Quote:

---

You'll note that NO WHERE in there does it mention 9/11, but several times the U.N.and Iraq are mentioned. Oh well, nice try.

---

Quote:

---

b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

---

Quote:

---

You'll note that NO WHERE in there does it mention 9/11, but several times the U.N.and Iraq are mentioned. Oh well, nice try.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Rue:

Since all of these senators have correctly stated on the record in one form or another that 9/11 and Iraq were not linked, can you tell me why they would vote for a resolution that supposedly implies the exact opposite?

---

Quote:

---

After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.

---

Quote:

---

They will also likely realize (in relative short order) that the nation which could consistently be depended upon to bail their posteriors out of the fire was conspicuously missing. "Oh dear! There's no one standing between that nasty neighbor and me anymore!! And I don't like the way they're eyeing-up my resources/wealth/citizenry/take your pick..."For all of the U.S.'s faults (and yes, we've had plenty) the U.S. could've played the card the Soviets had in Eastern Europe, and occupied all of Western Europe with satellite, puppet regimes. They could've pulled out of Europe altogether, and let Stalin march to the Atlantic (and then some). They could've ignored a lot of their neighbor's "little problems", for which they consistently and willingly shed the blood of their youth for causes which (in no way) had any bearing on the way we lived our lives back here in the good old U.S.A.

---

Quote:

---

In summary, I can only hope (for the sake of those who have been the ungrateful recipients of America's good will) that when that day does come, that whoever succeeds the U.S. to the top of the pile will demonstrate at least a fraction of compassion and generosity that the U.S. has over the past six decades. After all, there's no guarantee that the next top dog has to be a Truman or Marshall. He (or she) could just as well be a Nero, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CARTOON:

Quote:

---

After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.

---

The United States give less per capital than seven other developed nations.

www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-p
er-capita

---

Quote:

---

DEFINITION: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows." Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.

---

Quote:

---

The Senators that I knew of at the time of the vote sent out form letters to their constituents (whoever wrote to them) saying they had classified information that made their yes vote necessary. That information was that diddled threat estimate they were assured was true. That's what they said at the time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed

---

You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.

David

---

Oh, sure. And then be blamed for leaving Iraq in a revisiting of The Killing Fields, like we saw in Cambodia, circa 1970's. Do you REALLY want that to happen again for humanity?


People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

rue- just because they were 'big stories' doesn't mean they were true. There's all manner of trumped up fairy tales by the media which , after some careful examination, turn out to be nothing remotely like what the initial story was portrayed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean like the Kuwaiti 'incubator' story, "mushroom clouds", liquid bombs, terror plots that evaporate on the slightest investigation, saddams WMDs, tapes from "Al Qeada" featuring what must be albino arabs and/or Osamas who must have had radical plastic surgery, Obama's so-called muslim edcuation, and all the other bullshit shovelled from the rightwingnuts ?

Yeah, all manner of fairy tales, no doubt.

Dude, once a source has so completely blown it's credibility, why believe anything further they try to feed you ?

I've yet to see a single ounce of evidence, for example, linking even OBL to 9-11, in the rush to battle, too many folk stopped asking the right questions - and now that it's too late, the answers we're getting suck.

Or when pressed for evidence, that whole veil of secrecy thing again.

It's bullshit, and the sooner folks realize that, the sooner this insanity will stop.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
I believe Cartoon was including private donations in his statement as well as the government sponsored assistance included in your citations numbers. Does this mean you only beleive government funded assistance is valid assistance?

---

Quote:

---

So, because the incubator story was likely exaggerated, Iraq didn't invade Kuwait and there were zero attrocities committed by Saddam's armies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
If we include this do I get to say the US funded terrorism against the UK because a large amount of IRA funding came from US Citizens?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Hey Cit....

If America wanted to really throw its millitary weight around, the Middle East would look like Superman's Fortress of Solitude by now.

Sand + Nukes = Glass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.

---

Quote:

---

Enforcing UN resolutions was a legitimate rationalization for the war. The US and the UK voted for and helped draft each of those resolution. And more importantly, the US and the UK were responsible for enforcement of those resolutions under the auspices of the UNSC. One of the reasons, bin Laden gave for 9/ll was the existence of US bases and operations in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in response to UN resolutions. So the US had direct responsibility in drafting these resolution, direct responsibility in enforcing these resolutions and they were taking casualties because of it. So the enforcement of UN resolutions by the US and the UK is absolutely a legitimate rationalization.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So, for example, as you say the US and UK had "authority" to enforce UN resolutions under the UNSC. But that is not the same as saying the that the USA and UK had UNSC "support" for the invasion,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.

---

Also London is Al Qaeda principle ideological headquarters in the Western World. So if Citizen wants to point to a few fruitcakes in the US, I’ll just point to 30% of the London Muslim community who support Al Qaeda, including organization that bin Laden directly communicated with. There are fruitcakes in every country and the more liberal those countries are the easier it becomes for the fruitcakes to operate clandestinely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Except Britain is doing something about it, America didn't give a shit for decades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Except Britain is doing something about it, America didn't give a shit for decades.

---

Sounds like bullshit to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Yep that's about the best we can expect from you Finn. How many of your hard earned dollars went to blowing up innocents in London I wonder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"If we include this do I get to say the US funded terrorism against the UK because a large amount of IRA funding came from US Citizens?"
-Citizen, Ibid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:


if i put this into perspective, its possible that a decade from now, UN troops could come into AMerica, to quell public unrest(dissent) or something, and with the support of a collaboration of nations, step onto our shores, middle america, and impose their beliefs and their law onto us

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
If you find a statement of fact as inciting a flame war then the fault obviously lies with yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The factuality of the statement has nothing to do with it; the issue is whether you were trolling for an argument, which you were. A large portion of Al Qaeda’s funding came from Britain; that’s a fact. Trying to pass that statement off as a critique of the British without context who, by and large, are not supporters of Al Qaeda is disingenuous. How is that any different then criticizing, out of the blue, American private denotations as funding the IRA? It’s not. In fact, I would call it bullshit, and I did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:


if i put this into perspective, its possible that a decade from now, UN troops could come into AMerica, to quell public unrest(dissent) or something, and with the support of a collaboration of nations, step onto our shores, middle america, and impose their beliefs and their law onto us

---

Where do I sign.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I wasn't, finn, exactly the opposite in fact. But hey if you want to call saying the US wasn't financially supporting the IRA bullshit, that's up to you.

---