Bush reveals source of intel on WMDs by deadlockvictim

I know what you're saying Jongs. I know that I say a lot of things in here to people that can be terrible, and certainly things that I would only reserve for the biggest swine in real life but seems to come out so much more uncontrollably here. Is it the anonymity? Is it the fact that there will always be somebody here to argue with? Probably some of both.

RWED would suck if it were just me and a few others on top of a hill that nobody else wanted to climb and give a try at knocking me down off the pedastal I put myself on sometimes.

Most notable has your change been. Some have joked that perhaps you've been the victim of the body snatching pod people. I don't think so. In fact, your change of attitude has really amazed me. Not just your change in some of your core beliefs about the way things in the world are going, but of the way that your posts seemed to have developed a sense of maturity and patience that I hope someday I can achieve.

I really do worry about all of us. Much much more than is healthy. The physical ailments I've been feeling in the last few years because of this and some of my outside indescretions have me seriously concerned about my own mortality on some days. I'd like not to think I'm a hypocondriac, but for the last 4 hours or so, I've probably heard my heart beat in my right ear about 300 times. I know that's not right at 28 years old, especially considering that only 4 years ago I was in the shape of my life.

I can't take 4 more years of this, but I can't take an indefinate amount of time where we will begin living in a country where there isn't anyplace that won't be invaded and told how to run. Seems like you can't get a democrat or a republican who will put a stop to that in the last few decades. Obama is not the solution, however he will be the answer for millions of voters angered at the status quo. (I'm calling it now that this will be the election where the majority of voters was under 40 years old, and also the highest turnout of kids up through college).

People used to rise up and demand and make changes. Today most of us are all armchair warriors who are willing to blindly follow somebody who offers something different than what we've had for the better part of a decade. I'm not going to outright say what part of notable history this mirrors, but I'll just say that I've been aware of how this looks from the outside for quite some time. Yes We/we can!

Obama really scares me, and I'm seriously considering voting for Hillary because I think sadly she is the most conservative of the three real potential candidates left.

So here it is...

Sorry Rap. I'd like to think that as a post that somebody called me out on attacking you for, you recognize that it's one of my more tame attack modes and I really like when I can try to get a point across without resorting to a neanderthal. If nothing else, you give me a symbol of a lot of things I think need changing in the world. It's not personal, and I'm not completely in disagreement with you. Chances are that we feel very similar on a lot of issues regarding the economy and foreign policy. I've always considered myself to be more of a Rethug than a Demon if ever I were forced at gunpoint to choose sides. That's just what makes forgiving all of their greiveances all the more difficult for me. If we kept illegals out, government were to have gotten smaller and civil liberties weren't being breeched, I wouldn't have as much a problem swallowing the Middle East pill. Our boys and girls come home in shifts and every day their own country and the whole world looks so much different than when they left.... just like you and I look different to people we haven't seen for 10 years at our high school reunions.

Thansk for being around Rap, even if you're one of the ones on just one end of a political spectrum I see with so many blatent flaws whatever "side" you're looking at.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:09 AM

christ, can't you people take a joke...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:24 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I know what you're saying Jongs. I know that I say a lot of things in here to people that can be terrible, and certainly things that I would only reserve for the biggest swine in real life but seems to come out so much more uncontrollably here. Is it the anonymity? Is it the fact that there will always be somebody here to argue with? Probably some of both.

RWED would suck if it were just me and a few others on top of a hill that nobody else wanted to climb and give a try at knocking me down off the pedastal I put myself on sometimes.

Most notable has your change been. Some have joked that perhaps you've been the victim of the body snatching pod people. I don't think so. In fact, your change of attitude has really amazed me. Not just your change in some of your core beliefs about the way things in the world are going, but of the way that your posts seemed to have developed a sense of maturity and patience that I hope someday I can achieve.

