Letter to Europe

[phreakwars]

Note to self... remind Mr. Schwarz that the idiot box is broken again... need to check permissions.

 

Note to C.E.S., please verify your post font color when posting, it distracts wardmd, and gives him a clause to sideline the debate and complain rather then carry on with the topic at hand... a sign of weakness

 

note to wardmd, Nice debating, but don't cry about little inconsistency's in font color, we don't give a shit, but we do appreciate site script errors being brought to our attention..

.

.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Sure, I'm not some conceded ideologue - if I'm wrong, I'll admit it (too bad the same can not be said of you)...

 

I’ll even go so far as to acknowledge that “but rather sanctions” could very easily have been written as “but to a certain extent sanctions” (again, not “ONLY”), however, your going to have to do some fancy footwork to re-define “NEVER war” (that IS what you said, right?).

 

“Never War” also does NOT equal “full combat”… Hell, "war" (never or otherwise) does not equal "combat" (full or otherwise).

 

NEITHER “Never War” nor “rather sanctions” is supported by the “full combat” quote (in its entirety or not) of the Secretary-General.

 

“War” = “combat”. Sanctions does NOT fit into this equation (rather or otherwise, "full combat" or, simply, "combat"), neither, Sir, does "never":

 

“Never War” <> “full combat” (anyone whose I.Q. is greater than their shoe size can grasp this – I will be happy to continue to explain it to you C.E.S.)

 

Font colors do not change the facts... "Serious Consquences" does not equal "sanctions", and THAT is what U.N. Resolutions 1441 said...

 

Your feeble attempt to dismiss 1441's "serious consquences" as "sanctions" is ludicrous (sanctions on top of sanctions?)...

 

Your assertion is still WRONG...

 

You're too new here to know better so you are excused.

 

FYI Sir, I have admitted on several occasions when I was genuinely wrong, but never will I allow false argument against me. Keep trying though, I may make a mistake and if I do, I will gladly admit it.

 

I now find it incredibly consistent of you to somehow try and claim that "serious consequences" in United Nations Resolution 1441 somehow entitled the US to invade Iraq. Quite the contrary, the overwhelming majority of member states as well as the Secretary General directly stated

 

"The purpose was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any “automaticity” for the use of force. The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq."

 

There never was a UN mandate for invasion nor overwhelming member support for such action.

 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

 

 

Once again, your Machiavellian line of thinking is deeply disturbing. The end does not justify the means no matter how "positive" the results of the end one can argue. This is the very slippery slope into Fascism.

 

Furthermore, to answer your question, yes, sanctions on top of sanctions are an effective tool. It worked in subdueing Libya and Kadaffi. Good thing G.W. wasn't president then, or we would have invaded there too.

 

Remarkably, I think you might find the most interesting part of resolution 1441 to be this quote:

 

" Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

 

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard..."

 

Obviously, the US leadership (G.W. Bush) felt Iraq had NO sovereignty at all.

 

I disagree. Although I am not fan of Saddam Hussein and the old Iraqi leadership, neither am I a fan of invasion, puppet governments, illegal imprisonment, torture, and covert manipulation of the free press.

 

Yes you are right. I'm not like you. You stand up and cheer for those things. I deplore them.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Note to self... remind Mr. Schwarz that the idiot box is broken again... need to check permissions.

 

Note to C.E.S., please verify your post font color when posting, it distracts wardmd, and gives him a clause to sideline the debate and complain rather then carry on with the topic at hand... a sign of weakness

 

note to wardmd, Nice debating, but don't cry about little inconsistency's in font color, we don't give a shit, but we do appreciate site script errors being brought to our attention..

.

.

 

Yes, the Idiot Box is broke. It was never my intention to completely slam wardmd like that and you know the rest of the story. It was my intention to bounce him a little for lying about what I said rather than simply going back to cut and paste a quote, (like I do). He apologized for his error. Enough said.

