A question for the anti-war crowd.

[Mickyjaystoned]

Listen fool war didn't just start in 1939, there was a period of up to ten years before when the Zionist bankers engineered a stock crash making there a gap for a solution, a young Rotshchild descendant by the name of Adolf Hitler was therefore able to edge his way into a country that was absolutely ****ed and with the help of the zionists and Bush Family, Fritz Thyiessen and Union Banking Corporation rebuild the infrastructure, gaining great support.

You see war is not human nature it is manipulated just as the Versailles Treaty was manipulated into appeasing Hitlers demands to increase the size of his army, take back controll of the Rhineland etc.. War could have been prevented quite easily but then there would be no United Nations and opportunity for Globalisation and Microchipped population.

Look i have heard your argument a million times before the facts are that some people want war and this i do not deny, for example Business's, countries who benefit and certain agendas,they all want war hell they aren't the ones fighting wars are they?, humanity does not want war, nor does it benefit from war but when humanity puts it's faith in leaders we are given war.

I guess thats what we deserve for entrusting our futures to another.

 

[Caine]

Listen fool war didn't just start in 1939, there was a period of up to ten years before when the Zionist bankers engineered a stock crash making there a gap for a solution, a young Rotshchild descendant by the name of Adolf Hitler was therefore able to edge his way into a country that was absolutely ****ed and with the help of the zionists and Bush Family, Fritz Thyiessen and Union Banking Corporation rebuild the infrastructure, gaining great support.

You see war is not human nature it is manipulated just as the Versailles Treaty was manipulated into appeasing Hitlers demands to increase the size of his army, take back controll of the Rhineland etc.. War could have been prevented quite easily but then there would be no United Nations and opportunity for Globalisation and Microchipped population.

Look i have heard your argument a million times before the facts are that some people want war and this i do not deny, for example Business's, countries who benefit and certain agendas,they all want war hell they aren't the ones fighting wars are they?, humanity does not want war, nor does it benefit from war but when humanity puts it's faith in leaders we are given war.

I guess thats what we deserve for entrusting our futures to another.

DUDE!
Enough of the CRAP
You are going to turn me into a conservative if I have to keep listening to nonsense like this.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Listen fool war didn't just start in 1939, there was a period of up to ten years before when the Zionist bankers engineered a stock crash making there a gap for a solution, a young Rotshchild descendant by the name of Adolf Hitler was therefore able to edge his way into a country that was absolutely ****ed and with the help of the zionists and Bush Family, Fritz Thyiessen and Union Banking Corporation rebuild the infrastructure, gaining great support.

You see war is not human nature it is manipulated just as the Versailles Treaty was manipulated into appeasing Hitlers demands to increase the size of his army, take back controll of the Rhineland etc.. War could have been prevented quite easily but then there would be no United Nations and opportunity for Globalisation and Microchipped population.

Look i have heard your argument a million times before the facts are that some people want war and this i do not deny, for example Business's, countries who benefit and certain agendas,they all want war hell they aren't the ones fighting wars are they?, humanity does not want war, nor does it benefit from war but when humanity puts it's faith in leaders we are given war.

I guess thats what we deserve for entrusting our futures to another.

Your personal attacks and conspiracy theories will get you nowhere on this site.

 

[YNKYH8R]

What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?

Which terrorists are we talking about?

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).
"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
Because of the above pejorative connotations, those accused of being "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (from guerra Spanish for "war" meaning "small war"), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning "struggler"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom").

We do know one thing you can’t fight terrorism with a gun.

 

[YNKYH8R]

You're arguing a strawman.

Don't you hate it when that happens?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Which terrorists are we talking about?

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).
"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
Because of the above pejorative connotations, those accused of being "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (from guerra Spanish for "war" meaning "small war"), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning "struggler"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom").

We do know one thing you can’t fight terrorism with a gun.

Alright, I'll be more specific: Islamic extremism.

 

[YNKYH8R]

Some of these are unrealistic, but...

