Did you not see my Today @ 11:43 AM ET post just above your's??



Here's two examples.

James P. Terry, SJD, LLM, Principal Chairman of the Board of Veteran's Appeals at the Department of Veterans Affairs, wrote in a July 1, 2004 Naval War College Review article titled "A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq":

"The determination by the George W. Bush administration to enter Iraq and remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power in early 2003 followed twelve years of Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Prior to the decision by the United States and its coalition partners to intervene in Iraq with military force, Saddam Hussein had done everything possible to avoid complying with the will of the international community. Of the twenty-six demands made by the Security Council since 1990, Iraq had complied with only three...

In Iraq, the coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom was responding to an attack on the very effectiveness of the United Nations security system, by seeking redress for repeated violations of Security Council resolutions. If not addressed directly, these violations would have done irreparable harm to the minimum world order system represented by Article 2(4) and Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to the peace and security of the region, and to the well-being of the Iraqi people."
********************************************************************
Peter Goldsmith, QC, PC, Attorney General of the UK at the time of the quote, stated in a Mar. 7, 2003 article titled "Legal Basis for Use of Force Against Iraq" on the Office of the Prime Minister's website:

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:...

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today."
- Doppleganger

I missed that before I posted. As I say, there was a lot to have issues with during that Iraqi regime, and a lot of reasons to want to clean things up there, but what are listed there as then 10 year-old reasons are actually better than the "we have found WMDs" dog and pony show, especially since they could not produce any once the smoke cleared. The invasion of Iraq required more full disclosure about the multitude of reasons to effect change there instead of playing on the fears of the day and strong-arming a tenuous connection to 9/11.

I missed that before I posted. As I say, there was a lot to have issues with during that Iraqi regime, and a lot of reasons to want to clean things up there, but what are listed there as then 10 year-old reasons are actually better than the "we have found WMDs" dog and pony show, especially since they could not produce any once the smoke cleared. The invasion of Iraq required more full disclosure about the multitude of reasons to effect change there instead of playing on the fears of the day and strong-arming a tenuous connection to 9/11.
- Morris

With the Bulk of the media firmly entrenched on one side of the political spectrum in the USA, it's no wonder these UNSCRs were not front page news.

I wish there was a way to delete a thread from the "My threads" section...

I wish there was a way to delete a thread from the "My threads" section...
- deerow84

Remove your posts.

With the Bulk of the media firmly entrenched on one side of the political spectrum in the USA, it's no wonder these UNSCRs were not front page news.
- Doppleganger

really? The media will not deny verbatim quotations from the President of the United States. George W. Bush didn't lead with UNSCRs.

"That sounds like a pile of crap to me. "

Yes..... a lot of gray area in that comment.

Just stop. you're making yourself look like more and more of a fool with each post the more you dig in.

The link brings up the story about the Clinton Administration giving the North Koreans a reactor. What are your thoughts on that? Big fan of giving enemies access to nuclear power which can be used for weapons? I'm sure there is a logical reason for that.
- bruinsbeer69

So, he did, or did not "give the American's nuclear secrets" to the North Koreans? Answer, yes or no.

So, he did, or did not "give the American's nuclear secrets" to the North Koreans? Answer, yes or no.
- prock

the US taxpayers, funded one in North Korea with Clintons blessing since it was his idea. That idea was....we'll give you this reactor, if you don't use it for weapons...cue the South Park Kim Jong Ill voice. "Oh, yeah, I no use it for weapons"

In 1994, when North Korea announced it was going to bow out of the Nonproliferation Treaty Bill Clinton agreed to replace North Korea’s domestically built, outdated nuclear reactor, with light water nuclear reactors....which could then create weapons grade Uranium.

Then in 2008, North Korea has removed UN nuclear watchdog monitors, seals and cameras from its shutdown atomic bomb-producing complex and aims to reintroduce nuclear material there in a week.

Hmmm.......how ever did they make it from phase 1 to phase 2?

Don't remember hearing about that on ABC, the Boston globe, NY Times, AP, or any of the other left leaning monopolized media outlets.......that's right, they were too busy trying to get Obama elected that year.

the US taxpayers, funded one in North Korea with Clintons blessing since it was his idea. That idea was....we'll give you this reactor, if you don't use it for weapons...cue the South Park Kim Jong Ill voice. "Oh, yeah, I no use it for weapons"

In 1994, when North Korea announced it was going to bow out of the Nonproliferation Treaty Bill Clinton agreed to replace North Korea’s domestically built, outdated nuclear reactor, with light water nuclear reactors....which could then create weapons grade Uranium.

Then in 2008, North Korea has removed UN nuclear watchdog monitors, seals and cameras from its shutdown atomic bomb-producing complex and aims to reintroduce nuclear material there in a week.

Hmmm.......how ever did they make it from phase 1 to phase 2?

Don't remember hearing about that on ABC, the Boston globe, NY Times, AP, or any of the other left leaning monopolized media outlets.......that's right, they were too busy trying to get Obama elected that year.
- bruinsbeer69

That seems like a lot of writing for a yes or no question.