 

I do extensive review of my posts before posting them. All from the blue screen which I have defaulted.

 

I do not utilize black font color definitions as I have no need to; the text is defaulted to black in my viewscreen! However, I do utilize red and orage and blue at times for emphasis. Those colors I have selected specifically so that they will display on all default screen color modes.

 

Perhaps the system automatically inserts a black text control code for users of this screen color?

[phreakwars]

Yes, I am thinking this might possibly be the case. Looking into it.

 

Incase you are not aware wardmd, we have recently done a software upgrade to the site, and we are dealing with quite a few issues with it, such a daunting task, but eventually will be taken care of.

 

Script errors and such are hard to track down unless we actually SEE this happening for ourselves, sometimes, such as C.E.S.' case, when using a different color scheme, these errors are not noticed as quickly.

.

.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey Phreak,

 

I may have something here...

 

I often open another window so that I can go back and review individual posts in the thread, and then copy and paste (^C ^V) the text into my other active window where I am composing the post.

 

In addition, I usually copy the entire text of the message into the buffer (^C) and then paste it into Microsoft word for spell checking, then when done, recopy and paste it back into the GF editor and then post it.

 

Don't know if somewhere during this, it's picking up a stray font color, but I did it this way since day 1 here, and it never had any problems and I have been a blue screen user for ages and ages.

 

FYI.

 

P.S. - I was using the WYSIWYG editor, and have switched back to the Standard Editor so that if the codes are embeded, I will see them.

 

Happy Hunting.

[phreakwars]

You will need to highlight the text that SHOULD be standard and press the

button in your editor to clear the font color change that is made in word before submitting the post.

 

Very odd indeed !!

.

.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[wardmd]

Yes, I am thinking this might possibly be the case. Looking into it.

 

Incase you are not aware wardmd, we have recently done a software upgrade to the site, and we are dealing with quite a few issues with it, such a daunting task, but eventually will be taken care of.

 

Script errors and such are hard to track down unless we actually SEE this happening for ourselves, sometimes, such as C.E.S.' case, when using a different color scheme, these errors are not noticed as quickly.

.

.

Not a problem.

 

However, when insulted for pointing out the obvious (as C.E.S. did when I first mentioned the color issue), I WILL bring it up (just as I will continue to CORRECT the record when I make a mistake).

 

Likewise, when opinion or unthruths are promoted as FACT, they, too, will be challenged.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You will need to highlight the text that SHOULD be standard and press the

button in your editor to clear the font color change that is made in word before submitting the post.

 

Very odd indeed !!

.

.

 

Okay. I've never noticed that button before and didn't pay it any attention now. Thanks for the info!

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Not a problem.

 

However, when insulted for pointing out the obvious (as C.E.S. did when I first mentioned the color issue), I WILL bring it up (just as I will continue to CORRECT the record when I make a mistake).

 

Likewise, when opinion or unthruths are promoted as FACT, they, too, will be challenged.

 

 

You Go Girl! LMAOROTF!

 

Bring it on...

 

Old CES lives for shit like this!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Likewise, when opinion or unthruths are promoted as FACT, they, too, will be challenged.

 

Unless of course, the opinion or untruths are YOUR OWN and then old CES has to BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD to realize it. LOL.

 

Keep it up. You're doing great for a newbie. I'm a tough nut to crack and you are doing a fine job!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

So when are we going to get back to "old" Europe and how they are kicking our economic asses...?

[wardmd]

You're too new here to know better so you are excused.

 

FYI Sir, I have admitted on several occasions when I was genuinely wrong, but never will I allow false argument against me. Keep trying though, I may make a mistake and if I do, I will gladly admit it.

 

I now find it incredibly consistent of you to somehow try and claim that "serious consequences" in United Nations Resolution 1441 somehow entitled the US to invade Iraq. Quite the contrary, the overwhelming majority of member states as well as the Secretary General directly stated

 

"The purpose was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any “automaticity” for the use of force. The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq."