1. Let Palestine have Israel, give the Jews U.S. citizenship, and help the Palestinians establish a democratic state.
2. Slowly withdraw all U.S. troops from the entire Middle East region, staying or returning only if necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis, and then only as long as necessary.
3. Completely convert to any of a dozen cleaner, more abundant fuels, and end our dependency (and thus interests) on Middle East oil.
4. Get rid of U.S.-led sanctions and embargos that largely contribute to poverty and starvation for the civilians.
5. Establish trust and set a good example in the world by practicing the human rights standards that we preach, even for non-citizens.
6. Condemn specific actions by states, but avoid calling them "evil" and driving their military ambitions forward instead of backward.
7. Measured and appropriate retaliation for specific attacks, not preemptive strikes based on a biased interpretation of intelligence.

Sounds fine to me, problem is no one wants to do that. People put an overemphasis on the Middle East. If we converted to a completely different system of fuel then we’d have as much use for the Middle East as a third a$$ cheek.

If we as a country were more proactive then 9/11 would never have happened. If we stay proactive then it will never happen again. But it’s too easy. People feel safer when we send American citizens in uniform to foreign countries.

 

[YNKYH8R]

Alright, I'll be more specific: Islamic extremism.

Well there is more than one answer to that. Unfortunately people feel more compelled to combat terrorism with guns and bombs; because it’s easy. (Pull a trigger push a button) having an actual dialogue and respecting people’s space is more difficult.

Having an open line of communalization with anyone conceived of being an enemy is perceived as being weak. It comes from the macho chauvinistic society we have here. We pass it down from generation to generation.

Like some one else said (and others have backed up) changing the foreign policy is a big step. But when you’re dealing with a country that has all the oil and consistently violates human rights it gets hairy. You need the oil but hate their practices.

If Wal-Mart started routinely burning crosses in it’s parking lots people would most likely boycott them. (Some have boycotted for much less.) That is what needs to happen here. To start with.

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

You are going to turn me into a conservative if I have to keep listening to nonsense like this.

Take responsibility for your own political leanings Jimbo, and please learn to appreciate Diversity, considering you will never see any in mainstream politics.

 

[Caine]

Take responsibility for your own political leanings Jimbo, and please learn to appreciate Diversity, considering you will never see any in mainstream politics.

My name is not Jimbo.
Your posts do not belong here, they belong in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

Sorry Jim, but politics is not just black and white, i have substantial evidence to suggest there is a conspiracy against the human race, the main players being The Bush Family, The U.N and the European Union.

I do not come here to offend anyone, but if the informatiion i provide is not to your taste then either prove me wrong or ignore me i will post all the same as i feel people need to think independentley and for themselves.

I am not a conspiracy theorist i just like to look at all sides of a problem before i solve it.

Thank you for your challenging post, but just why do you think i shouldn't post here, everything i have posted has been factual information relating to Politics.

 

[Stace]

Sorry Jim, but politics is not just black and white, i have substantial evidence to suggest there is a conspiracy against the human race, the main players being The Bush Family, The U.N and the European Union.

I do not come here to offend anyone, but if the informatiion i provide is not to your taste then either prove me wrong or ignore me i will post all the same as i feel people need to think independentley and for themselves.

I am not a conspiracy theorist i just like to look at all sides of a problem before i solve it.

Thank you for your challenging post, but just why do you think i shouldn't post here, everything i have posted has been factual information relating to Politics.

See those pretty words I highlighted?

There's a whole section for those sorts of posts, and this one isn't it. You say there's a conspiracy, then you try to say that it is all factual information...that's a contradiction. Conspiracies are things that are rumored, not proven. I'm just as interested in conspiracy theories as the next person, but there's a time and place for them.

 

[kal-el]

What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?

Well, for starters, I'd have to say it would be intelligent to halt the status quo. Get the hell out of Iraq. We need to stick it to the people who are responsible for attacking us, Iraq was a grand diversion, now we are bogged down for god knows how long. Iraq had little to do with terrorism in 2002, now it's the central front on the war on terror, thanks to our commander in chiefie. I'd say if we would have withdrew our troops from Saudia Arabia, that would be a start, as Bin Laden seen them as an occupying force.Maybe if we give as much financial support to Arab countries as we do with Israel, and lastly, place sanctions on Israel if they do not disarm, we're being hypocritical letting Israel arm itself to the teeth, and demanding others disarm.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

See those pretty words I highlighted?

