BREAKING NEWS: nerve gas found in road side bomb in Iraq

[orrery]

I believe that its time for us all to come together for the good of the union and admit that it one could not expect Bush to trust America's future to Saddam Hussein behaving himself. The man did have connections to terrorists and actively pursued a propaganda campaign with the slogans of "death to america"

I believe that it would have been immensely irresponsible to allow a nation's entire generation to be raised in this kind of war-mongering environment. I have no doubt, that left in power, Saddam would have in 10 years time helped some terrorist smuggle a WMD into the U.S.

Furthermore, the U.N., not the U.S. is to fault for its failure to never getting the cease-fire demanded out of Iraq between it and the Coalition. Our job is to defend and preserve the union for our children. Dr. Bush is a good man, and none of us can fault him for him not being able to trust the word of Saddam Hussein. I voted for Gore in 2000. I'm voting for Dr. Bush this year and the posts of ignorant children, whose only claim to intelligence is being objectionable to people who spent their entire youths as liberals and must do what they must to make the world safe for liberalism. It took me many years to realize it, but that is what it means to be conservative.

You may be able to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. With his many death to america remarks and statements, with his support for terrorism and attitude against the United States, even during the Clinton years.....

But I can not. Nor can I trust the future of my Constitution to those who would argue the position of devil's advocate when we have been attacked. Not by 19 men, but by an entire culture of anti-americanism.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by orrery
I believe that its time for us all to come together for the good of the union and admit that it one could not expect Bush to trust America's future to Saddam Hussein behaving himself. The man did have connections to terrorists and actively pursued a propaganda campaign with the slogans of "death to america"

I believe that it would have been immensely irresponsible to allow a nation's entire generation to be raised in this kind of war-mongering environment. I have no doubt, that left in power, Saddam would have in 10 years time helped some terrorist smuggle a WMD into the U.S.

Furthermore, the U.N., not the U.S. is to fault for its failure to never getting the cease-fire demanded out of Iraq between it and the Coalition. Our job is to defend and preserve the union for our children. Dr. Bush is a good man, and none of us can fault him for him not being able to trust the word of Saddam Hussein. I voted for Gore in 2000. I'm voting for Dr. Bush this year and the posts of ignorant children, whose only claim to intelligence is being objectionable to people who spent their entire youths as liberals and must do what they must to make the world safe for liberalism. It took me many years to realize it, but that is what it means to be conservative.

You may be able to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. With his many death to america remarks and statements, with his support for terrorism and attitude against the United States, even during the Clinton years.....

But I can not. Nor can I trust the future of my Constitution to those who would argue the position of devil's advocate when we have been attacked. Not by 19 men, but by an entire culture of anti-americanism.

Than other human right criminal and civil right crimunal and war criminal. First defending War Criminal Bush the way you are make you than war criminal also.

[orrery]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


Than other human right criminal and civil right crimunal and war criminal. First defending War Criminal Bush the way you are make you than war criminal also.

President George W. Bush has authority vested in him by the Constitution. You should ask yourself, that by not supporting the only leader who is accountable and subject to a demcratic election of the people, who are you supporting?

Which War Criminal are you supporting, by not supporting the man who is vested and limited by the constraints of the Constitution? You are, by default, supporting those who would become the greatest war criminals of all time in their pursuit to eliminate him and all of Us. That is something that I seriously feel you should take into consideration.

[GePap]

Originally posted by orrery

President George W. Bush has authority vested in him by the Constitution. You should ask yourself, that by not supporting the only leader who is accountable and subject to a demcratic election of the people, who are you supporting?

Bush has powers, yes, but so does Congress and so does the Judiciary. Our President is not a king nor emperor-he is the head of state but the people are sovereign, they are not subjects and they owe their representative in office no alliegence. Their alliegence is to the consitution which makes them soverign.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by Agathon
There is no reason to think that Saddam has the smallpox virus anyway. It's been eradicated in the wild for years. And we all know how dangerous anthrax is. What? Four or five deaths? Hardly panic material.

Actually, smallpox still exists in the "wild". It's just relegated to small parts of Africa, Asia, and IIRC South America.

