I see you are doing your John Kerry impression -- assuming all who disagree must be stupid... Perhaps that's the stupidity here...
On Dec 26, 1:27 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > I am glad that you buffeyed all of that with IMHUO. U being under or > un informed. > > On 12/26/08, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1) "lead you to believe" is exactly the point... It is not > > explicit , but implied by you... That is the purpose of diplomatic > > language at times... > > > 2) And Russia, France and Syria ALSO knew the US and Britain were > > going to go in UNLESS Saddam did certain things... Saddam refused > > (free and unfetter access for one thing)... So both sides sought and > > found diplomatic language that would allow both sides to claim their > > interpretation... > > > 3) "direct immenent threat" is an interesting term in the context of > > the nexus of stateless Terrorism and failing states willing to aid > > stateless Terrorism as Saddam did... In the case of Biological WMD, > > the time it takes to make and deliver such WMD is weeks... > > Technology shortens the time frame of "immediate" when Stateless > > Terrorism lengthens it... Aand all acknowledge the Saddam intented > > to reconstruct his WMD stockpile and programs and deppen his ties to > > Stateless Terrorism after the Sanctions ended, which is what France, > > Russia, and Germany were seeking to END the sSanctions... > > > On Dec 26, 12:28 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No, the quoted answers to pointed questions regarding the intent lead > > > me to believe that. To invade needed another resolution That > > > resolution was on the table, the US knew it did NOT have the votes > > > necessary and circumvented the system by claiming "direct immenent > > > threat" to its very shores and unilaterally and illegally invaded. > > > > Your inability to read anything that does not support your position is > > > the only problem here. > > > > Nowhere in any prewar UN document is a permission given. To see what > > > that permission looks like search pre desert storm resolutions. > > > > On 12/26/08, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Diplomatic language often is meant to be unclear when there is no > > > > basic agreement... Language is selected precisely to allow both sides > > > > to claim that there position was supported... Resolution 1441 is such > > > > a Resolution... Failure to understand this, or a willingness to > > > > ignore this, allows you to claim that Resolution 1441 said something > > > > it did not say... It did not speak to the question as to the > > > > REQUIREMENT for a NEW Chapter VII Resolution... It only spoke to the > > > > requirement of TALKING about a new Resolution... Diplomatic language > > > > is extremely nuanced... > > > > > On Dec 24, 3:43 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Like when I quote the authors (1441) and theIR given ORAL/WRITTEN > > > > > explanations to the body they present it to that says it is not to be > > > > > construed as a pelude or permission to invasion and you point out five > > > > > words that can be misconstrued and skewered to mean "well, Maybe" and > > > > > continue with the thought that absolute permission was in fact > > > > > intended ???? > > > > > > As far as Germany in 1933... do not go there, Karl Lehmann is my > > > > > cousin on my fathers side and all those people named Rosenberg > > > > > (mothers side) at Dachau on the wall exhibit were family of my father. > > > > > I know the level of proof required in an arguement that has "live or > > > > > die" at its center... you have spent far too much time in the US to > > > > > even grasp "realities" of the world. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Mark, in 1933 my father had the horror to understand the "True > > > > > > Believer" mentality in both Russia and Germany... In a discussion > > > > > > if > > > > > > I make a point and you dispute it, I should bring up a fact to > > > > > > "prove > > > > > > the point"... I did... However if civil debate is to continue, > > > > > > you > > > > > > must be willing the accept "facts" or at least document why they are > > > > > > not facts... You failed to do this... > > > > > > > You seem to think the reasons listed were only WMD.... But Saddam's > > > > > > human rights abuses, failure to follow the cease fire accord, > > > > > > support > > > > > > for terrorism (not only AQ), prior use of WMD, failure to provide > > > > > > full > > > > > > and unfettered access to inspectors, verified lying to UN > > > > > > inspectors, > > > > > > and being the corrupting influence in the Oil for Food Programs, ALL > > > > > > HAVE BEEN PROVEN TRUE AND ARE NOT MERE CLAIMS OF FAULTY INTEL... > > > > > > Unless you wish to dispute all these reasons, you logic and > > > > > > reasoning > > > > > > here is at the level of Hitler's Brown shirts and Stalin's True > > > > > > Believers --- it is true because my leader told me so, even if it > > > > > > contradicts what he told me last month... > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 1:28 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I truly feel sorry for you and those like you that must wallow in > > > > > >> those dark corners of revisionist ignorance while reaching into the > > > > > >> recesses Pseudo reality to uphold their carefully culled self > > > > > >> serving > > > > > >> "truths". > > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > See my reply to Lef... It is clear you do not include facts > > > > > >> > into > > > > > >> > your discussions here... Like Hitler's and Stalin's True > > > > > >> > Believers > > > > > >> > of old, Propaganda not Facts aere the standard of truth... > > > > > > >> > On Dec 24, 12:44 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> Agreed Lefty, It is just amazing that the Bush "reports" and > > > > > >> >> "reasons" > > > > > >> >> were all based on carefully culled and known erroneous "intel" > > > > > >> >> that > > > > > >> >> was catered to fit his wants. > > > > > > >> >> It will come out at the trials. Whether they are held in the US > > > > > >> >> or as > > > > > >> >> in one case already, Germany. > > > > > > >> >> Presidential pardons are only effective within the US. > > > > > > >> >> On 12/24/08, lef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > I don't know why you bring up this old speech. We now know > > > > > >> >> > that it was > > > > > >> >> > just lies. > > > > > > >> >> > On 24 Dec, 17:05, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > Bush's 2002 UN Speech... Let's see the reasons > > > > > > >> >> > > 1) 12 years failure in compliance with UNSC Chapter VII > > > > > >> >> > > Resolutions > > > > > > >> >> > > 2) Failure to comply with the 1991 cease fire accord > > > > > > >> >> > > 3) Human Rights abuses of the Iraqi people, > > > > > > >> >> > > 4) Support for terrorism > > > > > > >> >> > > 5) Corrupting the Oil for Food program > > > > > > >> >> > > 6) an unwillingness to have an open and unfettered > > > > > >> >> > > inspection process > > > > > >> >> > > concerning WMD > > > > > > >> >> > > Clearly Bush lists many reason for removing Saddam... > > > > > > >> >> > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> Above all, our principles and our security are > > > > > >> >> > > >>> challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that > > > > > >> >> > > >>> accept no law of morality and have no limit to their > > > > > >> >> > > >>> violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year > > > > > >> >> > > >>> ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. > > > > > >> >> > > >>> This threat hides within many nations, including my > > > > > >> >> > > >>> own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting > > > > > >> >> > > >>> further destruction, and building new bases for their > > > > > >> >> > > >>> war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that > > > > > >> >> > > >>> terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions > > > > > >> >> > > >>> when an outlaw regime supplies them with the > > > > > >> >> > > >>> technologies to kill on a massive scale. > > > > > > >> >> > > In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, > > > > > >> >> > > in their > > > > > >> >> > > most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of > > > > > >> >> > > aggressive > > > > > >> >> > > threat the United Nations was born to confront. > > > > > > >> >> > > Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. > > > > > >> >> > > And the > > > > > >> >> > > regime's forces were poised to continue their march to > > > > > >> >> > > seize other > > > > > >> >> > > countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been > > > > > >> >> > > appeased > > > > > >> >> > > instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and > > > > > >> >> > > stability > > > > > >> >> > > of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the > > > > > >> >> > > might of > > > > > >> >> > > coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. > > > > > > >> >> > > To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator > > > > > >> >> > > accepted a > > > > > >> >> > > series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to > > > > > >> >> > > all. And he > > > > > >> >> > > agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those > > > > > >> >> > > obligations. > > > > > > >> >> > > He has proven instead only his contempt for the United > > > > > >> >> > > Nations, and > > > > > >> >> > > for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his > > > > > >> >> > > deceptions, > > > > > >> >> > > and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case > > > > > >> >> > > against > > > > > >> >> > > himself. > > > > > > >> >> > > In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the > > > > > >> >> > > Iraqi > > > > > >> >> > > regime cease at once the repression of its own people, > > > > > >> >> > > including the > > > > > >> >> > > systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council > > > > > >> >> > > said, > > > > > >> >> > > threatened international peace and security in the region. > > > > > >> >> > > This demand > > > > > >> >> > > goes ignored. > > > > > > >> >> > > Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that > > > > > >> >> > > Iraq > > > > > >> >> > > continues to commit extremely grave violations of human > > > > > >> >> > > rights, and > > > > > >> >> > > that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of > > > > > >> >> > > thousands of > > > > > >> >> > > political opponents and ordinary citizens have been > > > > > >> >> > > subjected to > > > > > >> >> > > arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and > > > > > >> >> > > torture by > > > > > >> >> > > beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, > > > > > >> >> > > mutilation, and rape. > > > > > >> >> > > Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in > > > > > >> >> > > the > > > > > >> >> > > presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors > > > > > >> >> > > concealed > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