There's a whole section for those sorts of posts, and this one isn't it. You say there's a conspiracy, then you try to say that it is all factual information...that's a contradiction. Conspiracies are things that are rumored, not proven. I'm just as interested in conspiracy theories as the next person, but there's a time and place for them.

Well technically it's the conspiracy theory that is rumored and not proven there does exist conspiracies and they are illegal; such as, the mafia who's heads were found guilty of conspiracy to commit racketeering and the penalty for the conspiracy is more so than just the racketeering itself as for conspiracy theories I put absolutely no stock into these aluminum hat wearing wing nut's conclusions and here's why:

From the pages of "Political Ideologies Their Origins and Impact 8th ed.," by Leon P. Baradat:

Just as the pluralist must be understood as distinct from elite theorists, care must be taken that the elite theorists are not confused with those who espouse conspiratorial theories. Conspiratorialists are phobic about politics. They believe that someone, usually a small group of unseen people, is secretly and diabolically controlling things from behind the scenes. Among the suspected master manipulators are communists, international bankers, Jews, and satan worshipers. The various militant civilian milititia groups around the country that have come to prominence since the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City are deeply embroiled in conspiratorial suspicions. They see the federal government as a sinister culprit, constantly maneuvering to deny innocent patriots their liberties.

In the 1960s, Pulitizer Prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter analyzed the conspiratorial approach to politics, referring to it as the "paranoid style." While Holfstadter concedes in his book, the Paranoid Style in Ameican Politics, that some secret planning accompanies virtually every political movement, the paranoid style imagines a plot of colossal proportions affecting millions and the threatening the very nation itself. Using isolated facts together with a curious leap in imagination to prove to their own satisfaction the existence of the conspiracy, persons asserting the paranoid style mentally catapult from the "undeniable to the unbelievable," as Hofstadter puts it. They are convined that their imagined opponent is totally evil and that their own motives are pure, but often misunderstood. Public rejection of their point of view is often interpreted as persecution, and so their stance becomes increasingly militant as they see their situation becoming more and more hopeless.

The suggestion that the nation, or indeed the world, is controlled by such secret and evil power is frequently found very attractive. It brushes aside the immense complexity of modern politics and substitutes for it a very simple scenario. If people can believe that they are manipulated by unkown uncontrollable forces, they can escape any responsibility for understanding or solving social problems. Politics is thus reduced to a very simple equation. There is a single source of our difficulties, and if only we can get at the source and root it out all will be well.

Yet the very simplicity of such theories makes them suspect. It stretches credulity beyond rational limits to suggest that a few masterminds could, without our knowing it, be pulling the strings that make the rest dance like puppets. No less bizarre is the belief that the federal government has somehow become the tool of megalomaniacs whose mission is to enslave the hapless citizenry. To some people, however, believing in an evil force is preferable to coming to grips with the complexities of reality, and accepting such fantasies represents the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility so necessary to a successful democracy.

This above definition for the conspiracy theorist has been dead on balls accurate about any of the conspiracy theorists that I've ever come across.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Well, for starters, I'd have to say it would be intelligent to halt the status quo. Get the hell out of Iraq.

Brilliant plan.

Do EXACTLY what the enemy wants.

Hand an oil rich nation over to al Qaeda on a silver platter.

Allow hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Iraqis to be slaughtered.

Turn that country into a terrible enemy.

Make a complete embarassment out of ourselves in the international community.

Further embolden dictators across the world.

Give up on the cause that over 2000 of our troops have died for.

Simply brilliant.

 

[Caine]

Brilliant plan.

Do EXACTLY what the enemy wants.

Hand an oil rich nation over to al Qaeda on a silver platter.

Allow hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Iraqis to be slaughtered.

Turn that country into a terrible enemy.

Make a complete embarassment out of ourselves in the international community.

Further embolden dictators across the world.

Give up on the cause that over 2000 of our troops have died for.

Simply brilliant.

OR, we could simply keep comitting troops to die while Iraq sits on thier butts and do nothing to rebuild thier country, ESPECIALLY when it comes to training an Army to defend themselves.
We have been training a military there since the fall of 2003, and we have made VERY little progress. If we continue to tell them we are going to stay the course, why should they build thier own military when they have ours?
So, we'll continue to protect them while they continue to do nothing.
OR, we could tell them, "Hey, we are leaving by such and such month of such and such year and if your not ready to defend yourself, tough ****."