Than Arab Muslum in the 8th century said smallpox is than illness that needed than human host than is only found in human being it isnot found in any other animal on this planet. The Black Death is than rodent illness which can crossover to human being. The Muslum also said most illness are cause by than invisble agents which cannot be seem by the Human eyes. Loula Pasteur said the same and he stole the idear from the Muslum. The Muslum doctor wash they hands before seeing each patient, did operation on clean table wash down with than cautic agent, heated they surgical tool in a hot flame before useing then in a operation. You have than 90% less change of dieing from than inflected wound compare to Euporean doctor which didnot wash their hand or wore cleaning clothes(no blood or gut on then) or sterial they medical tool untril 1880.

[orrery]

Originally posted by GePap


Bush has powers, yes, but so does Congress and so does the Judiciary. Our President is not a king nor emperor-he is the head of state but the people are sovereign, they are not subjects and they owe their representative in office no alliegence. Their alliegence is to the consitution which makes them soverign.

Exactly, the power of the President is that it his duty to implement and see to the enforcement of the legislation of the Congress. Legislation, like the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, for instance. Also, he is the chief enforcer and representative of that last sentence you state. The President's allegiance to the Constitution makes him as sovereign as every other individual and it is his duty to protect that not only for himself and us, but for our children. Or, in the words of the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is why, it my belief, that we must be like a people onto ourselves, but never forsaking others from joining the union. Our Constitution has been built upon the firm foundation of every human generation. The founders were not just those present during the Revolution, but every individual and prophet from the past on whom their achievement was based, and yes, even the Mohammedans. In the words of Isaac Newton:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

[GePap]

Oh Please.

1. The Iraqi Liberation Act does not in any way justify this war-you can point to say regime change was an old policy approved by congress, but that was why we gave money to anti-Saddam groups-you see, the Consitution also has this bit in it about Treaties approved by the Senate being binding law-and the charter of the UN forbid just willy nilly invasions, which is why Bush's legal excuse for war is the UN resolutions.

OK, and the term areMuslim and Islam, not Mohammedans.

[orrery]

GePap, if you choose to call them muslims that is your decision. I will not submit to having your conventions forced upon myself. I use Mohammedans because it was used by Thomas Paine who wrote Common Sense, the Age of Reason, etc.

The resolutions are proof of the U.N.'s inability to negotiate a cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq. The war can not be illegal on the authority of the U.N. because the U.N. does not have legal authority over the Constitution. We have never surrendered our authority to the U.N. So I consider your argument moot, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from playing Devil's Advocate by proposing that such a thing had ever happened or should. The reason for the war, has in my best estimation always been the attack on Kuwait and the U.S. action continues to be legally protected by the U.N through Article 51.

Some will tell us that all mankind is one, however, pan-arab imperialists are more equal than others when it comes to overthrowing westerners, they don't acknowledge that they are followers of the prophets. Lacking Mohammed due to geo-historical circumstances is hardly a crime, and by persecuting those who still follow the pre-Mohammed prophets, they do, in fact, retract the blessings they claim to give to "all the prophets" who are "all equal" and "peace be upon them all"

[joncha]

Don't call it the UN! That organisation didn't exist in the 18th century! And what are you doing on the internet?! Use quill and parchment, man!

[orrery]

Originally posted by joncha
Don't call it the UN! That organisation didn't exist in the 18th century! And what are you doing on the internet?! Use quill and parchment, man!

Please discontinue your use of the alphabet. Your intolerance of diversity is not very becoming of an individual who would attempt to exemplify the superiority of modernity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by orrery


The resolutions are proof of the U.N.'s inability to negotiate a cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq. The war can not be illegal on the authority of the U.N. because the U.N. does not have legal authority over the Constitution. We have never surrendered our authority to the U.N. So I consider your argument moot, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from playing Devil's Advocate by proposing that such a thing had ever happened or should. The reason for the war, has in my best estimation always been the attack on Kuwait and the U.S. action continues to be legally protected by the U.N through Article 51.

1. A Ceasefire was reached-it was signed.

2. The US signed the UN Charter and according to the consitution the US must follow the rules set by the treaties it signs. The US has signed over authorities to the UN-the US is bound by law to follow the mandates of the UNSC (of course, since we have a veto, this is no problem for the US). The very consitution you say you follow and defend and whatever proves your point wrong.

3. Not a single Admin. lawyer claims this act falls under artcile 51, becuase the US can show NO imminent danger to itself or pressing need for self-defense, for all the claims made prior to the war. This was a war of choice, NOT of necessity-so again, it in no way falls under article 51.

[GePap]

I wonder who's DL this is?

