Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I just need the "Bush started this war so that Cheney and his 'Big Oil' buddies at Haliburton could profit" and my day will be complete. 505637[/snapback] Well the whole WMD thingy didn't really work out, did it? Better find a reason quick-like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I just need the "Bush started this war so that Cheney and his 'Big Oil' buddies at Haliburton could profit" and my day will be complete. 505637[/snapback] We already got the allusion to Bush's "cronies" so all we're missing really is the "H word" and something about oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 No, I'm not OK with the US breaking international law and numerous treaties because... Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the leader of another nation threatened harm upon another's dad once upon a time? But the thing that all of the Bushies keep failing to recognize is that there's a world of difference between passing a resolution for diplomatic posturing and ordering an invasion. The fact that they were under-manned and underequipped is just a case-in-point on the incompetence of the president and his cronies. 505611[/snapback] How about Saddam was in violation of the 14 UN resolutions. He violated the treaty or cease fire (I don't remember which) that ended Gulf War I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Well the whole WMD thingy didn't really work out, did it? Better find a reason quick-like... 505639[/snapback] Saddam threatened Daddy. Yup. That has to be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 How about Saddam was in violation of the 14 UN resolutions. He violated the treaty or cease fire (I don't remember which) that ended Gulf War I. 505657[/snapback] More than just 14, but who is counting... Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.” Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991). Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians. Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773. Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833. Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715. Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115. Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143. Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions. Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154. Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154. Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687. Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284. Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 How about Saddam was in violation of the 14 UN resolutions. He violated the treaty or cease fire (I don't remember which) that ended Gulf War I. 505657[/snapback] And he expelled the WMD inspectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Saddam threatened Daddy. Yup. That has to be it. 505658[/snapback] You're smart enough to know I was being facetious, aren't you? Or have I been giving you too much credit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 You're smart enough to know I was being facetious, aren't you? Or have I been giving you too much credit? 505666[/snapback] Recently, it is getting more and more difficult to distinguish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Oh goodie, you brought up the UN. Funny how you all use the UN when it's convenient. If you recall, the very same UN also resolved that the US was not authorized to invade Iraq. As the UN's resolutions become federal law (read the US Constitution before you try to debate me on that), Bush violated not only international law (read the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter before you try to debate me on that), but US federal law as well by his invasion of Iraq. I guess the UN is only relavant when you think it helps your arguments. Thanks for the laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Recently, it is getting more and more difficult to distinguish. 505670[/snapback] No, I'm not OK with the US breaking international law and numerous treaties because... Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the leader of another nation threatened harm upon another's dad once upon a time? Given the context in which it was used I obviously overestimated you. Sorry 'bout that, I'll choose my words more carefully next time so y'all can keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Oh goodie, you brought up the UN. Funny how you all use the UN when it's convenient. If you recall, the very same UN also resolved that the US was not authorized to invade Iraq. As the UN's resolutions become federal law (read the US Constitution before you try to debate me on that), Bush violated not only international law (read the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter before you try to debate me on that), but US federal law as well by his invasion of Iraq. I guess the UN is only relavant when you think it helps your arguments. Thanks for the laugh. 505671[/snapback] You were the first one in the thread to bring up "international law." Post #16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Oh goodie, you brought up the UN. Funny how you all use the UN when it's convenient. If you recall, the very same UN also resolved that the US was not authorized to invade Iraq. As the UN's resolutions become federal law (read the US Constitution before you try to debate me on that), Bush violated not only international law (read the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter before you try to debate me on that), but US federal law as well by his invasion of Iraq. I guess the UN is only relavant when you think it helps your arguments. Thanks for the laugh. 505671[/snapback] The UN also did not authorize the no-fly zones, but the anti-Bush people still want to use them in their arguments. I guess violations of the UN are only allowed when it justifies "Bush Bad." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Given the context in which it was used I obviously overestimated you. Sorry 'bout that, I'll choose my words more carefully next time so y'all can keep up. 505674[/snapback] I'll sure my tin-foil hat is on correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 The UN also did not authorize the no-fly zones, but the anti-Bush people still want to use them in their arguments. I guess violations of the UN are only allowed when it justifies "Bush Bad." 505687[/snapback] Riiiiiight... Any other UN resolutions you want to bring up to justify the invasion, or is that the best you have to offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I'll sure my tin-foil hat is on correctly. 