BTW ManualBlock... [message #54540] |
Fri, 07 October 2005 05:53 |
Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Saying someone is clueless may have been a little much. But what do you think about saying someone is the "master of irrellavency"? It always seems that Democrats can say any vile thing they want and get a free pass but Republicans must always apologize. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Making accusations is meaningless unless you back up your statements.. [message #54553 is a reply to message #54546] |
Fri, 07 October 2005 14:43 |
Manualblock
Messages: 4973 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (13th Degree) |
|
|
It was predicated on a knowingly false set of provocations. The administration violated not only treaty law but the laws of this country. Pursuint to the joint resolution cited as the " Authorisation for the use of military force against Iraq." Issued by the Congress there were only two reasons to go to war and neither of them were accomplished. 1) Defend the national security of the United States against the continued threat posed by Iraq. There was no threat2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Rsolutions regarding Iraq. Resolution 1441 was in force and the U.N. observor on the scene responsible for testimony to that effect stated clearly that Iraq had no weapons and was in compliance. Please don't bombard me with politically suspect websites; or blogs promoting personal or political agendas. These are simple facts that are incontrovertible. I read it and I determined how I feel; no one convinced or coerced me into believing anything but what I believe.
|
|
|
|
Re: Sorry, but to prove you wrong I would have to show evidence.. [message #54557 is a reply to message #54556] |
Fri, 07 October 2005 16:34 |
Manualblock
Messages: 4973 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (13th Degree) |
|
|
He does need authority from Congress unless he is responding to an immediate threat. Last I looked there was no Iraqi Navy parked off Manhattan. Why do you need websites? There are plenty of Internet resources that have no political affiliation or commercial interest. While Saddam might have broken resolutions that was a matter for the U.N. I prefer not to listen to media outlets that need to fund a business and as such must court a fan base and push an agenda. I would think you would feel the same. I don't mind watching them at leisure but it just seems pointless to quote stuff I can see on TV. But looking up a legal document would not be unreasonable because I do it. So how could I ask you not to do the same?
|
|
|
I am done with this discussion... [message #54560 is a reply to message #54557] |
Fri, 07 October 2005 18:04 |
Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
I will say one last thing. Tell me if this is wrong ok. After the first Gulf War, you know the one where nice neighborly Saddam invaded a near by country. He signed a peace treaty saying that he would abide by any and all UN resolutions or be removed from power by force. He broke 17 resolutions. We removed him. What was illegal about that? You still haven't mentioned why it is an illegal war. Specifically which law was broken to make the war illegal? Instead of spouting the liberal talking points how about proving the war is illegal in any way. Whether or not there were weapons of mass distruction, the president, congress, Clinton and most of the thinking world thought there were. I believe there were. I think he hid them in the year before the war while we were screwing around with the UN. So even if the president, congress, Clinton and most of the world were wrong it still doesn't make the war illegal. So prove your point.
|
|
|
|