[orrery]

Originally posted by GePap


1. A Ceasefire was reached-it was signed.

2. The US signed the UN Charter and according to the consitution the US must follow the rules set by the treaties it signs. The US has signed over authorities to the UN-the US is bound by law to follow the mandates of the UNSC (of course, since we have a veto, this is no problem for the US). The very consitution you say you follow and defend and whatever proves your point wrong.

3. Not a single Admin. lawyer claims this act falls under artcile 51, becuase the US can show NO imminent danger to itself or pressing need for self-defense, for all the claims made prior to the war. This was a war of choice, NOT of necessity-so again, it in no way falls under article 51.

1. No, a cease-fire was reached between the United Nations and Iraq. A ceasefire was not reached between the members of the Coalition. The U.N. is an organization seperate from its members. It does not preside over them or exercise authority over them. So your point is moot.

2. The U.S. participation in the United Nations is outlined in the United Nations Participation Act. I suggest you read it. It states that the President retains full authority over our Nations participation in sed organization. It is the President which enforces the law of the United Nations Charter, not you, and not the United Nations. The President. Therefore, only by the President can it be illegal or legal. Remember your earlier comment, by the Constitution is the individual sovereign, not by the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter is not a document of Sovereignty.

3. Moot, Resolution 660 meant that the U.N. declared Iraq to be a threat to international peace & security, and having never absolved itself of that status, any action by the coalition to remove sed threat falls under the Protection of Article 51. The U.N. being a seperate entity from the U.S. was contracted to resolve the issue by acquiring a ceasefire not only for itself, but for the U.S. and Kuwait. The means with which to do this are detailed in Resolution 687, the terms of which were never fulfilled and therefore, no cease-fire ever existed between the U.S., Kuwait, the Coaltion --- and Iraq. Thus, the No-Fly Zone, and Operation Desert Fox.

If you like, over the past 3 years I have done my best to commit each line of each resolution and Congressional Act and Executive Order to memory, and harddrive and would be more than happy to find someone to discuss them with.

[GePap]

Originally posted by orrery

2. The U.S. participation in the United Nations is outlined in the United Nations Participation Act. I suggest you read it. It states that the President retains full authority over our Nations participation in sed organization. It is the President which enforces the law of the United Nations Charter, not you, and not the United Nations. The President. Therefore, only by the President can it be illegal or legal. Remember your earlier comment, by the Constitution is the individual sovereign, not by the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter is not a document of Sovereignty.

The president enforces the law of the land as the chief executive. Waht you say therefore is meaningless, as enforcing the law is his job. Certainly the president can act illegaly, just as a cop can break the law even though he is charged with maintaining the law. And again, the US signed the UN charter, it is a treaty the uS signed, and according to, I believe article four, it is the law of the land. The president, for example, could not pass an executive order to allow the restart of the ivory trade, as such an order would violate treaties ratified by the US and hence US law.

3. Moot, Resolution 660 meant that the U.N. declared Iraq to be a threat to international peace & security, and having never absolved itself of that status, any action by the coalition to remove sed threat falls under the Protection of Article 51. The U.N. being a seperate entity from the U.S. was contracted to resolve the issue by acquiring a ceasefire not only for itself, but for the U.S. and Kuwait. The means with which to do this are detailed in Resolution 687, the terms of which were never fulfilled and therefore, no cease-fire ever existed between the U.S., Kuwait, the Coaltion --- and Iraq. Thus, the No-Fly Zone, and Operation Desert Fox.

From the resolution you speak, first operative clause:

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

Admin. supporters may claim that the Iraqis did not live up fully to the conditions of the cease-fire (hence breaking the cease-fire), but to say a cease-fire never existed? See my comment bellow.

If you like, over the past 3 years I have done my best to commit each line of each resolution and Congressional Act and Executive Order to memory, and harddrive and would be more than happy to find someone to discuss them with.

Sadly you forgot the fact that data without annaylysis is useless, and if anything, more likely to lead to the wrong path. So maybe you should stop memorizing and start annalysing.


This was edited, of course.

[orrery]

Originally posted by GePap


The US is a member of the UN, its forces part of a UN force. The same type of ceasefire that was agreed to with North Korea in 1953 and still in force. The US was only at war with Iraq as a member of the Coalition, not independently. Hence when the UN signed a cease-fire we were bound by it.

Not in so long as there remains a "breach of the peace."

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

In short, the test for the U.N. would have been its ability to secure the cease-fire by compelling Saddam into compliance. The U.N. did not secure the cease-fire largely due to Saddam's irrational fear of "zionism" which made this seemingly impossible.