 

There never was a UN mandate for invasion nor overwhelming member support for such action.

 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

 

 

Once again, your Machiavellian line of thinking is deeply disturbing. The end does not justify the means no matter how "positive" the results of the end one can argue. This is the very slippery slope into Fascism.

 

Furthermore, to answer your question, yes, sanctions on top of sanctions are an effective tool. It worked in subdueing Libya and Kadaffi. Good thing G.W. wasn't president then, or we would have invaded there too.

 

Remarkably, I think you might find the most interesting part of resolution 1441 to be this quote:

 

" Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

 

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard..."

 

Obviously, the US leadership (G.W. Bush) felt Iraq had NO sovereignty at all.

 

I disagree. Although I am not fan of Saddam Hussein and the old Iraqi leadership, neither am I a fan of invasion, puppet governments, illegal imprisonment, torture, and covert manipulation of the free press.

 

Yes you are right. I'm not like you. You stand up and cheer for those things. I deplore them.

I can cite selective passages too...

 

"Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction"

 

"authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution"

 

"Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments"

 

"full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligation"

 

"Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations "

 

"afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply"

 

"unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq" (so much for "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq")

 

"Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State" (that includes the no-fly zone)...

 

"the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

 

Furthermore, and perhaps more to the point, while this is all fine and dandy (at least it makes Kofi Annan seem important), NONE of this trumps the United States Constitution, which confers powers upon the President of the United States as Commander-in-chief [Article II, Section 2], and with the War Powers Act, AND with the authorization of Congress ("The Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq"[Public Law 107-243]).

 

Or, to put it bluntly, "We don't need no stinkin' U.N. Resolution"...

 

Put it all together, and you still have Saddam could have prevented ALL of this, if he had simply COMPLIED with the ORIGINAL Cease-Fire agreement (when YOU served; again, thank you!).

 

He didn't. 9/11 happened. He got his "serious consquences".

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I can cite selective passages too...

 

"Iraq

[snafu]

Everybody that knows me should be able to testify that I’m loving wardmd!

I can’t agree more with anything he’s said.

Am I a puppet?

No I’m a free thinker(I just heard that somewhere). He makes perfect sense.

Maybe I listen to Rush to much too. That doesn't mean he’s wrong in his assertions. I also listen to CNN, NBC and the rest. I take the truth from were I find it.

 

Wardmd by no means deserves the idiot box. Maybe I’m being bias for the fact he depicts my every thought on the subject.

 

I don’t think it well happen but I would hope wardmd would stay around to take the abuse of CES.

 

CES is a smart and very admiral person. My hat is off to him.

 

However he dose have a temper and I think he tends to use the box for personal pleasure. I guess he learned that the hard way when he first came aboard. But it’s been the GF way. If you do get boxed it won’t be because you are an idiot! Only for amusement and play toy as I see it.

 

 

The U.N. is not a fighting force? They only hand out sanction after sanctions?

I guess that’s why most of us will agree the U.N. is a joke. A real big dangerous joke.

 

 

You don’t take a knife to a gunfight and you don’t go on a Peacekeeping mission without being prepared to go on the offensive either! It’s not a football game in which we take turns to be on the offensive. Some Peacekeeping missions might include sorties of some sort. If the bad guys won’t go away wouldn't it make sense to go find them and take them out?

 

And everybody knew exactly what serious consequences meant. Well mabe Saddam didn't;)

[Hamza123]

And that I believe is the media's fault. Like the term Insurgents.

Iraqi's have every right to fight for what they belive is right. It sounds stupid but there are rules of ingagment in this day and age of so called human dignity and should be practiced. If not we need to do our best to wipe it of the face of the earth.

 

They say that people still fight for Saddam and evil dictators and Al-Qaeda and all that BS... You know it's not true... If America was invaded and your own homes were occupied, would you fight for the CIA? The FBI? Bush?

