Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 01-21-2009, 05:14 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Bush should stand trial: Do you agree?....

Now that George Bush is back at the ranch in Crawford. TX...there is, it seems, a national sigh of relief. What a tortured eight years its been due in no small part to the tragedies that were 9/11 and Katrina...on our shores...and the bombings, genocide and tsunamis in other lands...

We must have been horribly asleep in those months before the WTC disaster...the biggest political news event then was following Congressman Gary Condit everywhere looking for a link between him and the victim of murder, Chandra Levi....

At least, in my opinion, George Bush was also.....asleep....

Next to the disasters mentioned above the single event that turned my stomach early on was the gradual realization that George Bush & Co were losing focus on alQaeda and bin Laden and refocussing again on Iraq. It seemed wrong to me and many others and it turned out it was wrong...profoundly wrong. To this day I can not understand how our country blindly followed the administration, lemming-like into Iraq....and even more astonishing... why was there never outrage when it became clear that the principle reason we went to war...WMD...were never found...

Any way....Bush/Cheney left office yesterday unscathed...except for Cheney's moving mishap....Impeachement is at long last out of the question.

Did they really violate the rule of law and the Constitution?.....oh yes they did.....Should they be held accountable for it? ...yes, they should.

Now Richard Nixon comes to mind when talking about Presidents who consider themselves above the law and he resigned rather than be impeached...Due to the protectionism of the Republican congress until 2006 and the weakness of the Democrats, impeachment never even got to the floor....shame on them all!

In all likelihood, there will never be a trial....but for the sake of our Democracy...ther should be...

WE THE PEOPLE: Bush must stand trial

By Joe Parko / Chronicle contributor

Quote:
Electing Barack Obama president was the first step in restoring American democracy. The second step must be indicting ex-president George W. Bush and putting him on trial. This is not a matter of petty partisan politics. This is about the rule of law in America.
...
Quote:
I want President Obama, soon after taking office, to go before the American people and announce the formation of a special group of outstanding jurists and legal experts to make a recommendation as to whether or not the US Justice Department should bring criminal charges against George W. Bush.
...
Quote:
Millions of Americans now know that George W. Bush made 9/11 the excuse for launching an illegal war in Iraq that has killed and maimed so many thousands of people. Bush should be convicted of myriad counts of criminally negligent homicide related to both Iraq and the Katrina disaster. His authorization of torture is a clear violation of both American and international law. A trial of a former president would not disgrace the presidency. Such a trial would restore honor to the office and the Constitution.
Quote:
To ensure that no future president behaves like George W. Bush, he must stand trial. He must be held accountable to the law to serve as a lesson to all those who would attempt to destroy the American system of laws for the sake of their own power.
http://www.crossville-chronicle.com/...secondarystory
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 01-21-2009, 06:06 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Bush went wrong (and dragged the rest of his citizens with him) when he declared war on the terrorists.
Terrorists are people, not nations, and must be dealth with as individuals, criminals.
They need to be hunted down (with the aid of many of the nations that Bush has pissed off) and brought to justice.
Declaring war against terror is a stupid and dangerous idea that allowed the military to get an even stronger stranglehold on civil rights and funding. The military monster has grown to an enormous size with too much power, funded by the American taxpayer, while the economy is taking a nosedive and the taxpayer really can't afford it now.

I sincerely hope that Obama will consider military action a last resort and not a first response, as Bush always has.
If he can do that, you might just find that the US is a safer place in 4 years.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-21-2009, 07:07 PM
stangparts stangparts is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 12-21-08
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Do I think Bush should stand trial?

I think Bush should face trial for the crimes he has committed against the U.S. and be forced to serve his time in prison!
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-21-2009, 07:14 PM
dWhite dWhite is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 09-28-08
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Terrorists are people, not nations, and must be dealth with as individuals, criminals.
Exactly. War on terrorism is a never-ending war. You can wipe countries off the face of the earth, but you can't wipe out terrorism with 8 billion people on the planet. You would have to kill every single human to wipe out terrorism.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-21-2009, 07:21 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Uhh. Lets see... where do I start?

How about here - You're just supposed to "say" that stuff about Bush. No intelligent liar believes his own lies. But hey, go ahead, good luck on the prosecution. Last time I checked, the people devising the lies (democrats in congress) were (fakely) begging to impeach him. Republicans in congress, after voting no , then (calling the bluff) quickly shifted their vote to yes in the last few minutes, and every democrat liar in congress panicked, stumbling over each other to change their vote. You do remember that right? If not, google "Pelosi-Hoyer motion ".