 

[G-Man]

Brilliant plan.

Do EXACTLY what the enemy wants.

Hand an oil rich nation over to al Qaeda on a silver platter.

Allow hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Iraqis to be slaughtered.

Turn that country into a terrible enemy.

Make a complete embarassment out of ourselves in the international community.

Further embolden dictators across the world.

Give up on the cause that over 2000 of our troops have died for.

Simply brilliant.

1) al qaeda has no desire to control the world oil reserves - thats our mission - who the heck is gonna buy it from them??

2) according to the US military, foreign fighters and al qaeda groups make up between 4-6% of the insurgency. Local militia groups have more firepower and fighters than al qaeda in iraq. To suggest that if we left the terrorists would take over is completely unsubstantiated - it is much more likely another Saddam type figure would prevail.

3) What makes you think Iraq is a 'friend' at the moment? The govt. at the moment HAS to co-operate with the US..this may and probably will change when we leave.

4) Our country is already an embarassment in the international community. We said they had WMD but found none - we said we would end tyranny in Iraq but instead commit torture at Saddams prisons - we say we want freedom and democracy but think nothing of locking up people without charge or trial for indefinate periods and we kidnap foreign nationals from other countries (Italy) without approval or acknowledgement.

5) Most dictators are in Africa....can you tell me when we last got rid of one of them??

6) Don't give up the cause.....even if you find out you can't win??? Perhaps you think we should still be fighting in Vietnam so as not to disrespect our fallen heroes over there??

We need a new plan, new direction and ,most desperately, a new president.

 

[Caine]

We need a new plan, new direction and ,most desperately, a new president.

/SARCASM/
What? You think we need a new president?

YOUR AIDING THE ENEMY!
YOUR AIDING THE ENEMY!
TRAITOR! TREASON! ANTI-AMERICAN!
YOUR AIDING THE ENEMY!

/SARCASM/

 

[kal-el]

Brilliant plan.

Thank you. I know, I'm no "General Rove", but I try.:lol:

Do EXACTLY what the enemy wants.

Huh? We did Bin Laden one hell of a favor by invading, we practically increased his recruiting efforts tenfold. We gave ordinary Arabs a reason to arm themselves and fight the occupation.

Hand an oil rich nation over to al Qaeda on a silver platter.

All of this **** is ex post facto, buddy. Because of the bafoon in the oval office, al-Qaeada is now thriving in Iraq, where they weren't before. Why the hell would al-Qeada want control of oil anyway? I think W, who has a history of running oil businesses into the ground, wants so badly to prove something to the world, or daddy.

Allow hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Iraqis to be slaughtered.

O man, don't even start with the numbers. Because of this little invasion, over 10,000 soliders are permantly handicapped, or loss a limb:
http://www.laborradio.org/node/484

And conservative estimates of loss of Iraqi civilian life in this war is low, I think around 30,000. If you get a left-based web site, it lists 100,000 or over. I think the real number is probably somewhere in between.

Turn that country into a terrible enemy.

O, you mean like the enemy we supposedly had prior to this anglo-american invasion?

Make a complete embarassment out of ourselves in the international community.

Uhh, I'm pretty sure Bush is on top of that one already.

Further embolden dictators across the world.

Wha? I would think staying the course would embolden them more, as they know that we can't touch them, as we are bogged down in this endless war.

Give up on the cause that over 2000 of our troops have died for.

Uhh, what cause is that? Iraq never did anything to us. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, the other 4 were Egyptian. Did I fail to mention that none of them were Iraqi, or affiated with Saddam's regime.

Simply brilliant.

Once again, thanks.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Huh? We did Bin Laden one hell of a favor by invading, we practically increased his recruiting efforts tenfold. We gave ordinary Arabs a reason to arm themselves and fight the occupation.

So the enemy doesn't want us to pull out? :roll:

All of this **** is ex post facto, buddy. Because of the bafoon in the oval office, al-Qaeada is now thriving in Iraq, where they weren't before. Why the hell would al-Qeada want control of oil anyway? I think W, who has a history of running oil businesses into the ground, wants so badly to prove something to the world, or daddy.

