http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx

facts suck.

Partisan rhetoric. Shocking.

Nice.

I love the Traffic playing in the background.

I knew you'd like it.

That whole "yeah, but your guy" argument is beyond ridiculous. Way to shift the focus of the debate GOP.

There's a reason the founding fathers despised political parties, and I'm begining to appreciate it more and more every day.

The bottom line is that a precision tactical airstrike is a bit different than an under-manned, under-eqipped invasion. I do know that that the airstrike didn't directly cause the death of 2000 + US servicemen.

It was a GOP president who sent them in there, and now that it's killing them politically,so they're trying to shift focus to the Dems. Bloody brilliant.

Why doesn't the GOP majority in Congress restore some of the money to NYC that they just pulled out from underneath them?

Why did the GOP fund a bridge to nowhere in Alaska? [EDIT: Despite the threats of resignation by the Alaskan Senator for "discriminating" against the state that received 1/24 of the country's transportation funding, I just read that funding for the bridge to nowhere was dropped. Wonder if the Senator will now resign now that his state has been discriminated against ]

And why in God's name are non-profits being formed to foot the bill for medical treatments and prosthetic limbs for servicemen who return home injured or maimed? The least they could do is provide enough funding to take care of the brave men and women who volunteered to help defend this country!

But yeah. Let's blame the Dems. Idiots.

I'm sick of both of them. While both parties are doing whatever it is they are (or are not) doing, the problems surrounding us are not changing, whether they be internal or external to our borders. Doesn't make any difference who is in charge. If the paries can not work together to actually SOLVE something, or at least try - instead of this rhetorical grandstanding doesn't accomplish a thing BS we see everyday, I have no use whatsoever for them.

There are voices of reason on both sides of the aisle, and some smart people out there. But, are the cable shows (any that anyone actually watches) going to give THEM any time? No.

Life is not a reality show, no matter what we are being fed. Social Security is still out there, terrorism and world instability is still out there, trade deficits are still out there, energy requirements are still out there...

Were I ever to have the opportunity, I would much rather be remembered in history for what I had accomplished. Not how many times I got elected.

Fugg all of them.

I don't pick on the Dems as much because 1- they're the minority party, and 2- there are more anti-Dem GOP lemmings posting regularly on PPP than there are anti-GOP Dem lemmings.

(Most) Dems are scumbags who want to get their fingers into your wallets and (most of) the GOP are criminals. Take your pick...

I wish that political parties were made unconstitutional.

I, and many others I know work for our country. However that sounds, so be it. Not too many appointed or elected people I know of do, unless there is something in it for them.

I was vocally against this war, this way, at this time, from the start. Virtually everyone on the right said or implied I was unpatriotic, I didn't support the troops, I wasn't an American, I should move to France. It pissed me off to no end, but I didn't have to win any elections. Politicians were terrified of that, and rightly so. I felt more Democrats caved than should have, and I was embarrassed for some that were bullied. But it was understandable under the political climate that the Bush Administration had successfully created at the time.

Because you have so much in common with this incredibly corrupt political party?

Well, there aren't many Democrats I like these days. I wouldn't mind Joe Biden. But, of course, you don't like anyone.

Democrats should not be held responsible for what they say or do.

It's not their fault. It's Bush's fault. Somehow.

Yup. The Dems are the Commanders-in-Chief who ordered an under-manned and underequipped invasion.

That was Bush? Bush should not be held responsible for what he said or did.

It's not his fault. It's the Dems fault. Somehow.

So....you don't have a problem with the decision to go to war, just with the preparations and invasion strategy?

I had thought you were in the other camp. My bad.

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.

Based on what? Again, what do you think is the correct OB for invading and occupying Iraq?

So the Dems green lighted the invasion because they thought it was only for 'diplomatic posturing'? Thanks for the chuckle, but considering all the statements seen in the video, that's just crapola.

Besides, Congress authorized the invasion, Bush threatened it, and Saddam called our bluff. What are you gonna do? Pack up and go home? That's not gonna help the GWOT.




No argument there. Iraq is FUBAR and the blame belongs to Bush's gang.

Yeah, that's why it happened.

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.

Well the whole WMD thingy didn't really work out, did it? Better find a reason quick-like...

We already got the allusion to Bush's "cronies" so all we're missing really is the "H word" and something about oil.

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.

Saddam threatened Daddy. Yup. That has to be it.

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.

And he expelled the WMD inspectors.

You're smart enough to know I was being facetious, aren't you?