 

"Babylon the great has fallen, it's fallen and has become the habitation of devils and the home to every fowl spirit and a cage of very unclean and hateful men"

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

To me, the real beauty of this country is the ability to argue your ass off for those things which you believe in, no matter how ridiculous anybody else may think they are. That's what being an American is about.

 

wardmd is a good guy; a bit daft at times but nevertheless a good guy.

 

snafu is alright too; bitter and jaded like wardmd, but hey, nobody's perfect.

 

As to the Idiot Box. I am amazed at all the fuss over something as sublime as the Idiot Box. Its real function as far as I am concerned is to incite and inspire, to bring out the gravel in your gut and the spit in your eye. Hell, I've been there so many times, I think I hold the record.

 

In truth, for the record, I have never boxed anybody who I didn't release either later that day or the very next morning. I have never left anybody to linger, except "sixes" who asked, no begged for it, literally.

 

Anyway, to me, the most satisfying times I have here, is when I am able to take what would have been otherwise a dull, 1 or 2 post topic, and flip it into a hot seat one for a few days. This is what makes my blood rush and my mind start humming. Doesn't it do the same to you? Of course it does. That's why you've been watching the fun. We all have.

Let's get more like this!

 

wardmd needs to hang around. I'm sure we can duke it out on a few more things. Afterall, I love a good challenge, even if it is a misguided and futile one at that!

[wardmd]

They say that people still fight for Saddam and evil dictators and Al-Qaeda and all that BS... You know it's not true... If America was invaded and your own homes were occupied, would you fight for the CIA? The FBI? Bush?

Yes, I WOULD (in the appropriate uniform of the United States Armed Forces).

I doubt that such combat would be conducted from mosques, churches, synagogues, or from behind the skirts of women and children. NOR would expect to consider it advancing the cause of liberating my country from the invaders to blow up my fellow citizens attending funerals!

[Hamza123]

Thats why they have an Iraqi Police Army working side-by-side with the US...

 

A person picking up an AK or C4 and blasting people... is different than someone resisting to comply.

 

And what army did Iraq have when it was invaded?

[wardmd]

If you are going to even so much as bring up 9/11, and yet be unwilling to bring the full court press of the US military against Saudi Arabia, you are nothing more than a hypocrite. Again I ask you, why not strike at the center of radical Islamic faith and the birthplace of terrorists?

Just as you state that you're no fan of Saddam, neither am I a fan of Saudi Arabia. However, your suggestion that because we are engaged in military action (you not I do not use the phrase "invaded Iraq", because we did not INVADE an otherwise innocent nation), that we are, therefore, entited, or obligated, to engage any nation (no matter how evil that nation MAY be).

 

As I pointed out previously, the TERMS under which we attacked Iraq are undeniable (again, as a refresher): Iraq INVADED Kuwait; Military Force (under the auspices of the United Nations) was used to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwiat (that would be Desert Storm, et al); a CEASE-FIRE agreement was entered into (SUSPENDING [not STOPPING] the military force); -now pay attention, this is where is get REALLY tricky- 12 YEARS and 17 United Nations Resolutions passed (ending with the UNANIMOUS passage of U.N. Resolution 1441 calling for "serious consequences" for failure to comply [got that, CES, not "sanctions"])...

 

NOW, in contrast, please enumerate the 17 United Nations resolutions against Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or Iran, or ANY other country...

 

Or, as an alternative, please cite the CEASE-FIRE agreement (or ANY equivalent document) which would give ANY creedence to the suggestion that we (ANY country) should (at THIS TIME) take military action against Saudia Arabia...

 

I'll grant you, there are many INDIVIDUALS from Saudi Arabia who have shown their hostility towards the United States, but, then, there are people in THIS country who have shown similar distain for the United States (some are members of Congress, others camp out in front of ranches in Texas, still others just make movies).