You see, the leaders are at least smart enough not to believe their own BS. You shouldn't either. Move on. You got duped by your own heros. Bush was right - you are wrong. Live with it.

Quote:
As the roll-call vote was being called, Hoyer's motion was winning, with about 290 "yea" votes. But at that point, a number of Republicans began changing their votes, so that there would be a debate on the floor; ultimately, 165 Republicans joined 86 Democrats in defeating the Pelosi-Hoyer motion to table the resolution.

Although some Republicans later claimed that their objective was to embarrass the Democratic leadership by forcing a floor debate, there was clearly more to it than that. One can just imagine the alarm and consternation in Cheney's office, as the deal between the Democratic and Republican leaderships to kill Kucinich's motion, fell apart.

But once that had happened, Hoyer and Pelosi were stuck. Hoyer then moved to refer the Kucinich motion to the Judiciary Committee, obviously in hopes that it could be "buried" there, as some pundits have subsequently claimed.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-21-2009 at 07:50 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-21-2009, 08:16 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
I sincerely hope that Obama will consider military action a last resort and not a first response, as Bush always has.
So do I! ..and you correctly say that Bush was eager to 'get it on' in Iraq despite his public statements to the contrary.

I am hopeful that Obama really understands that war is a last resort. He spoke out against the Iraq invasion when he was an Illinois State Senator...he knows....
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-21-2009, 08:34 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Fortunately the matter is out of the hands of an inept congress. It will take a civil lawsuit to begin proceedings....this could occur at any time..
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-21-2009, 08:37 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Yes. 11 years, 2000 stern letters from the UN, while said UN is being bribed by Iraq. 4000 threats to do something, firing on US no fly zone jets, attempted assasination of former president = 1st resort. OK. I'd hate to see what you consider last resort.

Don't get me wrong - I too would like to see charges pressed, and witnesses called. But believe me, you won't like it. Dems would go down, not Bush.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-21-2009 at 08:41 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2009, 02:41 AM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Bush definitely should be thrown in worst prison they can find but…

Smart money say it will never happen because Obama and Democrats will then commit political suicide by loosing support of Republicans who hate Bush and whose support he is enjoying so far but may loose because republicans won’t have any other choice but to rally behind their party if Bush will be put on trial.

I say, Obama is smart enough to stay away from Bush issue, at least in his first term... thus Bush is home-free for the next 4 years. Too bad

 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-24-2009, 08:41 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Offici...tion_0122.html

(+video in the link)

Quote:
"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.

"But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-25-2009, 01:19 AM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
Bush should stand trial: Do you agree?....
No, I certainly do not agree. The had just got elected and then we were attacked by the suicide plane bombings. But instead of just dropping nuke all over the place, he was able to keep a handle on things just newly being elected into office. Everyone likes to make something out of nothing, give the guy break he did the best he could in the situation he was placed in.

You're still alive aren't you? Everyone out here thought Bush was going to start WWIII or something, but that didn't happen at all. So at least we can give him credit for that. Sometimes I wonder who are all these people slandering Mr. Bush? Do they actually know him personally to say the know him so well? Or are they just coming up with ridiculous cockamamie stories just to satisfy their own egos? Have some respect for the old Commander-in-Chief.
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-25-2009, 09:21 AM
herman333 herman333 is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-08-09
Posts: 63
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Why should he? I mean come one. Give the old man a break. He should just rest now and make love to his wife. LOL!
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-25-2009, 09:25 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,443
iTrader: 4 / 100%
I will be the second voice of dissent in this thread.

No he should not.

While I do not believe he was 100% correct, I do not believe he was a bad as the bush-bashers make him out to be.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-25-2009, 01:36 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
While I do not believe he was 100% correct, I do not believe he was a bad as the bush-bashers make him out to be.
This is NOT about "Bush bashing" my friend. This is about the violation and disregard of international law, the man has committed crimes of the highest order and there is enough evidence against him to justify a trial.

To simply believe that it's about "Bush bashing" is rather naive. Do you really believe that for example the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak is just "Bush bashing"? Or Amnesty International? Also "Bush bashers"?

No one is picking on Bush because they don't like "Bush", they are picking on him because they don't like criminals, there's a difference.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-25-2009, 01:59 PM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
But instead of just dropping nuke all over the place...
He probably should thrown few nucelar bombs on Afghanistan to make sure that Taliban has no place to call or to go home and get hated by all the World for that instead of taking on Iraq and to become hated for stupidity starting loosing War and to ruin the Economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
You're still alive aren't you? Everyone out here thought Bush was going to start WWIII or something, but that didn't happen at all. So at least we can give him credit for that.
What do you call over 4,000 dead and not to mention 30,000 wounded Americans?

