You cite as proof a 2006 report that was using post war facts... On Apr 25, 11:51 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > This was written PREwar you dolt. please cite EXACTLY which facts are > wrong.... you failed to do so AGAIN, which means there is no > arguement, no proof. Everything written was upheld by the Republican > controlled senate intelligence commitee in 2006. Go figure. kinda like > a ventriloquist and burro.......... he talked out of his ass as well. > > On Apr 25, 8:53 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm > > >>> Hussein. Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What > > >>> he failed to do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. > > >>> Why? Because there is no coalition. > > > Per usual, your facts are wrong ... > > > >>> During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded > > >>> internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons > > >>> inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has > > >>> been used, and can be used again, to avert conflict. > > > Except it hasn't... Only when all 5 veto holding powers agree can it > > act... And then the restrictions are usually such that action is > > ineffective... Please note Saddam ignore 12 years of Chapter VII > > Resolutions because he had bribe the UNSC from taken action... > > > >>> By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite > > >>> for military action, the White House puts us in a state of constant > > >>> uncertainty and increased insecurity where almost anything could lead > > >>> to war. > > > Except to you reasonable means certitude... Read Eisenhower's > > farewell speech... He notes that a nation can not wait to prepare for > > war after the fact (as had been the case)... The slippery Slope of > > Technology and Modern Communication decreases the reaction time > > between certitude and uncertainty.... Today Saddam could have > > produced, delivered then used chemical or biological WMD in a matter > > of weeks... > > > Further you ignore the consensus of the world's major intel agency > > that Saddam had WMD capacity of some level... Again you twist facts > > to fit an ideology... > > > On Apr 24, 8:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Keith In Tampa > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Studio, > > > > > Horse Hockey. > > > > > There is no spin here. I reference the Preamble of the Constitution > > > > because OUR Nation was being attacked, and WE ALL believed that more > > > > attacks > > > > were going to happen. Osama bin Laden promised as much. Khalid Shaykh > > > > Mohammad promised as much, Abu Zumdayah promised as much. Abu al > > > > Nashiri > > > > promised as much. > > > > Small and isinificant points: > > > > The preamble applies on US soil ONLY. > > > > I believe my neighbor is selling black mold tainted marihuana by the > > > ton... > > > this will kill or make deathly ill 1000's ............ can I use > > > "advanced" > > > questioning techniques and if not why not ?? > > > > > The pirate that was turned over to civilian prosecution is something > > > > that > > > > has been happening in our Nation for over two hundred years, nothing new > > > > here. It is called Admiralty-Maritime Law, and *in-rem* prosecution. > > > > There is no comparison between the piracy off the coast of Somalia, and > > > > homicidal murderers who are intent on attacking and killing Americans > > > > in our > > > > own Nation. > > > > Agreed..... > > > > > Iraq's internal affairs has nothing to do with our own, other than > > > > there were a haven of these homicidal murderers convened within the > > > > borders > > > > of Iraq, most especially after we as a Nation decided to remove Saddam > > > > Hussien from power in a preemptive attack. > > > > Long but a complete answer written in 2002 and every word is still true > > > (and > > > proven to be so) > > > > In attempting to make the case for invading Iraq, President Bush's speech > > > Monday night revealed the folly of the new doctrine of pre-emptive attack. > > > More clearly than any other statement by the White House, the president > > > laid > > > bare the weakness of his administration's foreign policy. > > > > According to the president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" that > > > Saddam > > > Hussein's government is planning an imminent attack against the United > > > States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq > > > does > > > not currently threaten the United States, he said we must "assume the > > > worst." Essentially, the White House is proposing that the United States > > > invade a distant country without any evidence of impending aggression. > > > > Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm Hussein. > > > Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What he failed to > > > do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because > > > there > > > is no coalition. Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, disregard > > > for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war without > > > end > > > is causing traditional friends of the United States to join the majority > > > of > > > the world's nations in distancing themselves from Washington in a fashion > > > not seen since the Vietnam War. > > > > The flimsy justifications President Bush has provided for an urgent Iraq > > > invasion have not convinced the world community. Iraq's neighbors, Saudi > > > Arabia and Kuwait, reject the notion of an imminent threat. The Muslim > > > world > > > -- whose support is vital to any real effort to end the causes of > > > terrorism > > > -- is adamantly opposed. In Europe, only England's Tony Blair and Italy's > > > Silvio Berlusconi have voiced support for Bush. They both do so in the > > > face > > > of majority opposition from their fellow citizens and street > > > demonstrations > > > of hundreds of thousands of people. > > > > Many in the global community also distrust the Bush administration's > > > expanding war aims. It is not easy for our friends around the world to > > > stomach the imperial scent of our newly enunciated military doctrine that > > > proposes pre- emption of any powerful rivals. > > > > The president wants to launch a war based on assumptions, and therein > > > lies a > > > problem. One of the great advances of the modern era has been the spread > > > of > > > the rule of law. This is the now common idea that democratically decided > > > laws - - not the capriciousness of individual rulers -- should govern > > > human > > > affairs. > > > > During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded > > > internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons inspections > > > in > > > Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has been used, and > > > can > > > be used again, to avert conflict. > > > > Perhaps most repugnant to our allies is the transparent effort by the Bush > > > Administration to eviscerate U.N. inspection and disarmament activities. > > > They see a pattern of the Bush administration continuously upping the ante > > > with Iraq, apparently to avoid a non-military outcome. They know that an > > > American invasion will dramatically undermine the painstakingly > > > constructed > > > framework of international law built since World War II. The White House's > > > belief that it can invade nations pre-emptively, without proof of an > > > imminent attack, represents a major assault on that international rule of > > > law. > > > > The Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attack raises troubling > > > questions. What burden of proof will be used to decide when a pre-emptive > > > attack is called for? If only assumptions are needed to launch a war, how > > > will we separate true threats from phantom menaces? If clear evidence of > > > impending aggression is not required to invade another country, what > > > standards will be employed to decide when, where, and who to attack? > > > > By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite for > > > military action, the White House puts us in a state of constant > > > uncertainty > > > and increased insecurity where almost anything could lead to war. > > > > President Bush says he wants to avoid "a future of fear." It's an > > > admirable > > > goal, but one hardly served by this new doctrine. In fact, the idea of > > > pre- > > > emptive attack depends on fear. It presupposes insecurity and assumes we > > > will always be threatened. Whereas the Cold War doctrine of deterrence and > > > containment rested on strength, the new idea of pre-emption insists on > > > U.S. > > > vulnerability. > > > > There is no security in a world where wars can be started on nothing more > > > than assumptions. When the smallest suspicion or the least distrust can > > > ignite conflict, no one is safe. In the long run, pre-emptive wars will > > > break down the international rule of law and erode global stability, > > > jeopardizing all nations' security. > > > > President Bush's pre-emptive wars won't preserve the peace. Rather, the > > > notion of pre-emptive war makes conflict all the more likely. It sets the > > > United States on a course of permanent war. > > > > Members of Congress who stood in opposition to Bush have shown courage and > > > wisdom. They are reflecting a profound unease with this war across the > > > United States. In poll after poll, majorities of Americans are on the > > > record > > > being opposed to war with Iraq if the United States acts alone. Our > > > leaders > > > should listen to the people. We know our true safety as a nation flows > > > from > > > cooperation, not unilateral war. > > > > > As I am sure you recall, the theory was, that Saddam Hussien had, and > > > > was attempting to secure weapons of mass destruction that could be a > > > > threat to the United States. This was also during the era where all > > > > Americans wanted some revenge for what took place in New York and > > > > Washington > > > > D.C. on September 11, 2001. > > > > > Khalid was captured in Iraq. Remember? This is where he filmed the > > > > beheading of Daniel Pearl. > > > > He was only there after the US invasion. > > > > > American jurisprudence has no place in > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