 

If your REALLY believe that the United States should engage in military action against ANY other nation, by all means, start the process... Get those cards and letters in to Kofi, get those 17 worthless resolutions on the books, so someone with LEADERSHIP qualitites can do something about it (I would say "without people saying that it's an 'illegal war'", but President Bush DOES have that backing and justification [along with the Congressional Resolution I previously cited], and we STILL have morons saying that about Iraq)...

[wardmd]

Thats why they have an Iraqi Police Army working side-by-side with the US...

 

A person picking up an AK or C4 and blasting people... is different than someone resisting to comply.

 

And what army did Iraq have when it was invaded?

Maybe CES can shed some light on the training he recieved... How do you tell the difference between a happy-go-lucky Iraqi driving down the road, and a car full of explosives (on its way to another funeral, perhaps)?

 

And how many milliseconds are there between the picking up of the AK47 and pulling the trigger?

 

If the AK47 is on the ground, and an Iraqi walks by it - they're just an innocent civilian...

 

They might even pick it up... Are the still "innocent"? Or have they now become a potential threat?

 

What if they, then, point it at an Iraqi police officer (one who was not blown up by the "insurgents" when he was standing in line to get the job)? Still "innocent"?

 

They might even put their finger against the trigger... Technically, you might argue that they are still "innocent"...

 

I don't know about YOU, but I think I'd feel more than a little worried about ANYONE picking up an AK47, and pointing it at me (with their finger on the trigger)...

[wardmd]

Thats why they have an Iraqi Police Army working side-by-side with the US...

 

A person picking up an AK or C4 and blasting people... is different than someone resisting to comply.

 

And what army did Iraq have when it was invaded?

I thought there was that crack group "the Republican Guard" protecting Saddam... And, correct me if I'm wrong, they WERE in UNIFORM, wern't they?

 

THAT, according to the Geneva Convention, is what differentiates a "Prisioner of War" from an "Enemy Combatant"...

 

Neither "insergents" nor members of al-Qaeda qualify under the Thrid Geneva Convention to be given the rights of "prisoners of war":

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Article 4. A. (2) (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

Article 4. A. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[Hamza123]

I thought there was that crack group "the Republican Guard" protecting Saddam... And, correct me if I'm wrong, they WERE in UNIFORM, wern't they?

 

Like what, 25? 50? Lieutenants..

 

The people he imprisoned are now people you see on the Iraq police force. Thats a great thing.

 

Everyone hated him, and his power fell easily.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

If you are going to even so much as bring up 9/11, and yet be unwilling to bring the full court press of the US military against Saudi Arabia, you are nothing more than a hypocrite. Again I ask you, why not strike at the center of radical Islamic faith and the birthplace of terrorists?

 

Just as you state that you're no fan of Saddam, neither am I a fan of Saudi Arabia. However, your suggestion that because we are engaged in military action (you not I do not use the phrase "invaded Iraq", because we did not INVADE an otherwise innocent nation), that we are, therefore, entited, or obligated, to engage any nation (no matter how evil that nation MAY be).

 

Okay...let's go through this for you one more time...I know, real thought is hard for you, but you'll get there, eventually, we hope.

 

Wikipedia says: "Invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period. Euphemistically, an invasion is sometimes referred to as an intervention." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invade.

 

"The 2003 Invasion of Iraq began on March 20, consisting primarily of United States and United Kingdom forces; 98% of the forces came from these two countries, although numerous other nations also participated. The 2003 Iraq invasion marked the beginning of what is commonly referred to as the Iraq War. Iraq's elite Republican Guard units were defeated April 2, and Baghdad fell on April 9th, 2003. On May 1, 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations, terminating the Ba'ath Party's rule and removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office. Coalition forces ultimately captured Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. A transitional period began thereafter, plagued by violence caused from a mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency, and by forces of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network."

 

Anybody with a functioning brain would conclude the actions of the US with regard to Iraq clearly fit the DEFINITION of INVASION. FYI - GOOGLE has only about 19,800,000 occurences of the phrase "invasion of Iraq". Case closed.

