Quoting gabriel rosenkoetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: > > The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future > > resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of > > previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports > > detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to > > fully cooperate with inspectors. > > This entirely disregards the UN stating a position against immediate > action on the US's part, which President Bush chose to flatly ignore > in his address Monday evening. The UN Security Council is allowed to > change its mind. Just because they said the use of force could be > justified doesn't mean that the Security Council approves of the > US's current actions; that's completely twisting their words (and > quite obviously not the case).
When did the UN Security Council pass a resolution rescinding the use of force? Earlier resolutions only declared a cease-fire contingent on Iraq complying with all current and future resolutions. The Security Council unanimously voted to hold that Iraq has violated and continues to violate previous resolutions. In no resolution did the Security Council state that it must hold a vote before any future action is taken. France, Russia, and Germany alone are not the Security Council and cannot "take back" their previous votes authorizing force. > > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people > > are behind him. > > Oh? Really? You asked them yourself? Because you sure didn't provide > a reference or a statistical error distribution... NBC/Wall Street Journal : 65% +/- 4.4% CNN/USA Today/Gallup : 66% +/- 4.5% > > Damn those free elections! Why can't we just agree to let you > > pick the world's leaders? > > Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by > President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the > kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but > still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected? > Right then. > > (No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's > reasonable doubt is damning.) Which article/amendment of the constitution states that the winner of the popular vote wins the election? Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th amendment seem to be pretty clear on the subject. Regardless of your opinion of the 2000 elections, Bush *IS* the president and has been given authorization to use force both by Congress and the UN. -- Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
