Good Moring Jgg!!! Geez, I was getting ready to write one of my long epistles, and you and Rigs are stealing my thunder!!! (LOL!!)
As a matter of fact, I am so slammed today with a family reunion coming up tomorrow, it is just as well. Good points however, and I actually enjoyed Margareth's thought provoking post too.....Sort of...... On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Every "action" requires a UNSC unanomous vote. > > Please get your facts straight. UNSC does not require unanimous > votes... It requires that none of the 5 veto holding countries veto > the Resolution (they still can vote no or abstain, of not be present > (as happened in the Korean war))... Then ofcourse there must be a > majority of UNSC voting yes (of the permanent and non-permanent UNSC > members)... Second rulings from the ICJ IS NOT required... Third > the US did not take unilateral action -- there where many nation were > took part... So by definition it could NOT have been unilateral, but > multi-lateral... > > This only points out how much of the anti-Bush POV are mired in bad > or twisted definitions that seek to confine argument only to their > talking points... > > On Feb 27, 8:34 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is no shell game. Every "action" requires a UNSC unanomous vote. > > That includes a ruling on the intent of the prior resolutions from > > ICJ. The problem is the US can not apply to ICJ as they unilaterally > > dropped out. Thus the bogus "claim" of ambiguity. By the way such > > rulings only take days. > > > > On 2/27/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Mark the argument is the authority was already in the prior Chapter > > > VII Resolutions... The argument France and others made was the lat > > > Resolution REQUIRED an additional one, even as the US said it did > > > NOT... The language used was sufficiently ambiguous to allow for both > > > POV... Again, you seek to dismiss a fact by a shell game... > > > > > On Feb 26, 7:08 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