I really do worry about all of us. Much much more than is healthy. The physical ailments I've been feeling in the last few years because of this and some of my outside indescretions have me seriously concerned about my own mortality on some days. I'd like not to think I'm a hypocondriac, but for the last 4 hours or so, I've probably heard my heart beat in my right ear about 300 times. I know that's not right at 28 years old, especially considering that only 4 years ago I was in the shape of my life.

I can't take 4 more years of this, but I can't take an indefinate amount of time where we will begin living in a country where there isn't anyplace that won't be invaded and told how to run. Seems like you can't get a democrat or a republican who will put a stop to that in the last few decades. Obama is not the solution, however he will be the answer for millions of voters angered at the status quo. (I'm calling it now that this will be the election where the majority of voters was under 40 years old, and also the highest turnout of kids up through college).

People used to rise up and demand and make changes. Today most of us are all armchair warriors who are willing to blindly follow somebody who offers something different than what we've had for the better part of a decade. I'm not going to outright say what part of notable history this mirrors, but I'll just say that I've been aware of how this looks from the outside for quite some time. Yes We/we can!

Obama really scares me, and I'm seriously considering voting for Hillary because I think sadly she is the most conservative of the three real potential candidates left.

So here it is...

Sorry Rap. I'd like to think that as a post that somebody called me out on attacking you for, you recognize that it's one of my more tame attack modes and I really like when I can try to get a point across without resorting to a neanderthal. If nothing else, you give me a symbol of a lot of things I think need changing in the world. It's not personal, and I'm not completely in disagreement with you. Chances are that we feel very similar on a lot of issues regarding the economy and foreign policy. I've always considered myself to be more of a Rethug than a Demon if ever I were forced at gunpoint to choose sides. That's just what makes forgiving all of their greiveances all the more difficult for me. If we kept illegals out, government were to have gotten smaller and civil liberties weren't being breeched, I wouldn't have as much a problem swallowing the Middle East pill. Our boys and girls come home in shifts and every day their own country and the whole world looks so much different than when they left.... just like you and I look different to people we haven't seen for 10 years at our high school reunions.

Thanks for being around Rap, even if you're one of the ones on just one end of a political spectrum I see with so many blatent flaws whatever "side" you're looking at.

Hey 6ix, As Klaatu said to little Billy while looking at the Lincoln Memorial...."those are great words. It must have taken a great man to say them." Humans are blessed with a large brain, and sometimes the ability to expand their outlook beyond what feels comfortable and normal to them. Been a pleasure 6ix, now I have to actually do some work today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:42 AM

I can not find them over there....
no WMD's beneath this chair.
Perhaps the statement could be fair,
We made it up out of thin air.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:47 AM

didn't like that one?
how bout this... what do you call a rooster with erectile dysfunction??

boneless chicken

lighten up.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:49 AM

lol.... How embarassing to admit that it doesn't look like it much here.

My bad...

"Heh... I like the rap music. I get these kids today. Givin love to my homies.. heh.. I love me some Vanilla Ice Heh... I was down with Dre before anybody was, back when he was underground with the
World Class Wrecking Crew http://www.cracked.com/article_15826_six-musicians-with-pasts-they-hop
e-youll-forget.html

That Tupac was a pretty smart feller. He used his prison time real good and read that Mac... Mac... Mac Tonight book. Heh... funny headed moon dude... why don't McDonalds bring that guy? He cracked me up. Mac tonight! Heh... Hop on Pop. Why don't they have Hop on Pop? Didn't they know the prezerdunt was commin'? Green eggs kids... Green eggs and ham. eat 'em up... heh. No more yella eggs cause the chickies and them piggies are eating cloned green corn and slop cause we need real food makes more oil fer our Humvees and wars... heh. 'Member boys and girls. Work real hard and any one of you can be preserdent like me and pimp children's books at the Skools. Heh... no child left behind. A'right!"

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

I can not find them over there....
no WMD's beneath this chair.
Perhaps the statement could be fair,
We made it up out of thin air.

