Bravo !!!!!!
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, margareth <[email protected]> wrote: > > All I am certain of, is that there are a number of people who have > been in the custody of the US government since 2002, but who have so > far been denied any legal hearing. If the US constitution means what > it says, the Bush administration has made a mockery of it....In the > world of propaganda, AQ couldn't have asked for better proof of > American hypocrisy. The only certain prevention was of an attack on > LAX, that was thwarted because of the alertness of a borderguard at > Port Angeles Washington... but that was planned for New Years Day, > 2000. > The really sad thing is that the Bush administration has not focused > on the real defence which requires no torture. What it requires is > the cooperation of all Americans, in the protection of the flying > public.... that means that the baggage screeners need to be properly > trained, and all who work at any airport in the country have a > thorough screening,,,, before they start work. Of course that may just > mean that flying will need to be more regulated.. and probably more > expensive,,, but we can't have that now can we? > > On Apr 25, 3:21 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
