The problem with the Security Council is that each permanent member with veto power is also a grand dealer in illegal arms trade along with other various crimes. They vote according to national interest.
On Feb 26, 6:08�pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > 0 fact = 0 arguement. > > The security council disagreed with them. Action REQUIRES a resolution > by agreement of the council. �There is NO waffle room. Why do you > think it is possible for Russia to trade fissionable material with > Iran..... ALL UNSC members voted NO except Russia.... there ie no > prohibition because there is no vote. > > All reasons given prior to going (and that is when they count) have > been PROVEN to be hooey. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> certainly NOT with UN approval, despite the sanctions. Certainly NOT > >>>> because AQ was there, they absolutely were > > NOT, certainly NOT because Hussein had ties to them, It is FACT that > > the US had MUCH closer ties than Iraq, should i go on ?? > > > 1) Iraq was invaded using Chapter VII Resolution authority... � Now > > you will insist the UNSC had not sanctioned the use of force, BUT THAT > > POINT is debatable, now and then... � The US and Britian at the time > > said they had the authority prior to invasion without requiring a > > second vote..... > > > 2) the reason for going WERE given several times by Bush (including > > reason not related to WMD nor a direct OPERATIONAL link between AQ and > > Saddam... � The problem with those anti-Bushies are that they insist > > those are the only justifiable reasons... �Perhaps to them, but there > > were reasons given publicly MONTHS before Congress voted in the fall > > of 2002... > > > On Feb 25, 3:58�pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The question here fighting on a battlefield of OUR choice... � Iraq > > >> > was that choice... > > >> By what right ?? certainly NOT with UN approval, despite the > >> sanctions. Certainly NOT because AQ was there, they absolutely were > >> NOT, certainly NOT because Hussein had ties to them, It is FACT that > >> the US had MUCH closer ties than Iraq, should i go on ?? > > >> << For American interests Bush was right... > > >> Exactly what were those interests that allowed this. What was the > >> single threat to the US or its territory or covenant accords ?? > > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > The question here fighting on a battlefield of OUR choice... � Iraq > >> > was that choice... �AQ said yes and suffered a strategic defeat... > >> > Very simple... � THe other option was to fight on the battle field of > >> > AQ's choice.... � For American interests Bush was right... > > >> > On Feb 23, 5:08�pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> why did al qaeda go to Iraq? Because the war we intiated left > >> >> a power vaccuum and ample oppurtunities to kill Americans. > > >> >> If not for the war, there would not have been al qaeda. > > >> >> On Feb 23, 4:26�pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Bush won the then central front in Iraq... �The Central front has > >> >> > moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... �AQ went to > >> >> > Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... � Now it returned back > >> >> > to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where government > >> >> > rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > >> >> > On Feb 22, 1:20�pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > Lew, > > >> >> > > First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? Robert Gates who > >> >> > > was > >> >> > > Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > >> >> > > Second I would like a reliable/cerdible source quote to add any > >> >> > > credence that Obama or any one else for that matter is in favor of > >> >> > > any > >> >> > > serviceman or woman being killed or an admission that is solely YOUR > >> >> > > opinion. > > >> >> > > Third I was under the impression that this was a "war on terror". > >> >> > > Your > >> >> > > claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that there are no more > >> >> > > terrorists.... please explain your statement in connection with the > >> >> > > Bush claim (and only claim) throughout that this is a "war on > >> >> > > terror". > > >> >> > > Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link for that formal > >> >> > > expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent terms the > >> >> > > need > >> >> > > for continued US occupation. > > >> >> > > Failing in your ability to do the above a simple statement covering > >> >> > > your bias and lack of situational grasp will suffice. > > >> >> > > On Feb 22, 11:52�am, lew <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > Republicans haven't reached the point of Democrat desperation a > >> >> > > > couple > >> >> > > > of years ago when DEMOCRATS cheered each WOUNDED �and each DEAD > >> >> > > > military report as a victory to defeat