 

As I pointed out previously, the TERMS under which we attacked Iraq are undeniable (again, as a refresher): Iraq INVADED Kuwait; Military Force (under the auspices of the United Nations) was used to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwiat (that would be Desert Storm, et al); a CEASE-FIRE agreement was entered into (SUSPENDING [not STOPPING] the military force); -now pay attention, this is where is get REALLY tricky- 12 YEARS and 17 United Nations Resolutions passed (ending with the UNANIMOUS passage of U.N. Resolution 1441 calling for "serious consequences" for failure to comply [got that, CES, not "sanctions"])...

 

My how you do love to twist and squirm. Let's see...

 

"In 2002 the Iraq disarmament crisis arose primarily as a diplomatic situation. In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Adopted 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate), the United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. The Joint Resolution was worded so as to encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action, although as a matter of international law the US required explicit Security Council approval for an invasion unless an attack by Iraq had been imminent — the US administration argued that there was an "urgent," "growing," and "immediate" threat. [20] The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

 

In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers," no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council [21]. Such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, argued in November 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but still justified [22], [23]."

 

NOW, in contrast, please enumerate the 17 United Nations resolutions against Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or Iran, or ANY other country...

 

You love that mythical number of 17. Did you get that from Rush Limbaugh too? Try again.

 

U.N. Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284 regarding Iraq, preceeded 1441. That's 10, not 17, and even then, UN representatives agreed that Iraq had complied with some provisions of the resolutions.

 

"In his March 17, 2003, address to the nation, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline [2]. This demand was reportedly rejected [3]. Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors UNMOVIC headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC). The International Atomic Energy AgencyIAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA)"

 

Or, as an alternative, please cite the CEASE-FIRE agreement (or ANY equivalent document) which would give ANY creedence to the suggestion that we (ANY country) should (at THIS TIME) take military action against Saudia Arabia...

 

How about the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 which among other things, makes it a reason for action when...

 

"otherwise to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support (including, without limitation, a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false

documentation or identification, weapons (including, without limitation, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons), explosives, or training), to any organization that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, is a terrorist organization, or to any individual whom the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit any terrorist activity."

 

Gee, terrorist hijackers of 9/11, (15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates), yep. I'd say Saudi Arabia afforded material support to these clowns, but you see, we have choosen to ignore this fact because the Bush's are so fucking in bed with the Saudi's it isn't even funny.

 

I'll grant you, there are many INDIVIDUALS from Saudi Arabia who have shown their hostility towards the United States, but, then, there are people in THIS country who have shown similar distain for the United States (some are members of Congress, others camp out in front of ranches in Texas, still others just make movies).

 

Leave it to you to once again twist and distort. Trace back the money and people who are the terrorist thugs in this world today, and you will almost always arrive back to Saudi Arabia. The country is a joke, serving only for the personal exploitation of the House of Saud. However, in THIS country, EVERYBODY has the CONSTITUTIONAL right to say what they feel, INCLUDING critisizing the government and PROTESTING in their own peaceful way.

 

If your REALLY believe that the United States should engage in military action against ANY other nation, by all means, start the process...

 

You see, you still don't get it. We had no right whatsoever to engage in military action (it's called INVADE) against any nation. We had no UN mandate to do so, and were in no immediate danger or threat from any other nation warranting a military invasion. There were NO WMD's! It was a big lie! However, if you are going to act unilaterally and without justification, at least have the common decency to attack your real enemy, not the one you just happen to have a personal grudge against.

 

As to "LEADERSHIP qualities", you must be joking if you are referring to Shrub...he's got the lowest public opinion poll since they started recording the statistics and couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. Some leader....yeah, right. Have another puff on your crack pipe!

 

This 1 trillion dollar catastrophe has simply been at the whim of a few powerful, but highly misguided and warmongering individuals yet the rest of us will pay for it for generations and in more ways than one.