Remove your posts.
- Lahey

I didn't know that worked. Maybe I'll do that...although that will include this post...so if you're reading this I haven't done it yet, if you aren't I did...but you won't know it.

Conservative:fact fact fact fact fact

Liberal: emotional opinion, false statement, you're a liar

Conservative: more fact fact fact fact

Liberal: indoctrinated upbringing, baseless opinion, it's all Bushs fault

Conservative: fact with a reference

Liberal: I've never heard of that or, look at the source, it's Fox news so it's biased

Conservative:fact fact fact fact fact

Liberal: emotional opinion, false statement, you're a liar

Conservative: more fact fact fact fact

Liberal: indoctrinated upbringing, baseless opinion, it's all Bushs fault

Conservative: fact with a reference

Liberal: I've never heard of that or, look at the source, it's Fox news so it's biased
- bruinsbeer69

I think you mean:

Conservative:lie lie lie lie lie

Liberal: emotional opinion, false statement, you're a liar

Conservative: more lie lie lie lie

Liberal: indoctrinated upbringing, baseless opinion, it's all Bushs fault

Conservative: lie with a reference that says something else

Liberal: quotes Fox news. LOL.
- bruinsbeer69

That seems like a lot of writing for a yes or no question.
- prock

Aw, that's so cute.

I think you mean:
- prock

Oh, are you still upset about the soccer game yesterday

It's ok, cupcake. I know you guys only like following the rules when they suit you

Oh, are you still upset about the soccer game yesterday

It's ok, cupcake. I know you guys only like following the rules when they suit you
- bruinsbeer69

I couldn't give a shyt about soccer. Even worse, women's soccer?

That said, why would I be upset anyway? A small country of 30 million gave a country of 300 million all it could handle (and many say outplayed them), in a sport that the US is supposed to be favoured in.

If anything, shouldn't it be the Americans that should be upset?

I love how you deflect deflect deflect when I ask you a simple question, with a one word answer.

Conservative:fact fact fact fact fact

Liberal: emotional opinion, false statement, you're a liar

Conservative: more fact fact fact fact

Liberal: indoctrinated upbringing, baseless opinion, it's all Bushs fault

Conservative: fact with a reference

Liberal: I've never heard of that or, look at the source, it's Fox news so it's biased
- bruinsbeer69

You said this earlier:

And unlike the left, I worship nobody. I have my belief set, and I vote for those closest to it.....or in most cases, unfortunately, vote against the person farthest from it.

and I took you on your word. But now it seems that rather than having your belief set, independently and bravely navigating the world of politics, you simply dislike the left. That seems to be your stance. Basing your entire political persona around disliking a side isn't substantially different than basing your entire political persona around worshiping a side, imo.

Oh, are you still upset about the soccer game yesterday

It's ok, cupcake. I know you guys only like following the rules when they suit you
- bruinsbeer69

Yes, and Carl Lewis was innocent lol.

You said this earlier:



and I took you on your word. But now it seems that rather than having your belief set, independently and bravely navigating the world of politics, you simply dislike the left. That seems to be your stance. Basing your entire political persona around disliking a side isn't substantially different than basing your entire political persona around worshiping a side, imo.
- Morris

People that buy into ideologies heart and soul make me laugh and cringe all at once.

You said this earlier:



and I took you on your word. But now it seems that rather than having your belief set, independently and bravely navigating the world of politics, you simply dislike the left. That seems to be your stance. Basing your entire political persona around disliking a side isn't substantially different than basing your entire political persona around worshiping a side, imo.
- Morris

- Doppleganger

??

??
- Morris

??
- Morris

I'm sure some people worship everything Obama does. I'm not one.

I'm sure some people worship everything Obama does. I'm not one.
- Morris

I had high hopes for him, actually. A good 6 or 8 years ago, I recall reading about him on a flight, and thinking he had a big future, and would do a great job. I’ve been pretty disappointed though. His term so far, has been far from a resounding success. I really don’t see that he’s accomplished anything all that great at all.

I have NOT posted Numerous Fox articles, no more than any other news source.

And I bring up Jon Stewart, as most young Americans consider his show a legitimate source of "News". His show gets much better rating than any other cable news show on CNN or MSNBC


http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/4159.html

Why are you asking me if I watch FOX? Did you NOT read my post that you quoted??

It contains this line.

Yes I watch FOX news, but I also watch CNN, MSNBC, Sun News, CBC, CTV and listen to various news/talkradio stations.


Do you think there is a bias in certain media outlets???




- Doppleganger

I read that, but I also read the part where you said I was wrong about you considering Fox a legitimate news source. So I was confused.

Also, you have posted many articles from Fox news, whether you've posted from other sources or not is irrelevant to that statement. Why would you even bring it up?

Conservative:fact fact fact fact fact

Liberal: emotional opinion, false statement, you're a liar

Conservative: more fact fact fact fact

Liberal: indoctrinated upbringing, baseless opinion, it's all Bushs fault

Conservative: fact with a reference

Liberal: I've never heard of that or, look at the source, it's Fox news so it's biased
- bruinsbeer69

It's sad that you actually believe this.

This doesn't even have anything to do with you being conservative or liberal. You(and dopps) are just being idiots.