have to have their "permission" if we feel we are in danger.

"Protect ourselves"? At most we were protecting Iran. and look how that $hit turned out. We were never in danger. In fact, most hte intel that's surfaced in the last 4 years have showed that the administration new Iraq was never an immediate threat to the US. Secondly, you can't have your cake and eat it too. On a fundamental level you can't say you're going to use the UNs resolution as a basis for going to war, and then ignore that same organization when they say its wrong. Its either a defunct organization or its not. And more importantly, Saddam was complying and he didn't have an WMD program like dumya implied.
 
"I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but where in the resolution does it give the US the authority to unilaterally (or witha coalition of the willing to) attack Iraq? "

If a ceasefire agreement is invalidated by one of the parties, then the ceasefire agreement is no longer in place.... war back on. The first gulf war never ended. It would have ended with the compliance of Saddam and the lifting of the sanctions. Saddam did not comply. Saddam was removed.

"As far as I recall the secretary general was calling this war an illegal invasion."

As I recall Kofi Annan led the UN through the most inept tenure of any secretary general. 12 years he had to gain compliance... he failed. Darfur... failed Oil for food program.... complete fiasco. Yeah... I don't think I will care what his opinion is on the matter.
 
After all even their own countries of origin do not want them...where do you and your ilk propose we send them...never mind Oregon would be a great place... next door to y'all..like your sig says..."Think";)

give them due process and either lock em up or deport them.

Why would anyone wanting them have any bearing ?

Oregon was great before the caliprunians moved up there btw...
 
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.
It's because we have spoken about that very resolution myriad times, constantly ad infinitum. I don't believe that I have to provide links and times and believe that you know exactly what I am speaking of. It was after the US voted to give Bush the power to wage the war that the UN voted a resolution threatening "serious consequences" if they did not comply. And yes, like most laws it is a matter of opinions in such cases.

Personally, I'd rather say it was illegal because there was no declaration of war than to say because of the UN. Simply because of the fact that the US Constitution is not abrogated to a Treaty as I pointed out earlier. It is specifically worded that the State Constitutions and Law must comply.
 
"34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. "

Failed.

Actually he passed. The inspections were working.

Bottom line:

If we went with what I, other liberals and pretty much the rest of world wanted to do, we wouldn't be knee deep in $hit right now. Going with your logic has led us down an expensive, never ending road that will cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Good job.
 
Really...

give them due process and either lock em up or deport them.

Why would anyone wanting them have any bearing ?

Oregon was great before the caliprunians moved up there btw...

Well I must agree with the California Hippy's that took over Oregon...we don't put up with thier BS in Nevada...listen and learn...then again by some of your former comments ya seem to have united with the old dirty Hippies...why is that???
 
Please ya were on a roll...until you sided with Saddam...he was a pathological liar...he and his perverted Kids got their just reward...Like I said we should have taken out Iran and Syria then Saddam would have collapsed..without all this debate and suffering on both sides! Armchair quarterbacking at it's best...on both sides of this aisle!
And with a patient enough Administration we may have actually been able to secure declarations...
 
""Protect ourselves"? At most we were protecting Iran. and look how that $hit turned out. We were never in danger. In fact, most hte intel that's surfaced in the last 4 years have showed that the administration new Iraq was never an immediate threat to the US."

blah blah blah... AGAIN... Bush being wrong... does not change the legality of going in.

"Secondly, you can't have your cake and eat it too." On a fundamental level you can't say you're going to use the UNs resolution as a basis for going to war, and then ignore that same organization when they say its wrong. Its either a defunct organization or its not. And more importantly, Saddam was complying and he didn't have an WMD program like dumya implied.""

Again WE DO NOT NEED ANY NEW APPROVAL BY THE UN. and to act as if a few months of "compliance" (that was only given because of our troop buildup) has ANY merrit is naive at best.
 
It's because we have spoken about that very resolution myriad times, constantly ad infinitum. I don't believe that I have to provide links and times and believe that you know exactly what I am speaking of. It was after the US voted to give Bush the power to wage the war that the UN voted a resolution threatening "serious consequences" if they did not comply. And yes, like most laws it is a matter of opinions in such cases.

Personally, I'd rather say it was illegal because there was no declaration of war than to say because of the UN. Simply because of the fact that the US Constitution is not abrogated to a Treaty as I pointed out earlier. It is specifically worded that the State Constitutions and Law must comply.

And how were the state constitutions not compliant with "not" invading a country?
 
"I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but where in the resolution does it give the US the authority to unilaterally (or witha coalition of the willing to) attack Iraq? "

If a ceasefire agreement is invalidated by one of the parties, then the ceasefire agreement is no longer in place.... war back on. The first gulf war never ended. It would have ended with the compliance of Saddam and the lifting of the sanctions. Saddam did not comply. Saddam was removed.

"As far as I recall the secretary general was calling this war an illegal invasion."

As I recall Kofi Annan led the UN through the most inept tenure of any secretary general. 12 years he had to gain compliance... he failed. Darfur... failed Oil for food program.... complete fiasco. Yeah... I don't think I will care what his opinion is on the matter.

Again, SADDAM WAS COMPLYING.
 
Well I must agree with the California Hippy's that took over Oregon...we don't put up with thier BS in Nevada...listen and learn...then again by some of your former comments ya seem to have united with the old dirty Hippies...why is that???

Umm it was the california developers that most of us wanted to shoot.
Hippies we got along with.
 
Back
Top