[wardmd]

Okay...let's go through this for you one more time...

We're going around in circles, but if you want another round...

GOOGLE has only about 19,800,000 occurences of the phrase "invasion of Iraq".

So? Google also has 96,700 hits for "Elvis is alive" - does that make it true? NO! All that proves is that 19,800,000 kooks believe as you do.

My how you do love to twist and squirm.

Ha! Now you're spinning your own arguments against yourself...

At least you agree, that the Congress' resolution said "encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action" - then we GOT 1441 which DID promise "Severe Consquences".

You love that mythical number of 17. Did you get that from Rush Limbaugh too? Try again

No, it's from the State Department (for your convenience and reading pleasure: http://www.usembassy.lv/EN/Iraq/defiance)

 

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

 

That's 17, not 10 (but I will grant you, the U.N. only listed 10 in 1441), but, technically, there's also 1441 itself (in YOUR list), so that's 11, not 10 (so you're wrong, twice)... Case closed (17 it is).

UN representatives agreed that Iraq had complied with some provisions of the resolutions

Big fucking deal! In 1441, the UNANIMOUS United Nations Security Council stated that Saddam was in MATERIAL BREECH of his obligations. It was up to Iraq to comply FULLY with the terms of the Cease-Fire and ALL subsequent U.N. Resolutions (and to PROVE it [provide EVIDENCE of that compliance]).

We had no right whatsoever to engage in military action (it's called INVADE) against any nation. We had no UN mandate to do so

I'll address these two points in reverse order... How could ANYONE EVER have a "UN mandate"? YOU have been asserting that the U.N. does not engage in non-defensive military actions, so how could they EVER provide a "mandate" for military action?

 

Now, as to your "no right" assertion - Neville Chamberlain would be SO proud of you... Are you suggesting that we had "no right" to provide military aid to Kuwait (Desert Storm)? Even under the aupicise of the United Nations? THAT (again) is the war which started the conflict, and THAT is the war which is continued by 1441's "severe consequences" (we've been through this), like it or not, it's the SAME conflict (Geez, as someone who has served in the military, why do you not grasp this SIMPLE fact?).

 

The same Congressional Authorization for the use of Military Force against Iraq gave the President ALL the authorization that he needed (under our Constitution) to do exactly what is being dome. Now you may not LIKE it (obviously), but it IS Legal (Constitutional).

 

In fact, one could argue that the President not only has the RIGHT (authority) to do what he did, but that he has a Constitutional OBLIGATION to do so (if, in his judgement, there exists a threat to the United States).

 

Clearly he did, and clearly Congress concurred.

There were NO WMD's!

Leave it to you to once again twist and distort.

There WERE WMDs! In an October 21, 2005 speech (just three months ago), Hans Blix (we ALL agree that he is NO fan of the war against Iraq, correct?) stated, "No sooner had David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group reached the conclusions that the allegations about the existence of WMDs in Iraq were wrong than he went on to say that there were nevertheless clear evidence of weapons programs.

 

Then came Charles Duelfer and reported he could not find evidence of any programs (except in the known field of missiles) but he went on to report that interrogations of Saddam

[wardmd]

Like what, 25? 50? Lieutenants..

 

The people he imprisoned are now people you see on the Iraq police force. Thats a great thing.

 

Everyone hated him, and his power fell easily.

Exactly!

 

Why, then, is so much credibility given to the "insurgents" who, it would appear, are ba'athists and al-Qaeda simpathizers?

 

Clearly, the MAJORITY of Iraqis are just fine with the creation of a democratic form of Government.

 

Personally, I don't know why the "insurgents" are taking up arms against the U.S. troops and/or Iraqi police NOW... Wouldn't it make more sense to WAIT until the Iraqi Government is established, and the U.S. troops (at least the bulk of them) pull out (and those that remain are lulled into a false sense of security) - THEN to attempt their coup d'etat?