Gee... oil = money = financing their operations.

O man, don't even start with the numbers. Because of this little invasion, over 10,000 soliders are permantly handicapped, or loss a limb:
http://www.laborradio.org/node/484

And conservative estimates of loss of Iraqi civilian life in this war is low, I think around 30,000. If you get a left-based web site, it lists 100,000 or over. I think the real number is probably somewhere in between.

And Hussein slaughtered waayyy more Iraqis before we even invaded. Most estimates put the number around 400,000.... Your argument is moot.

O, you mean like the enemy we supposedly had prior to this anglo-american invasion?

No.. I'm talking about the enemy that country would become if we were to pull out and they fall under another totalitarian regime.

Uhh, I'm pretty sure Bush is on top of that one already.

It's not half as bad as it'd be if we just gave up now.

Wha? I would think staying the course would embolden them more, as they know that we can't touch them, as we are bogged down in this endless war.

No, pulling out would give them the impression we made a mistake and can't succeed in ousting dictators.

Uhh, what cause is that? Iraq never did anything to us. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, the other 4 were Egyptian. Did I fail to mention that none of them were Iraqi, or affiated with Saddam's regime.

The cause of establishing a democracy in the Middle East, an unprecedented feat. Why are you bringing up 9/11? Where did that come from?



I don't know about you but I support cleaning up a mess after it's made, rather than abandoning it.

 

[kal-el]

So the enemy doesn't want us to pull out? :roll:

Sure they do. Am I missing something? Did I say that? I don't think so? I'm saying the needless bloodshed called a war by some, helped Bin Laden get recruits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1015-04.htm

And if you don't like these sources, here's another:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html

Gee... oil = money = financing their operations.

Actaully, oil has little to do with financing their operations. It seems the US had discovered at least 20 donors/financers: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78937,00.html

And Hussein slaughtered waayyy more Iraqis before we even invaded. Most estimates put the number around 400,000.... Your argument is moot.

Moot? Are you saying the deaths were worth it? Yea, maybe if Saddam were actively invading another country, but nope, this wasn't the case. So I'd say your argument is moot.:lol:

No.. I'm talking about the enemy that country would become if we were to pull out and they fall under another totalitarian regime.

Dude, sure Saddam was a madman, evil, diabolical, dictator, but before this illegal invasion, the Iraqis were eating half-way decent, they had electricity, clean h2o, their hospitals functioned, their army was employed, and their police force didn't have to worry about being blown to kingdom come for showing up to work. Now, Iraq is synonomyous with hell. At their outlook looks shaky at best. IMO saying we did an honorable thing by exchanging a bloody dictator in for chaos is pure speculation at best.:lol:

It's not half as bad as it'd be if we just gave up now.

What? Dude, Think about it. The irai people never had a democracy. They don't have any experience relying on themselves. Even if they set one up, the moment we leave, whenever it may be, tomorrow or 10 years from now, I'm sure they will revert right back to their old habits, and their puppet government, and police force will get overthrown. So, it really is a pointless reason to stay, it'll only cause more deaths.

No, pulling out would give them the impression we made a mistake and can't succeed in ousting dictators.

It is asinine to think that our efforts in Iraq have made such a big difference, while at the same time, ignoring other people who are suffering.

The cause of establishing a democracy in the Middle East, an unprecedented feat. Why are you bringing up 9/11? Where did that come from?

Because, if you were unaware, early on in this campaign, Bush made the false connection between 9/11 and Saddam, to his credit, he later acknowledged that this connection was ficticious.

I don't know about you but I support cleaning up a mess after it's made, rather than abandoning it.

That all depends, do the means justify the end? IMO our troops are dying due to this administrations incompetence.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Real McCoy
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?

Well, it goes like this...

• Stop creating terrorism by running around the world telling sovereign nations what to do within their own borders.
• Stop attacking countries that did nothing to us.
• Respect International Law.
• Conduct ourselves in accordance with the Constitution, not in violation of it.
• Stop scapegoating Islam.
• Stop the illegal practice of renditions.
• Stop the un-Constitutional practice of incarceration without due process.
• Impeach the war criminal President and lying Vice-President.
• Publically apologize to the world for our recent transgressions.
• Apologize to the world that we are a nation of selfish, stupid, assholes.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, it goes like this...