Or have I been giving you too much credit?

Recently, it is getting more and more difficult to distinguish.

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.

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.

You were the first one in the thread to bring up "international law." Post #16.

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."

I'll sure my tin-foil hat is on correctly.

Riiiiiight...

Any other UN resolutions you want to bring up to justify the invasion, or is that the best you have to offer?

I'd suggest just opening your eyes, but whatever it takes killer, whatever it takes.

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.

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.

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.

You're right. We absolutely should only do what the UN says. Can't wait for the next hollow argument.

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,

Read the UN Charter and then the Constitution. They're binding agreements. For Americans, they become federal law (again, read the Constitution).

Uh, not to my knowledge. Nor do I recall saying as much.

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.

As I said in another post, the wisdom of the US' participation can be debated.

But in the meantime, I'm not in favor of abondoning the Constitution.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (November 10, 1975)

"THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
...
DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If all UN resolutions are automatically US law, I guess that one is as well.

I don't believe that UN resolutions automatically become US law as parts of binding treaties because that would render ANY US laws subject to modification via UN resolutions. I don't see where today's Senate can be forced to ratify / abide by a UN resolution today because the US joined the UN over 50 years ago. Maybe you could provide some clarification on what you mean by this, because I am not following you one bit on this one.

Remember the part where I suggested you read the Constitution? *sighs*

From Article VI:


You don't have to like it. Hell, you don't even to believe it, but it's true.

So if they told the United States we have to dis-arm, we'd have to? I dont think so Campy.

Campy, I see your point, but disagree with you about UN resolutions being "treaties" that the US is bound to. Unless the Senate RATIFIES a treaty it is NOT the "law of the land". (The Kyoto treaty that Clinton signed being a prime example.) I don't understand how the US becoming a member nation more than half a century ago automatically forces the US to follow something that was added in the interim.

The US is party to GATT, but if/when that gets revised, it won't be binding on the US until the Senate ratifies the revisions. I don't see how this is any different.

PS Thanks for the snippy answer about reading the Constitution.

Hey man, I didn't write it. Your beef isn't with me, it's with the authors.

To address your question, I'd hope we'd ammend Article VI about 5 minutes after being told that.

The UN Charter is a treaty. In that treaty the members agreed to be bound by the UN's resolutions and decisions. It is what it is..

Snippy answer? What was it the "*sighs*" part? I posted three words to address your question on the legality of treaties being federal law. Those three words were, "read the Constitution."

And you failed to do so, putting the impetus on me to do your legwork. You thought my sigh was "snippy," did you?

Do yourself (and me) a favor: If you'd like to debate the contents of the Constitution with me, read the damn thing first.

Please point out to me where in the UN Charter it says anything about member nations being bound by General Assembly resolutions. As near as I can tell, and I admit I may be missing something, the General Assembly makes RECOMMENDATIONS and reports. I saw nothing binding in any of it. The Security Council is a different matter, but we have a veto on that one, so I'm not too worried about anything biting our butt from there.

And you can go blank yourself with the "you didn't read the Constitution" crud. I have read the Constitution on several occasions and even bothered to relook at it before posting to you. My issue isn't with reading the bloody thing. My issue is that I don't see where any "resolutions" have been ratified by the Senate as PER THE CONSTITIUTION. I ASKED for CLARIFICATION of YOUR STATEMENTS and you suggested I go reread the Constitution, thus the point about being "snippy".

The Charter is a treaty, you are correct. However my point was that the Senate has to ratify any treaties and the way you have been describing things, it would imply that you think once a treaty has been signed any and all modifications are necessarily binding on the US. I do not come away with that impression. That definitely is not the case with "normal" treaties. IF the UN Charter IS a different beast, please point me to the direct reference as I DON'T SEE IT THERE.

I think that his opinion is that the US is subservient to the UN, due to the fact that we are signatories to their charter.

My problem is the circular logic inherent in that: We must abide by our Constitution. Campy's argument is that our Constitution states that we abide by any treaties (ratified by Congress) and the UN Charter is a "treaty." If we must abide by the UN's whims, what happens when their whims contradict our Constitution? Which takes precedence? Do we now need to ratify a Constitutional amendment when their whims contradict our Constitution? Take for example gun ownership. If the UN were to decide that gun ownership is illegal, our Second Amendment becomes null and void. Now what?

Chapter 1, Article 2:



BTW: Did you start to get a little nervous after the Caps started chipping away at the huge lead last night? I know I was.