0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 02:56 pm
Like "Bush lied"? that seems to repeated quite often around here and remains untrue.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 02:56 pm
CI- You have been posting long enough to know that the only way to really answer someone definitively is to REBUT THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS POST USING EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION.

Don't be childish. It demeans you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 02:58 pm
I don't mind being demeaned by the likes of you or ican; it means absolutely nothing to the greater participants on these boards.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The only fantasies around here are ican's posts. I agree with set, ican thinks repeating something enough times makes them true.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:04 pm
... ican has fallen back into bot-mode!
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:04 pm
I am very much afraid, CI, that appeal to majority opinion is not always consonant with the truth. REBUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE POSTS AND STOP THE NONSENSE!
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:04 pm
Oh, wait, let me answer my own post:

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:08 pm
Mortkat wrote:
I am very much afraid
Deceased feline, i am very much afraid by your overuse of that phrase.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:10 pm
old europe wrote:
... ican has fallen back into bot-mode!

old europe wrote:
Oh, wait, let me answer my own post:

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.


"By George, I think [you] got it!"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:11 pm
oe, They'll never understand your post. They are dumb, deaf, and blind to their own opionions.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:16 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
oe, They'll never understand your post. They are dumb, deaf, and blind to their own opionions.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 03:44 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The Iraq war is a USA war.

The Iraq war is a war fought to protect America, and the vital interests of Americans.


ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

~~~~~~~

that's more fun than I thought it would be
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:04 pm
ehBeth wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
The Iraq war is a USA war.

The Iraq war is a war fought to protect America, and the vital interests of Americans.


ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
...

EXCELLENT! "By George, I think she's got it!"

Here's MY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY-- the boldface whereases can themselves be supported by additional evidence should you want it:

Quote:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

(2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

(3) Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

(5) Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

(6) Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

(9) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;


(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(12) Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

(13) Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

(16) Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

(18) Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

(19)Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;


(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.


In this their resolution, did Congress lie and knowingly state falsities, or did Congress not lie and did not knowingly state falsities?

I cannot find any evidence that in this their resolution Congress lied and knowingly stated falsities. Therefore, in this their resolution, ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, I think Congress did not lie and did not knowingly state falsities.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:06 pm
So why didn't the United States declare war on Iraq then?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:14 pm
#22 is the key: "...to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States..."

Saddam was in no position to take terrorist action against the United States or anybody else.

The Bushco administration before the preemptive attack made it sound like Saddam had all the means to attack the US, but we know today all that is false.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:15 pm
If the US really wants to deter terrorism against the US, Bushco doesn't have to look far. North Korea, Iran, Syria, and China are all capable of inflecting great harm to the US and our allies.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:18 pm
Another tour de force by Dorothy . . . i mean, Ican't . . .

There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home . . .
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:22 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
#22 is the key: "...to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States..."


A blank check.



Still, the United States never declared war on Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:29 pm
old europe wrote:
So why didn't the United States declare war on Iraq then?

October 16, 2002, Congress "authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." They thereby delegated to President Bush the decision to use the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. President Bush did not decide to use the United States Armed Forces against Iraq until he was convinced that was necessary to get the then Iraq government to no longer be a threat to the vital interests of the USA.

The President used the United States Armed Forces against Iraq in the USA invasion of Iraq March 20, 2003 to remove the then government of Iraq to end its threat to our vital interests, and win the war in Iraq. Subsequently, the President decided to use the United States Armed Forces in Iraq to win the peace in Iraq by replacing the previous government of Iraq with a secure democratic government of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:36 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
#22 is the key: "...to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States..."

Saddam was in no position to take terrorist action against the United States or anybody else.

The Bushco administration before the preemptive attack made it sound like Saddam had all the means to attack the US, but we know today all that is false.


It appears the US Congress, at the time of the adoption of this Joint Resolution, did not agree with you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/22/2025 at 09:20:40