Being technical here but The sought and got a 1st Resolution in which ambiguous language was agreed to that allowed France to claim a 2nd Resolution was needed and the US and Britian to claim that a 2nd Resolution WAS NOT required... It was the 2nd Resolution which could not pass (largely due to French and Russian threats to veto it) because countries had been bridged not to allow an invasion... That is to say Mark Saddam bribed Russia, Germany and France (partially though the corrupting Oil For Food Program)... You will note Bush told the world clearly in Sept 2002, that if the UN and/or the UNSC did not have the will to enforce its own Chapter VII Resolutions that Saddam partially or wholely ignored for 12 years, America would... America and some 40-50 countries did just that... And of course saying 40-50 countries is unilateral is nonsensical, yet that is what you argue here in part...
You also claim NO WMD were found... Again a falsehood... Some were, if one uses the UNSC very own definition... Now there is a question of what quantity, what quality, and were they (according to the opinion of the the major intel agencies pre war) sufficient to be ONE of the reasons is the question you want to debate... Frankly you look silly stating an absolute (NO WMD) just to try to score some debate style points... Words and definition mater in honest debate my friend... On Feb 28, 11:27 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, they sought but did not have the votes to pass a resolution and > went excuse hunting. We all know how cheney hunts. > > On 2/28/09, 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