That was great. Need you around these parts more to lighten up the atmosphere. Nice to meet you. I have teeth and claws so beware. Just a nice friendly warning from a guy that takes everything too seriously. Post at your own peril here, my friend.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Post at your own peril here, my friend.

oh it's a den of iniquity, no doubt....

'but i can dodge them scales alright..'*

thanks for the heads up Jack

*six days on the road, and i'm gonna make it home tonight..."

Durka, Durka, Durka.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would have limited these resolutions to those that "call on" and "demand" Israel to do this and that, but I wanted you to get an idea of the sheer number of resolutions against Israel since 1955.

None of those resolution authorized the use of force in order to compel compliance.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Non related issues, Sig. Nice try though.

Sure Rap. Cut and run. That's all you ever do.

BTW- anyone over the age of seven knows that six half-assed excuses for doing something (The dog at my homework. I wasn't feeling well. My sister was bugging me.) are worse than just one. And one excuse doesn't hold a candle to one GOOD reason.

So give me ONE REASON- just one, not a half-dozen - for invading Iraq.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:25 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
how bout this... what do you call a rooster with erectile dysfunction??

boneless chicken

or maybe.... a cock with no doodle-do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I pity you Rap....

You live in an even scarier world than I do in my own mind from day to day. Until this thread, I really thought that quite impossible.

I hope you find whatever it is you need to cope from day to day the next 8 years when we don't have a white male "Christian" in office anymore to protect you from all the bad guys in the world. The only thing I want to see less than Barack Hussain Obama in office is to see McCain in office, but he is going to win this.

Your hero just made white Christian men so stinking unpallatable that I do believe it will be a very long time until we see another one in office. Your hero just made it possible to break traditions that haven't been able to be broken for 200 years.

In 2009 we will have a Muslim in office because of your hero. I hope you can live with that. I'd truly miss your posts here if you couldn't.

Obama claims to be a Christian, last I checked. Either way, I'm an atheist, so much for the "fundie hero " claims on your part. (Sorry, just had to make you look the part of an ass ) But speaking of heroes, we're not talking about Reagan, so don't waste your breath here. I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

ThatWeirdGirl:

Don't get TOO upset by the goings-on in here. Most of it (dare I say 99.9%) is just about getting one another's goat, or needling each other. If I actually *met* Hero or Auraptor, who knows, we might even be able to have a beer together. On things political, however, I don't think we're ever gonna see eye to eye. 'Course, that might be because I'm 6'8", and don't really tend to see eye-to-eye with about 98% of people...

But yeah - where's the fun in arguing with people you already agree with? As for the vitriol, what can I say? It seems to get ratings - just ask hate-mongers like Bill Orally and Wow-what-a-Rush Limbaugh... Hate & name-calling sells, and it makes for entertainment for the masses. Whic probably explains a lot about professional wrestling.

So anyhoo, you can either (a) join in the fun down here in the mosh pit, (b) watch from the sidelines, or (c) avoid the messiness that is the RWED altogether.

I usually only come in here when I'm in the mood for a fight, or feeling particularly contrarian.

Enjoy the ride, and don't take any of it too seriously. After all, none of us gets out of this life alive.

Mike

Eschew Obfuscation!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:25 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

Amazing, AU - we actually AGREE on something!

Will wonders never cease?

M

A baby seal walks into a club...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Bump up for Rap

"Sure Rap. Cut and run. That's all you ever do.

BTW- anyone over the age of seven knows that six half-assed excuses for doing something (The dog at my homework. I wasn't feeling well. My sister was bugging me.) are worse than just one. And one excuse doesn't hold a candle to one GOOD reason.

So give me ONE REASON- just one, not a half-dozen - for invading Iraq."

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So give me ONE REASON- just one, not a half-dozen - for invading Iraq.

Why? If you will not accept a half-dozen, why do we think you'd accept just one?

Its like a DUI stop. Weaving, not enough. Bloodshot eyes, not enough. Odor of alcohol, not enough. Admission of drinking, not enough. Slurred speech, not enough. Poor motor skills (like fumbling a wallet when producing a license), not enough. None of those things are enough to justify an OVI investigation or arrest. However, a combination of some or all of those things does justify the arrest based upon the totality of the circumstances.

My view is that the one thing your looking for probably comes at the very end when we order Saddam to quit the country or face invasion. At that point his one singular decision to refuse our ultimatum justifies our invasion.

That said it is all the other factors, his faking a WMD program, the billions in oil bribes, the failure to live up to the 1991 cease fire, firing on US and British planes (including shooting down a US drone), the non-cooperation with international inspectors, his brutalizing of his own people (revealed in full after the fact), his terrorist connections with Palestine, his harboring of an Al Queda camp in northern Iraq, the 9/11 attacks (not because Iraq was a part of the attack but because the attacks changed US policy to one of preventative war), failure to account for a missing US 1991 MIA pilot, the attempted assasination of President Bush '41, and all the other reasons too numerous to get into.

So lets pick one. Non-cooperation with international inspectors. Is this reason enough? I defer my answer to President Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998:

Quote:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces....

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

I note for the record that the results of that campaign included Iraq no longer having inspectors, they did not return until 2002 in a last ditch effort to avoid or delay the US invasion. In short Clinton felt that one reason was enough, I agree.

Despite all the reasons, historically speaking the invasion flows naturally from Sept 11, 2001. Prior to that the US would show restraint and allow itself to be attacked again and again with little effective response. After 9/11 the US policy changed. We realized that the potential destruction terrorists could deliver, even with conventional attacks, was such that we could not simply respond to attacks, we had to take the offensive against our enemies BEFORE they attacked us:

Quote:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

President Bush
State of the Union address
January 28, 2003

President Bush was right.

So you wanted one singular reason, so I gave you several to respond to:

1. That once we gave our ultimatum, we had to follow through.

2. Totality of the circumstances.

3. The removal of UN inspectors was cause enough to attack in 1998, so it was good enough in 2002 as well. Saddam's last minute efforts were simply too little, too late.

4. US policy change after 9/11.

Any one of those will do and some overlap.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap

"U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, in short gives any member nation (that's us ) the right to use military force on Iraq if it does not abide by the sanctions agreed upon by the U.N. and Iraq.

Iraq failed to abide, we responded, eventually, w/ military force."

Not true, again. The charter takes precedence and provides for the required procedures by which to act. Geeze Rap, if you're going to parrot talking points at least you could do a little background on them.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

'Hero'

"First of all your list is not exhaustive."
My list had the item 'other' - I think that makes it complete enough for the purposes of discussion.

"Second, there is no reason to pick one ..."
But you're our official legal beagle. Which one provides for legally attacking another country that didn't attack first and is not an imminent threat ?

"casus belli (which is the reason for war)"
So b/c the US followed it's own internal legal code means the US is NOT an aggressor nation ? (BTW for historical purposes I'd like to mention that Germany also followed its own legal code in launching WWII, and that didn't give Germany a pass, either.)

"Thats subjective."
Is that what you say to the people you prosecute ? There IS international law which the US violated. Is that subjective ?

"non-threatening, non-attacking Iraq had a record of brutalizing its people, attacking its neighbors, funding Palestinian terrorists, harboring some nasty terrorist types, including some Al Queda types folks in the north, tried to assinate the first President Bush after he left office, and regularly fired on US and British warplanes flying in the no-fly zone established as part of the cease fire agreement after the 1991 war."
But are those internationally-recognized reasons to legally launch a war ?

Help us out here with some legal information and not just more propaganda.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:32 AM

Damned I am

I do not like them overseas.

I do not like it on my knees.

I do not like this stupid door.

I do not like Mr. Albert Gore.

I kinda like my smirky face.

I still can’t find those weapons anyplace.

I do not like going to the slam.

Adios Suckers, Damned I am

Apologies to the Dr.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

Laudable intent there, AU, but Bush (and others) pissed on it, he didn't uphold it, and that's why I dislike him so- my America is better than that.
Where's Goldwater when you need him....

Patriot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:59 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

IRONY alert!!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not true, again. The charter takes precedence and provides for the required procedures by which to act. Geeze Rap, if you're going to parrot talking points at least you could do a little background on them.

The Charter? Of the UN?
Lets start with the one that says its the Security Council's business in the first place:

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Oh, here's the article that says they can authorize the use of force:

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Here's the one that says Madagascar could have attacked Iraq if they wanted to enforce the resolutions:

Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Here's the one that says the US can join Madagascar to enforce UN resolutions...got to respect those Malagassy types for taking the lead in this example:

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Here's the self-defense provision:

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Turns out the Charter says they can authorize the attack and the resolutions so authorize said attack...so unless your planning to re-write the charter like you re-write history...on this issue the case is closed.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why? If you will not accept a half-dozen, why do we think you'd accept just one?

Because Rap has a habit of shifting his justifications from one lame excuse to the next in a verbal game of whack-a-mole. Then, when all of his rationalizations have been discredited he disappears like a gutless wonder, only to reappear with the same ole spew of crap in another thread.

Both his delusions about the economy

It's ON FIRE! Haven't you heard? Because the stock market!... I mean, the housing market!.. I mean, employment! I mean, Federal revenues! I mean... whichever headline looks at not so bad today!

and WMD survive only because he refuses to argue the core of his ideas.... whatever they are... to conclusions. So for once, I'd like Rap to chase down ONE of his delusions to the end and face the contradictions at the very basis of (what passes for) his thought.

Erm, you too.

Your list is as lame as Rap's and contains some THOROUGHLY discredited items.

For example:

The UN Inspectors were removed by the UN because of the United States. WE were the cause. That's a demosntrated fact which seems to elude you. I know facts can be slippery things to the right-wing, but Christ, man! You're like a bad toilet that keeps gurgling shit back up.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Second, there is no reason to pick one ..."
But you're our official legal beagle. Which one provides for legally attacking another country that didn't attack first and is not an imminent threat ?

I go into more detail in another post, but there is simply no reason to pick one. I choose them all, together, totality of the circumstances and I do this despite the fact that several reasons are strong enough to stand alone.

Don't tell me its not a legal argument, its a legal standard I use every day in criminal cases where I have to justify a traffic stop or a warrentless search and seizure, or other circumstance where the state has acted for a variety of reasons in order to ensure public peace, officer and community safety, investigate crimes, or stop ongoing crimes.

Quote:

"casus belli (which is the reason for war)"
So b/c the US followed it's own internal legal code means the US is NOT an aggressor nation ? (BTW for historical purposes I'd like to mention that Germany also followed its own legal code in launching WWII, and that didn't give Germany a pass, either.)

In this argument you are confusing the legal basis for war with the moral basis for war. So long as the US followed its own internal guidelines it is a legal war under US law. So long as the US followed international agreements and treaty obligations it is legal under international law.

In this case the US met its first obligation by seeking permission from Congress to wage the 1991 and 2003 military campaigns. It met its second obligations by UN resolutions authorizing the use of force in both instances and there was no treaty or other international agreement superceded the authorization by the UN (especially since no treaty ever really ended the 1991 conflict to settle the original issues and I note we face the same problem in Korea).

Your example of Nazi Germany is false. While the Germans acted legally under German law, Germany was bound internationally by the Treaty of Versailles. They broke it not by invading Poland, but rather by formally abrogating the treaty, rearming, and occupying the Rhineland, Austia, and the better part of Czechoslavakia. Further they were bound by the League of Nations, although that was an empty shell. The US has no comparable international restriction such of the Treaty of Versallies, thus Germany broke international law but the United States did not.

It can be argued that Roosevelt broke an number of international agreements and treaties with some of his actions such as lend-lease. I disagree because most of those treaties had been abandoned by the parties before 1939.

I note for the record that Treaties of Perpetual Peace and Friendship have been around a long time. They tend not to be worth much. I would suggest, based upon historical precedent, that such treaties are either unenforcable, have no legal effect, or are themselves violations of internation law. Precedent supports that conclusion far more then the idea that a nation can't simply make war for just about any reason.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The UN Inspectors were removed by the UN because of the United States. WE were the cause. That's a demosntrated fact which seems to elude you. I know facts can be slippery things to the right-wing, but Christ, man! You're like a bad toilet that keeps gurgling shit back up.

Your only looking a what happened in 2002 and 2003. The inspectors issue began in 1991. In 1998 after years of shuffling Saddam threw them out. We bombed. He did not let them return until the US began its pre-invasion build up in Kuwait. At that time the US determined it was an ongoing ploy to delay the invasion, so we determined to go foreward. That decision prompted the UN to close shop so their fella would not get stepped on by either side.

Clinton was correct when he said throwing them out justified war. He failed to carry his conflict to a successful conclusion. But letting them back in at the last minute was too late.

I get this a lot with folks who owe fines to the court. They get thirty days to pay, thirty days later no money, no defendent. Warrant. Assuming we don't pick them up they show up a few days later, with some...not all...of the money. At that point the Judge looks at their record. If its good he gives them a warning and more time and recalls the warrant...if its bad they go to jail.

Saddam had a very bad record.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Basically what you're saying is that we invaded Iraq for something that Saddam did 10 years previous?

Get a life!

The whole point was to disarm Saddam. That mission was accomplished and was in the process of being verified.

It seems like some people... YOU for instance... just can't stand success.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Basically what you're saying is that we invaded Iraq for something that Saddam did 10 years previous?

That exactly what they're saying...why? You got a problem with pre-emptive retro-punishment?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:52 PM

STORYMARK

We all know the real reason is Bush had a hard-on for Saddam, and these wingnuts are just lock-stepping along. No further point going round in circles.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:13 PM

Yeah- time to go back to the entertainment side.

Stargate!!! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:15 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
We all know the real reason is Bush had a hard-on for Saddam, and these wingnuts are just lock-stepping along. No further point going round in circles.

I can only assume that the "We" you are referring to is yourself and the mouse in your pocket. Would you mind telling the rest of us the "real reason" why "Bush had a hard on for Saddam".

We're going to have to penalize you for the "lock-stepping" comment. I think you might have been trying to slip in a suttle Hitler reference (goose-stepping). Thanks for playing anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That exactly what they're saying...why? You got a problem with pre-emptive retro-punishment?

And that's exactly what drives me batshittier than I already am. The Bushites can'd decide if the invasion was about what Saddam did 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or what he was doing in 2002, what he might do in the future, WMDs that he buried for later use or sent to Syria (HA!) or because he was a "bad man", or because we were just doing what the UN wanted us to do, or authorized us to do, or... the dog at his homework, and his sister was bugging him, and he couldn't find a pencil (Was that before or after the dog at his homework?), and the power went out and...

But they have reasons, by God! At least a couple of dozen, none of which make any sense and quite a few of which are inconsistent with each other. I swear to God some of these folks are a few neurons short in the "logic" area.

I should just treat them like I'd treat any paranoid schizophrenic and simply smile and back away slowly...

*backs away slowly*
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:03 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

We're going to have to penalize you for the "lock-stepping" comment. I think you might have been trying to slip in a suttle Hitler reference (goose-stepping). Thanks for playing anyway.

I said what I meant. If that challenges you, perhaps you should work on expanding your vocabulary.

But thanks for playing.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But they have reasons, by God! At least a couple of dozen, none of which make any sense and quite a few of which are inconsistent with each other. I swear to God some of these folks are a few neurons short in the "logic" area.

Once more to respond, Signy:

"This is an important book, children. It shows how you can break all the rules, and still come out looking good, as if you'd never done anything wrong in the first place.
I love that message- it's like...redemption or something."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

'Hero'

Did you accidentally read 'United States" in place of "Security Council" ? Or did you just presume the United States IS the Security Council ?

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary

The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Obama claims to be a Christian, last I checked. Either way, I'm an atheist, so much for the "fundie hero " claims on your part. (Sorry, just had to make you look the part of an ass ) But speaking of heroes, we're not talking about Reagan, so don't waste your breath here. I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

Most of that rambling in your post doesn't even make a lick of sense, but I'll be around for a while if you would like to take a second shot at making me look the part of an ass.

None of the top 3 canidates will do anything to uphold the US Constitution, so not looking too good there.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Most of that rambling in your post doesn't even make a lick of sense, but I'll be around for a while if you would like to take a second shot at making me look the part of an ass.

None of the top 3 canidates will do anything to uphold the US Constitution, so not looking too good there.

I'm sorry you lack such basic comprehension skills.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

Laudable intent there, AU, but Bush (and others) pissed on it, he didn't uphold it, and that's why I dislike him so- my America is better than that.
Where's Goldwater when you need him....

Patriot Chrisisall

And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?

And you call yourself a patriot ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court

I KNEW there was a reason why talking to you is like talking to PN! You're both on the same delusional wavelength!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm sorry you lack such basic comprehension skills.

Now you're just being silly Rap. I've been called quite a few things on here and even I'd agree with most of them, but you and I know that I suffer from no comprehension problems or any other mental deficits.

If you'd like to have another swing at trying to make me look like an ass though, I welcome it. I know you can do better than to take cheap personal attacks on me. Especially after I was so nice to you earlier today.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I don't care which gender, race or religion ( well, I'm less enthusiasitc w/ a Muslim ) the next President is, as long as they uphold the U.S.Constitution. That's what matters the most.

Laudable intent there, AU, but Bush (and others) pissed on it, he didn't uphold it, and that's why I dislike him so- my America is better than that.
Where's Goldwater when you need him....

Patriot Chrisisall

And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?

And you call yourself a patriot ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

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

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I KNEW there was a reason why talking to you is like talking to PN! You're both on the same delusional wavelength!

I see a lot of delusional people here. All this seems to be to me is two sides picking what they believe to be the lesser of two evils and arguing each other about it.

Bottom line is we had shitty choices for America the last 8 years and we're faced with even shittier choices now, since any canditate that was for protecting America and the Constitution is out of the race or so laughably behind at this point that they'll have to run third party and inevitably lose.

I did my part. My bro and I got quite a few people to vote for Dr. Paul in the IL primaries. Funny how none of them had ever even heard of him several months before.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?

W T F are you talking about??
Any seditious Jew-nazi aliens you'd like to throw in there?
McCain is an evil robot, you know...
And Hilary eats the babies supplied to her by Obama.

Biped...such a biped.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 6:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And yet you'd sit by and idly watch Gore or Kerry give away or national sovereignty to the Euros and the World Court, just so they'd like us ?

RAP, HERO- In case it's escaped your notice "our sovereignty" does NOT extend to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, France, Syria, Israel, Germany, Japan, or anywhere outside of our borders, really. So if you're whinging that we can't do whatever the fuck we want, whenever and wherever we want for any reason or no reason whatsover... you won't find a sympathetic ear here!

And, you may not have noticed, but the "anti-globalization" forces are mainly populated by liberals.

So stick THIS in your ear.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I see a lot of delusional people here. All this seems to be to me is two sides picking what they believe to be the lesser of two evils and arguing each other about it Bottom line is we had shitty choices for America the last 8 years.

Somehow I don't think Kerry or Gore would have made quite such a mess. But maybe it's better that we have such an idiot in the WH... Bush is quite a lesson.

Quote:
and we're faced with even shittier choices now,

It's all about the money. It's always been about the money. At the moment, all the remaining candidates are tainted. As fortetold by prophecy.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Bushites can'd decide if the invasion was about what Saddam did 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or what he was doing in 2002, what he might do in the future

I don't know how much clearer I can be. It was NOT one thing. It was everything. Ten years ago, 20 years ago, what he was doing in 2002, AND what he might do in the future.

Edited to add: Now that I think about it...most American wars have this in common. The Revolution, for example, was not about Lexington and Concord or the price of tea...it was a series of reasons spanning decades many of which were outlined in the Declaration. Totality of the circumstances turned treason into a just war for independence.

The only folks who want to focus on one thing are the folks who gave him a pass on everything.

You also suggested that some of the reasons I cited are inconsistant with each other, yet while I listed reason after reason you give not one example of how this is so.

You asked for one reason, so I gave you several to choose from any of which I was happy to consider sufficient to be the one reason. You failed to refute any of them relying instead on tired rhetoric, baseless insults (of the President and those who support his policies), and repetative critisism of the WMD argument, which was not and is not the sole basis of the argument for war in 2002 (even though it was enough for war in 1998 according to President Clinton).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 8:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Obviously, WMD wasn't enuf for war for Clinton because he didn't go to war. Facts, man. Stick to 'em.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 9:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

'Hero'

"It was NOT one thing. It was everything."

But not one of them a legal reason to attack another country. For someone who pretends to uphold the law you seem mighty flexible on that point.

Here's the deal: There was no VALID LEGAL reason for the US to attack Iraq. It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't pre-emptive and it wasn't under UN authority.

The US was an aggressor nation.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 10:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And, it was an incredibly stupid idea.

Iraq didn't pose a threat to us, they were free of any useful WMD, didn't have a delivery system, weren't in collusion with al Qaida. In short, except for the notion that we were going to somehow "free" the Iraqi people (BTW women's status in Iraq is slipping towards Taliban-style repression, and Iraq is now experimenting with opium production) there was no reason whatsover to invade.

And if that was our aim, there were better ways to do that than killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of civilians, plunging Iraq into total chaos, reducing their infrastructure to rubble, driving everyone into distitution and in general mucking things up for the average Iraqi civilian, plus bankrupting our budget, destroying our military, and ruining our credibility around the world.

But if YOU think that's a reasonable tradeoff... well...
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't pre-emptive and it wasn't under UN authority.

The US was an aggressor nation.

The UN Charter reserves the right of self-defense, but that is NOT the only form of war the Charter recognizes. It also allows the Security Council to authorize member states to use force to enforce resolutions.

I don't understand how you can argue that it was not under UN Authority. We've cited the relevant portions of both the Charter and Resolutions. You just say "no it wasn't" with no explanation.

Perhaps our discussion could advance past this issue if you explain your position.

For example, you could argue the UN can't authorize the use of force...even though the words "use of force" are in the charter. You could authorize that one or both resolutions were somehow invalid. You could argue that the 1991 cease fire was never violated. You could argue that Congress had no authority to issue its use of force authorizations.

But in order to do that you need to actually say what you are arguing and then back it up with discussion, evidence, and citations of authority. That would allow me to review your argument and material and then agree or posit a counter-argument which could lead to a spirited back and forth discussion.

You challenged my opinion, so I backed it up with citations, precedent, historical notes, and discussion. You seem incapable of defending your position with a reasoned argument.

Based upon what I have read, it seems to me that your opinion must come from an emotional opposition to the war. "I oppose the war, therefore the war MUST be illegal." Based upon this reasoning the legal standard for war comes neither from the US Constitution or the UN Charter...it comes from your emotional understanding of events.

However it seems that we have shown that from a purely legal basis President Bush got all the forms stamped and paperwork in order. That means that while a discussion of the merits of the case for war should always be appropriate, from a legal standpoint the war was clearly in technical compliance with both domestic requirements and international standards.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2008 11:04 AM