• Stop creating terrorism by running around the world telling sovereign nations what to do within their own borders.
• Stop attacking countries that did nothing to us.
• Respect International Law.
• Conduct ourselves in accordance with the Constitution, not in violation of it.
• Stop scapegoating Islam.
• Stop the illegal practice of renditions.
• Stop the un-Constitutional practice of incarceration without due process.
• Impeach the war criminal President and lying Vice-President.
• Publically apologize to the world for our recent transgressions.
• Apologize to the world that we are a nation of selfish, stupid, assholes.

A) We didn't create terrorism.
B) We havn't, Saddam had it out for the U.S. since ''91 and has been plotting against us since then.
C) Resolution 1441, and Saddam's attrocities are grounds for interventionalist war as per the U.N. charter.
D) Article I the Congress may grant the President the war powers, Joint Resolution of Congress Sept. 14, 2001 granting the President the War Powers including the use of any means necassary to defeat AlQaeda, Article II section 2 the inherent war powers of the President.
E) Read some Dr. Qutb and get back to me.
F) How do you expect to defeat an international enemy which doesn't fight under the flag of one nation?
G) Non-citizens and those not in the U.S. are not protected by the Constitution.
F) Fuc/k you.
G) Fuc/k them!
H. Fuc/k them too!

 

[Billo_Really]

In the words of the President that used to fall asleep in Cabinet meetings,
"Well, there you go again..."

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
A) We didn't create terrorism.
B) We havn't, Saddam had it out for the U.S. since ''91 and has been plotting against us since then.
C) Resolution 1441, and Saddam's attrocities are grounds for interventionalist war as per the U.N. charter.
D) Article I the Congress may grant the President the war powers, Joint Resolution of Congress Sept. 14, 2001 granting the President the War Powers including the use of any means necassary to defeat AlQaeda, Article II section 2 the inherent war powers of the President.
E) Read some Dr. Qutb and get back to me.
F) How do you expect to defeat an international enemy which doesn't fight under the flag of one nation?
G) Non-citizens and those not in the U.S. are not protected by the Constitution.
F) Fuc/k you.
G) Fuc/k them!
H. Fuc/k them too!

Answers too:
A) We share some responsibility on some level that caused the situation were in.
B) He can plot all he wants. Without running water and electricity, there is very little he could do anything about it.
C) This is getting old...

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004 The Guardian

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.

Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.

His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.

They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

D) War Powers Act did not allow the President to declare war. A war of which he started nine months before receiving permission.
E) I will. Thanks for the tip.
F) By exhausting all forms of diplomacy first and in concert with the UN.
G) We ratified the Geneva Conventions which makes it part of the Constitution which covers everyone that is detained. Everyone!
F again) Watch it, Traj, were upstairs.
G again) See F again, above.
H) See F&G again, above.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

In the words of the President that used to fall asleep in Cabinet meetings,
"Well, there you go again..."

Answers too:
A) We share some responsibility on some level that caused the situation were in. No we don't the U.S has been traditionaly Isolationist if it were not for the U.S. the world would have destroyed itself many times over by now.

B) He can plot all he wants. Without running water and electricity, there is very little he could do anything about it. O.K. you mean he can plot with terrorists????

C) This is getting old... Is that because you don't have an answer.?

D) War Powers Act did not allow the President to declare war. A war of which he started nine months before receiving permission. The war in Iraq? Joint Resolution of Congress on Oct. 22, 2002.

E) I will. Thanks for the tip. No problem.

F) By exhausting all forms of diplomacy first and in concert with the UN. The U.N. Do you mean the same U.N. that has the Sudan on the Human Rights Committee?

G) We ratified the Geneva Conventions which makes it part of the Constitution which covers everyone that is detained. Everyone

The insurgency is not protected by the Geneva Convention, not only are they not a signatory to the treaty but they do not follow the rules of war and thus are not protected by them.


F again) Watch it, Traj, were upstairs. Enh, well then don't talk sh!t about the President of the United States.

G again) See F again, above. See H.

H) See F&G again, above. See F and U again.

..........................................................