the hated George W. Bush. > > >> >> > > > Republicans can NEVER stoop so low as to promote a losing strategy > >> >> > > > (Vote against the Surge) just to attain more Ameican woundings and > >> >> > > > deaths to gain politically. > > >> >> > > > Our own presidemt, Barack Obama, voted against the surge because > >> >> > > > he > >> >> > > > knew that could/would lead to more woundings and deaths. > > >> >> > > > BUSH WON IN IRAQ. � Democrats lovingly referred to Iraq as "Bush's > >> >> > > > War." > > >> >> > > > BUSH WON BUSH'S WAR. > > >> >> > > > On Feb 22, 6:53 am, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > Why do Republicans Desperately need President Obama > >> >> > > > > and the Democrat controlled Congress to fail? > > >> >> > > > > Sean Lewis > >> >> > > > > February 22, 2009 > > >> >> > > > > President Obama has been President for barely > >> >> > > > > a month. > > >> >> > > > > He is facing a Crisis equal if not greater that the > >> >> > > > > Crisis Bush faced after 9/11. > > >> >> > > > > After 9/11 the country unified behind President Bush > >> >> > > > > and gave him almost unanimous support to deal > >> >> > > > > with the crisis. It was about country first, not party. > > >> >> > > > > Yet even BEFORE President Obama took office > >> >> > > > > Republicans, their surrogates and the press have > >> >> > > > > ridiculed and second guessed EVERYTHING > >> >> > > > > President Obama has done. > > >> >> > > > > President Obama has asked for input from all corners because > >> >> > > > > he NEEDS the help of ALL AMERICANS to deal with > >> >> > > > > this crisis the same way ALL AMERICANS rallied behind > >> >> > > > > President Bush on 9/11. > > >> >> > > > > Republicans instead of offering their advice and then > >> >> > > > > understanding > >> >> > > > > that they DO NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY on what Obama > >> >> > > > > decides and backing him in a unified effort to deal with the > >> >> > > > > economic problems are instead ridiculing every decision and > >> >> > > > > proclaiming failure before the ink is even dry on the BILLS > >> >> > > > > leaving > >> >> > > > > Committees! > > >> >> > > > > The Country is facing multiple crisis of which any one could > >> >> > > > > create disaster for America and Americans. Yet the Republicans > >> >> > > > > seem hell bent on being obstructionists, and adding to the > >> >> > > > > chaos. > > >> >> > > > > Why? > > >> >> > > > > Because the simple fact is that if Obama and the Democratic > >> >> > > > > lead Congress fixes the many problems left behind by the > >> >> > > > > Republican controlled Congress and Republican Administration > >> >> > > > > it will CONFIRM and VALIDATE that the Republicans were > >> >> > > > > irresponsible and incompetent during the years they had Majority > >> >> > > > > Control in the Government. > > >> >> > > > > Republicans are not thinking about the Country or American > >> >> > > > > people first, they are thinking about the REPUBLICAN party > >> >> > > > > first! > > >> >> > > > > The American people said 'we want change' and that change was > >> >> > > > > to let the Democrats run things. That Republicans no longer get > >> >> > > > > to demand it is 'their way or the highway', yet this is > >> >> > > > > still how they are governing. > > >> >> > > > > The Republicans use the guise of they are the Minority party > >> >> > > > > and their job is to oppose the Democrats. The problem is the > >> >> > > > > Country is on the brink of a monumental collapse and this is > >> >> > > > > a time for cooperation, NOT opposition. So why do it? > > >> >> > > > > Because for the Republican Party to be of consequence again > >> >> > > > > in the future, the Republican party needs the President and the > >> >> > > > > Democratic controlled Congress to fail. If the Democrats do > >> >> > > > > fail, > >> >> > > > > then the Republicans can say " see this wasn't our fault NO ONE > >> >> > > > > could have prevented this from happening. > > >> >> > > > > However if President Obama and the Democratically controlled > >> >> > > > > Congress > >> >> > > > > succeeds, it only emphasises that not only did the Republicans > >> >> > > > > not > >> >> > > > > acknowledge the crisis as they arose but even after they finally > >> >> > > > > admitted the problem they did nothing to remedy the problem > >> >> > > > > either > >> >> > > > > through > >> >> > > > > ignorance or incompetence. > > >> >> > > > > So do not be fooled by the insincere arguments that Republicans > >> >> > > > > are trying to be bipartisan and want to help. They have an > >> >> > > > > agenda, > >> >> > > > > and that agenda is for the failure of the Democrats, even if it > >> >> > > > > destroys the Country in the process.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> -- > >> Mark M. Kahle, �,www.filacoffee.com > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, �,www.filacoffee.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
