US Bombs Iraq Hospital...In Your Name

[bishop]

care to cite the part in 1441 that supports your statement?

[Rainbow]

Nope.
I already have a copy. 1 copy of U.N. Resolution #1441 is good enough for me :-)))

[bishop]

you say that 1441 gave us the right to use "all means to enter iraq" - i ask you which part says that.

why do you post if you aren't willing to debate?

[Rainbow]

U.N. Resolution #1441, points : 12 and 13.

[bishop]

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

these two points gave us the

power to use all the means to enter Iraq.

really??? it clearly gives the COUNCIL authority to make decisions, but it does not give individual states to engage in unilateral actions.

[gr8fuldaniel]

So, if an Iranian spy tells us Iraq has these weapons thats good enough?

Also you are saying the UN authorized this assault on Iraq?

[Leebert]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, She tells us the nuns actively supported Bush based on ONLY his pro-life position.

My wife has encountered similar "logic" at the small-town school she teaches at. Most everyone we know is Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, etc...all quite prone to fundamentalism (I know...I gew up in it). When she told them why she was voting for Kerry...stating the countless bad things Bush has done to our reputation, our environment, our fellow human beings their only response was, "Oh no...you can't vote for Kerry...you have to vote for Bush because he is 'Pro Life' and against gay marriage."

Any time I hear someone talk about how this election was about voting based on morality and faith I want to vomit. How can you rationalize that Bush is a moral, upstanding man because he doesn't support aboration or gay marriage but he does blatantly lie to his own country and allow what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? I love selective reasoning.

And everytime I hear someone suggest that I hate America because I don't support our president or his agnedas I want to shake them to wake them up from their coma. It is pecisely because I do love America and what this country used to stand for that I despise our current system of government and politics. There was a time when America had substance behind what it stood for. But we've long since cashed in any credibility we once had with the world. We may claim to be the greatest democracy in the world, we may say we are out to protect the rights of the individual but our actions show an entirely different thing: All we care about is profit and power at any cost. We expect everyone else to play by our rules but we are allowed to ignore them as it pleases us. We are allowed to be just as murderous as the "enemy" but it is ok in our case because we are the "good guys".

Frankly I hate both political parites because they both answer to money and not the people of America. And I hate our government because it doesn't exist to serve us, we exist to support it and its agendas. Kerry...Bush...it really doesn't matter, they are two sides of one coin. Unfortunately I no longer believe that there is anything that can be done to fix things. When I ask myself how I would make things better...I don't have an answer. So what if we changed our two-party system? So what if we reform campaign finance? The people who are most suited to serve the greater public are the ones least likely to do it while the people who should be the last on earth to be in that position of power will be the first to take it precisely to get that power and hold on to it and use it for their sole benefit.

With every step taken, every decision made, you commit yourself more and more to one single path. The farther you go the harder it becomes to alter your path until eventually you have no choice to but to follow the path to its end. Depressing as it may be, I think that is exactly where we are as a country.

[Gorgo]

"If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, etc., there's a chance to contribute to the making of a better world. That's your choice."
-Noam Chomsky

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Leebert, Any time I hear someone talk about how this election was about voting based on morality and faith I want to vomit. How can you rationalize that Bush is a moral, upstanding man because he doesn't support aboration or gay marriage but he does blatantly lie to his own country and allow what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? I love selective reasoning.

The sad truth is, far too many people are "single-issue" voters. How do you think Bush won the first time? He had NO record as President, he didn't have a great record as Governor and he NEVER came across as all that sharp.
But he DID come across as a sincere and likeable guy. That's how he got elected. This time he came across as a sincere, MORAL and likeable guy.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; these two points gave us the really??? it clearly gives the COUNCIL authority to make decisions, but it does not give individual states to engage in unilateral actions.

Really.
#12 indicates that Saddam did not comply with U.N. inspections.
#13 indicates, that Iraq will face "serious consequences".
What is "serious consequences", then ?
Use of force, can be taken as "serious consequences" or not ?

[Zeebadee]

According to the Bushistas, saddam had to turn over WMD's to the UN. The fact that he didn't have any doesn't relieve him of the responsibility of obeying the UN resolution. He should have gotten some somewhere and then turned them over. That way, he could comply with the UN resolution.

[Rainbow]

Saddam did not comply with U.N. inspectors' demands (based on U.N. Resolution), regardless of WMD possession, which gave the bases to conclude that Saddam was hiding WMD.
He (Saddam) gambled, swallowed "the bait" and lost.

What alleged "Bushists" have in common with it ?
Kerry (or whoever in power) would do somthing similar or the same.
Among other issues, U.S. has entered Iraq for variety of reasons, where the oil and gas are one of them.
What should U.S. look for ? Camels ? Scorpios ? Desert sand ?
Yes, U.S. needs to protect steady oil and gas supplies. Why are you so surprized ? U.S. needs more oil and gas for cheap prices.

China does it something similar (with 40% additional demands in that field) and suddenly (almost) nobody cares. China is building up (designating its own means for that purpose !!! - all expenses covered by Chinese government !!!) a direct pipeline from the Caspian Sea. You would be more-than-surprized if somebody touches that pipeline. China will not pay so much attention but send (for example) 200 000 troops to protect its business.
This world is about the energy, in order to survive.
Do you think Chinese will ever bother with you for a "persmission" ? :-)))
Maybe in your dreams.

[bishop]

serious consequences determined by the security council, not in an act of unilateralism.

you're stretching what the resolution says to squeeze into your opinion. the fact is that 1441 does not authorize us as you claim it does. the only way it authorizes us is if you add extraneous interpretations that are not included in 1441's text.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Rainbow, Saddam did not comply with U.N. inspectors' demands (based on U.N. Resolution), regardless of WMD possession, which gave the bases to conclude that Saddam was hiding WMD. He (saddam) gambled, swallowed "the bait" and lost.

When will the U.S. be unilaterally enforcing all of the other important UN resolutions that are being ignored, most of them by the friends and allies of the U.S.? Do you advocate the U.S. enforcing UN resolutions being violated by Israel, or are you merely a hypocrite?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, When will the U.S. be unilaterally enforcing all of the other important UN resolutions that are being ignored, most of them by the friends and allies of the U.S.?  Do you advocate the U.S. enforcing UN resolutions being violated by Israel, or are you merely a hypocrite?

I know "who" I am (for sure), and there is no hypocrisy within it.
(Keep your own words in your *** or share it with your family, friends relatives. It may suit you all. Enjoy it, then)

Direct your findings to U.N. or U.S. government. I have not set it up.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, serious consequences determined by the security council, not in an act of unilateralism.

Since U.N. Resolution #1441 went into effect, then ask those guys how they interpret those terms. Koffi has its own e-mail address, then you can request that data directly from him :-)))

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Rainbow, I know "who" I am (for sure)...

Yeah, and now I know "who" you are ,too.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Hey, if I stick one of these on my gun can I shoot anyone I want? Just say Hell Mary, and everythings OK?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Add Fallujah to Bush War Crimes

Link [SIZE=2]All the Makings of a War Crime [/SIZE]- with Australia Silently Onside A US-led attack on the Iraqi Sunni-stronghold will breach the Geneva conventions by Tony Kevin   We need to be clear on what is about to happen in the Iraqi city of Falluja, about 64 kilometers west of Baghdad and a key center of Sunni population in Iraq. This city has for many months held out as a center of Sunni-based political-military resistance, refusing to accept the authority either of the former US-led occupying authority nor, since July, of the interim Iraqi administration led by the Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi....... Tony Kevin, a former Australian diplomat, is a visiting fellow at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Yeah, and now I know "who" you are ,too.

Off Topic
I am pleased and shocked you have finally "deciphered" me. Apply for a job at intelligence offices. James Bond should learn from guys like you
:-)))

Seriously ?
You presented "thesis" (taken out of nowhere) on my alleged hypocrisy.
More over, you feel offended ?! :-))))) A good joke.
Whatever your post (addressed to me) carried, has nothing to with this thread's topic. It concerns your views on my alleged personallity.

Take it into your banks (once and for all) :
- I support U.S. actions that bring profits to America.
Factors like "who" is behind it, or political party's shades are meaningless.
It could be Bush, Kerry, Zorro, Superman X, Rambo 5000. "Inner policy" is yet another issue, and I may debate it, but never "outter policy" aspect, under any condition, unless Mao-alike actions may take place.