Are they alive?

 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-25-2009, 03:57 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,443
iTrader: 4 / 100%
IMO the UN ranks right above the French for the number of battles won.

There might be one somewhere for the UN.

I could care less what they think.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-25-2009, 04:11 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The truth about Iraq. Just in case anyone forgot.

Reasons for the war:
State of the Union Speech
On January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered a State of the Union address in which he laid out the following reasons for seeking regime change in Iraq:

Saddam Hussein 'systematically violated' the Agreement that ended the Gulf War.
Iraq possessed biological weapons, including Anthrax and botulinum toxin.
Iraq possessed chemical weapons, including Sarin, Mustard and VX and munitions to deliver them.
U2 surveillance flights as required by the UN were not granted clearance.
[edit] Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq
On October 16, 2002, President Bush signed the AUMF Iraq, or Iraq War Resolution authorizing force against Iraq. The Resolution gave the following reasons for regime change in Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

According to democrats history revision, Bush LIED. Unfortunately they are on video for the past ten years repeating his "lies", long before he spoke them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4m1QB_6gQg

Quotes:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


On the legality of the Iraq War

International Law
The main source of international law regarding the use of force is Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. In particular, Article 51 provides for preemptive war in self-defense in the absence of Security Council authorization:

"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."
The Six Day War in 1967, and the Israeli attack upon Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 are examples of preemptive attacks in self-defense. It is settled law that preemptive wars in self-defense are legal, though arguments remain about how imminent a threat must be before a nation can legally attack in self-defense. In any case, Saddam Hussein's government was regularly firing upon American and British forces and acting in defiance of his surrender agreement.

[edit] UN Security Council Resolutions
Iraq was in material breach of a series of Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, as well as the armistice ending the Gulf War in 1991.

The U.S State Department has stated that Saddam Hussein violated each and every one of the UNSC resolutions passed since Iraq invaded Kuwait during the Gulf War. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Security Council Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with all previous UNSC resolutions, which he failed to do.

[edit] 1991 Cease-Fire
The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:

Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
Permenantly abandon support for terrorism (article H)
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.

[edit] U.S. Constitutional Law
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water . . . "

A formal declaration of war is not necessary for Congress to authorize the use of force, and World War II was the last conflict the U.S. fought with an actual Declaration of War. Several major conflicts, including the Korean War and the Vietnam War, have been fought since that time without a Declaration of War. Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides the statutory equivalent of a Declaration of War:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
The relevant section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 reads (emphasis added):

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ...
Per the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a "specific statutory authorization" by Congress grants the same powers as a formal Declaration of War.

[edit] AUMF
Congress granted the President broad powers to retaliate for the 911 attacks by passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001. Section II states as follows:

"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
[edit] AUMF Iraq
On October 11, 2002, the U.S. Senate passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, also known as the 'Iraq War Resolution'. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The Iraq War Resolution in part states:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Nuff said.

Source - that Bush bashers wish would be forgotten. It screws up their lies.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-25-2009, 04:53 PM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
Nuff said.

Source - that Bush bashers wish would be forgotten. It screws up their lies.
Komm schon meine liebe Kätzchen

I can’t think about better example of whacking the Dog in History of Civilization than War in Iraq.

Get real and stop blaming sober people for not being impaired by GWB Cool Aid

 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-25-2009, 05:03 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
[edit] UN Security Council Resolutions
Iraq was in material breach of a series of Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, as well as the armistice ending the Gulf War in 1991.

The U.S State Department has stated that Saddam Hussein violated each and every one of the UNSC resolutions passed since Iraq invaded Kuwait during the Gulf War. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Security Council Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with all previous UNSC resolutions, which he failed to do.

[edit] 1991 Cease-Fire
The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution.
Israel violated FAR MORE UN security resolutions. Where are YOU asking to invade them now?

Funny how some folks on the right side always say that the UN is a worthless piece of trash with no credibility whatsoever UNLESS they can use it to apologize for **** they do.


 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-25-2009, 05:09 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Israel hasn't attacked the US. But if your country feels Israel did something to them, and you feel froggy, by all means JUMP! Go git those Israel bastards. ROTFLMAO

I have a suspicion that they could handle the "Amsterdam assault". It might even make the local evening news.

Quote:
In other news - Amsterdam lobbed their grenade into Israel. Israel pulled the pin out and threw it back, Amsterdam surrendered.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-25-2009 at 05:21 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
marijuana can cause psychosis. Agree? ryukenden Controversial Social Issues 161 12-17-2007 02:30 PM
I agree georgechristodoulou Marketing Forum 3 11-23-2006 03:35 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC