|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 8:24:05 AM | ^^^
The USA does not need permission from the Useless Nations to defend it people against enemies both foreign and domestic. That is in the oath of office, there is noting in the oath of office that the president must wait for the UN to give him permission to defend it National Security.
The UN should be dissolved and remove that parasite from the US put it in a more fitting country like Bolivia and for those countries who want to remain with that corrupt organization can line their pockets with drug money that way they can continue their anti American by benefiting from production of coca leaves And cocaine.
Just heard great news NSA leak probe they just announced an investigation into the leak of National Security matters.
Who leaked the info to NY times?
Find that piece of crap and hang him/her. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 8:37:38 AM | What?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Your Constitution makes the UN Convensions, the "law of the land".
Peace  | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 8:47:06 AM |
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Note that Bush later admitted that Iraq and Hussein had no involvement in 9/11. Thus, this was not factual. Thus, the war was illegal.
reading comprehension? no where in (2) does it say iraq had anything to do with 9/11. nowhere. this administration NEVER said any such thing. In fact we can agree that bush himself said the EXACT OPPOSITE. it does not get any clearer than that.
We did not attack iraq in retailation for 9/11! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 9:03:29 AM | ^^^
The US Constitution does not say it needs a permission slip from corrupt organization (UN)Useless Nations to protect itself against it enemies both foreign and domestic. We can go to vote by congress. The US did not want to work with the UN
Reps. Spratt, Moran (VA), Allen, Snyder, Price, Larson, Levin, Matsui, Clyburn offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, debatable for 1 hour, on October 10, 2002; it failed by a vote of 155 - 270 (Roll no. 453). The amendment intended to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the
President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security council resolution sufficient to eliminate by force if necessary all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.,
Rep. Lee offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, debatable for 1 hour, on October 10, 2002; it failed by a vote of 72 - 355. The amendment intended to urge the U.S. to work through the U.N. to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other means
Saddam want be producing no more those WMDs swinging from a rope
Instead we pass amendments to give King George some real power instead that UN crap
Deep into extortion and money laundering for Saddam. I believe, the UN was grateful it was out of their hands so they could starting planning there child molesting and raping strategy for the Congo.
We are here to help by raping your children, please put down you weapons.
Open
Be serious you want to trust your country to these guys and then you ask the US to.
You want to bet the lives of your citizens on a corrupt organization go ahead.
American is much to smart to have those morons involved. I wouldn't put the UN in charge of road crosssing at Schools be scared what they might do to the children.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 9:42:44 AM | | The connotation floated by the White House between 911 and Iraq was so effective that 47%still believe there was some sort of causal connection between them. Cheney on Meet the Press talking about the meeting between Atta and the Iraq intel agent, Buhs using 911 in speeches to justify his invasion, are just two examples where 911 was used in whatever manner to excuse this illegal action. If you read previous posts in this thread you will see your neocon amigos attempt to make the same connections. The point is that the (P)resident manipulated public sentiment after 911 to justify his invasion of Iraq and freely used 911 multiple times to convey a connection thereby swaying public opinion. Aren't you gald he did. To quote Oliver Hardy,"Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into." IF only i could hear one neocon say, "bad mistake going to Iraq, bad foreign policy", it might alleviate some of the rancor I feel. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:10:14 AM |
The connotation floated by the White House between 911 and Iraq was so effective that 47%still believe there was some sort of causal connection between them.
I hate beating a dead horse but apparently it needs to be brought up again.....
MENTIONING 911, IRAQ AND AL QUAIDA IN THE SAME SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND 911.
this is not a SINGLE ISSUE deal. Many of the issues overlap when fighting terrorists.
With regard to an Iraq/911 connection...neither the administration nor the president EVER said there was one. NEVER. In fact the President said THE EXACT OPPOSITE!
The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It's always difficult to prove a negative, but that simply never happened.
Many people may believe this was the case because in "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression. Here's the quote as it appeared in the film:
"There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11"
Now here's the full quote:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."
Setting aside Moore's little deceit, there just aren't any quotations I've ever seen from anyone in the Bush administration saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. That's why, in a piece called "Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism," which incidentally was written about a week before the war began, I wrote this:
The Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11...
Furthermore, after the war had begun, in September of 2003, President Bush himself publicly & explicitly said:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
now many pundits, propogandists, etc may have made the ignorant connection, BUT and if people were stupid enought to swallow that shit without question, not my problem.
IF we invaded iraq because they had anything to do with 9/11 THEN how could ....
1) iraq have been a PRE EMPTIVE strike?
2) Why does the resolution authorizing the use of force in iraq not list that as one of the reasons?
3) why did the president say......"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
???
Iraq did have links to terrorist groups INCLUDING on some "casual" levels as you put it, al quaida.
Iraq harbored and supported international terrorists.
It was NOT a bad move, some of the choices, decisions, probably could have been better, but if you look back at ANY military conflict you can say the exact same thing. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:20:19 AM | I don't care if they were saying saddam was stealing lunch money from children and it was used as an excuse to remove that tyrant. I am so glad we got rid of the dictator. Clinton the liberal (Deity) had a say, Bush just had the balls to do what everybody else (except extreme left liberals) wanted.
Since the UN was going to do nothing until the US had to step on their neck. The Useless Nations had plenty of time to enforce resoultions Iraq was breaking and throwing in face of Clinton Administration. Where is that missing pilot shot down while defending the no fly zone
what was his name?
Don't blame Bush just because Clinton did not have the balls
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE, | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:37:06 AM | Be serious you want to trust your country to these guys and then you ask the US to.
You want to bet the lives of your citizens on a corrupt organization go ahead.
American is much to smart to have those morons involved. I wouldn't put the UN in charge of road crosssing at Schools be scared what they might do to the children.
We weren't discussing smarts. We were discussing legality. Your President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Your Constitution says treaties, are laws of the land. The UN Charter says it's okay to defend yourself, only if attacked (IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK THE US), or with Security Council approval, only.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:50:20 AM | ^^
Well the admendment to use the UN failed and Congress give Bush the powers. So Democrats and Republicans both abused our constitution including Clinton when he did the "Wag the Dog"
I guess we can keep looking for all the presidents who did not get authority from UN.
I say Screw the UN | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:51:13 AM | | xmilitary...since you have the experience of being in the military perhaps you can explain better that I....is it not true that the US was left in the position of either attacking Iraq or retreating to the US as the buildup of troops had taken place and to leave troops in limbo for an extended period of time while the UN played their games seriously affects the focus of the troops and deminishes their effectiveness in subsequent combat.... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:57:47 AM | You are exactly right. Don't use it you lose it. If you remember they were doing training exercises in Kuwait desert to keep sharp.
It is important to keep sharp, plus the cost to have all that military equipment deployed but not being used. However, once they got going the war machine was great. 22 Days, Wow | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 11:06:17 AM | | xmilitary...since that is the case then no one can answer the question how Saddam would have reacted with the withdrawal of the US forces but I think it can be safe to assume the UN would have been begging the US for it's troops to invade Iraq in a matter of months... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 11:07:18 AM | "We did not attack iraq in retailation for 9/11! "
Complete and utter bullsh*t. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 11:18:25 AM | This website must be reading my post
If anyone wants a good read about that corrupt child raping organization called the UN
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/28/155627.shtml
What vision they have get rid of the Useless Nations (UN)
They are like "Tits on a Boar Hog"
Useless | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:03:25 PM | lol, repeating that it's useless, doesn't change the legality...based on your own constitution.
And, to continue talking about the UN, as if it is something wholey seperate from the US, isn't on the mark.
The US is part of the UN. Between 1991 and the present, the US did not introduce any UN resolution proposing to put an end to Saddam, once and for all. None, clearly asking to take military action.
They did, however, introduce a resolution, proposing to cut back UNAMIR forces, in Rwanda, during a genocide.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/
And, they have vetoed numerous attempts at UN action, mainly concerning Israel/Palestine.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
Whatever problems the UN has, it is not like the US is not part of it. I think your dreaming, if the you think the US doesn't like being involved in an organization, where it can protect itself and Israel, with its veto. It's a beautiful deal...for the US, UK, Russia, China, and France.
Peace | |
|
Suther
|
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 1091 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:18:54 PM | Xmilitary
Every organization has it's share of corruption and scandals, does that mean the entire organization is corrupt? If that's your belief then by your own logic the entire US military are murderers, the entire LAPD is corrupt, and every body of government is corrupt.
Should the organization be dismantled due to the scandal/corruption or should the guilty parties be brought to justice? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:22:44 PM | Open
And it does not change the UN is a useless organization and any country in their defense of National Security would take them serious.
We will not seek a permission slip from UN.
So if the war to you is illegal I would recommend that some Useless international body charge King Bush and Try him.
Thank God For George W. Bush and not listening to the Useless Nations to defend the National Security of US
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html
Whistle Blower or Criminal (stay tuned)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department has opened an investigation into leaks to the media about the National Security Agency's classified domestic surveillance program
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/30/nsa.leak/index.html | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:28:54 PM | Suter:
If that is the way you see it, not much I will not try change your mind.
It is a anti-american, liberal organization that has out lived is useful life.
Americans will defend America and do not need guidence from Useless Nations
And I support our troops and do not consider them murders and you do. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:31:38 PM | It's a breach your own constitution. Doesn't need a useless international body, to charge him.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:37:46 PM | Then if I was you I would get a petition going and tell congress. The same congress gives him the power to protect the United States.
You may have to do some traveling to get the signatures.
Hell, yes if you think a crime as been committed then to what is necessary to correct the situation.
Be neat to see you guys on CNN, MSNBC, Michael Moore.org, and Move on . Org
Use that constitution to do what is necessary
I for one and enjoying the out come and watching liberals whine.
Thank God for Geoge W. Bush "Long Live the King"
| |
|
Suther
|
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 1096 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:43:26 PM | And I support our troops and do not consider them murders and you do
Not at all.
But if you deem the UN to be corrupt due to the crimes a few individuals have commited then by your own logic the military is full of murderers due to a crime that an individual US solder commited while on leave in NY. (one example)
I agree that the UN does have it's problems that needs to be addressed. But again, what organization doesn't have it's problems/scandals/corruption.
Exactly how is the UN anti-American? By following laws that America had a hand in writting? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:52:01 PM | When you have France and Russia deep in oil for food scandal and supporting Saddam.
To continue their gold mind and having veto power.
It is to easy for the UN to wield power to countries whom have their monetary self interest at stake and not the interest of US National Security.
Tear that freak show down | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:57:05 PM | Thank God for Geoge W. Bush "Long Live the King"
That's right...I'd forgotten America had the monopoly on God. Oh, and the only king America ever had was Elvis
Thank ewe, thank ewe very much... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 1:06:25 PM | ^^^^^^^^ What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
@ CaramelCorn99,
Buhs using 911 in speeches to justify his invasion, are just two examples where 911 was used in whatever manner to excuse this illegal action.
Could you show some type of proof where Bush said this? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/30/2005 1:18:43 PM | [QUOTE]"We did not attack iraq in retailation for 9/11! "
Complete and utter bullsh*t. [/QUOTE]
NO
BULLSHIT IS TO THINK OTHERWISE | |
|
|
| Page 44 of 54
|
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 |
|
Home
login 
