On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well DOLT, you claim "Because there is no coalition" > > There always was even in 2002... To claim Britain was not part of > the coalition in the fall of 2002 is simplely wrong... No, the claim was that as small as the active participant group was it was not worthy of being called a coalition. The first Gulf war had a true "coalition".... compare it to that please > > > 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. > > Then you claim this as a 2002 fact... Problem is Bush said he would > enforce the UNSC Resolution even after 12 years of refusal to do > so... You said the UN had been effective up to 2002.. Truth is it > had not been as evidenced by Saddam 12 years of refusing to abide by > UN Resolutions... Show me ANYTHING that Saddam had that was not on the weapons inspectors reports.... > > > 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... > According to the inspection reports this is false. Again show me one thing he had that was not listed in those reports and show me where a single prewar Iraquian finger was lifted that was an EMMINENT danger to US sovereign territory. Show me ONE Bush prewar claim that has held up. To call into the matter the UN sanctions is to self indict. It is necessary for a use of force decision by the UN....... please display tat text for me. OH !! there is none. > > > As to the point of certitude, that too relates to the facts as in > place in 2002... The major intell agencie were of the consensus > Saddam had WMD or WMD components in the fall of 2002... Wrong. the Senate report says otherwise and so did German intelligence (noted in report). The greatest "threat" posed by Bush was nuclear... since all material (500 tons of yellowcake) in iraqi possession was (given to them by the US along with the research reactor) accounted for to the gram post war and in the inspection reports as well was discounted ENTIRELY by said germans (the originators of the report that Bush quoted incorrectly) there is indeed a HUGE strawman... his name is Bush and ALL his stated reasons for urgency of any type have been shot down in their entirty. Proof to the contrary list all nukes, bio agents, non-conforming delivery rockets and wmds as outlined by Bush in address to congrees that were found please... > > > So you resort to name calling and straw-men... > > 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 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
