Keep reaching. It is good exercise. On 2/28/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ยป > > >
-- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