505689[/snapback] I'd suggest just opening your eyes, but whatever it takes killer, whatever it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Riiiiiight... Any other UN resolutions you want to bring up to justify the invasion, or is that the best you have to offer? 505708[/snapback] I already did. Not paying attention Sparkey?? Here they are again. Try not to miss them this time. Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.” Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991). Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians. Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773. Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833. Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715. Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115. Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143. Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions. Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154. Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154. Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687. Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284. Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Oh goodie, you brought up the UN. Funny how you all use the UN when it's convenient. If you recall, the very same UN also resolved that the US was not authorized to invade Iraq. As the UN's resolutions become federal law (read the US Constitution before you try to debate me on that), Bush violated not only international law (read the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter before you try to debate me on that), but US federal law as well by his invasion of Iraq. I guess the UN is only relavant when you think it helps your arguments. Thanks for the laugh. 505671[/snapback] 1st off, could you please post a link to the UN resolution that stated the US was not authorized to invade Iraq? Or is the lack of a resolution stating explicitly "the US may invade Iraq on xxx date at yyy time to ensure compliance with resolutions that Iraq is currently violating" the same as a resolution stating "the US may not enforce Iraq's compliance with our other violated resolutions"? As near as I could tell, the US was actually enforcing the 18 or so resolutions that Iraq was violating. You lost me there with the part about UN resolutions becoming a part of federal law. Is it really true that federal law says "Zionism is racism"? When did the Senate ratify that one? You also lost me with the US is violating Geneva Conventions. As far as I know, any Iraqi soldier that was captured by the US led forces was provided with all rights and priviledges engendered under the Geneva Conventions. I don't believe there are currently any "terrorist" signatories to the said Geneva Conventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I already did. Not paying attention Sparkey?? Here they are again. Try not to miss them this time 505754[/snapback] Riiiight... Keep looking for that missing resolution. You know, the one authorizing the United States and her allies to invade a sovereign nation. You do remember that one, don't you? I'm sure it's around there somewhere, because without it, the invasion is illegal. Hmm... Iraq.... Illegal invasion... Hmm... Sounds a little like the reasons Bush I gave to knock Iraq out of Kuwait, doesn't it? Sounds a little like the UN resolution that was passed after Iraq invaded Kuwait too, doesn't it? Keep looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Riiiight... Keep looking for that missing resolution. You know, the one authorizing the United States and her allies to invade a sovereign nation. You do remember that one, don't you? I'm sure it's around there somewhere, because without it, the invasion is illegal. Hmm... Iraq.... Illegal invasion... Hmm... Sounds a little like the reasons Bush I gave to knock Iraq out of Kuwait, doesn't it? Sounds a little like the UN resolution that was passed after Iraq invaded Kuwait too, doesn't it? Keep looking. 505909[/snapback] You're right. We absolutely should only do what the UN says. Can't wait for the next hollow argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 1st off, could you please post a link to the UN resolution that stated the US was not authorized to invade Iraq? Or is the lack of a resolution stating explicitly "the US may invade Iraq on xxx date at yyy time to ensure compliance with resolutions that Iraq is currently violating" the same as a resolution stating "the US may not enforce Iraq's compliance with our other violated resolutions"? As near as I could tell, the US was actually enforcing the 18 or so resolutions that Iraq was violating. I should have worded it differently, thanks for allowing me to clarify. The US invasion of Iraq is as illegal as the Iraqi's illegal invasion of Kuwait. It is illegal to invade a sovereign nation without tacit permission from the UN, You lost me there with the part about UN resolutions becoming a part of federal law. Read the UN Charter and then the Constitution. They're binding agreements. For Americans, they become federal law (again, read the Constitution). Is it really true that federal law says "Zionism is racism"? When did the Senate ratify that one?Uh, not to my knowledge. Nor do I recall saying as much. You also lost me with the US is violating Geneva Conventions. As far as I know, any Iraqi soldier that was captured by the US led forces was provided with all rights and priviledges engendered under the Geneva Conventions. I don't believe there are currently any "terrorist" signatories to the said Geneva Conventions. 505904[/snapback] This has been covered ad nauseum - use the board's search feature. Some people think they should be covered by the Geneva Conventions, others think they shouldn't be. If you'd like to start a different thread about that topic, feel free. To me it's pretty straightforward, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant. If you disagree, it's no big deal. Just pretend it wasn't mentioned - it wasn't the primary gist of the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts