Dubya's approval rating tumbled to 47% today, and for the first time his
disapproval rating, 50%, topped his approval rating. He's now at the same
point his pappy was at prior to Clinton cleaning his clock in 1992.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/lo...h073660749feb0
7,0,608362,print.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-headlines

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Dubya's approval rating tumbled to 47% today, and for the first time his
disapproval rating, 50%, topped his approval rating. He's now at the same
point his pappy was at prior to Clinton cleaning his clock in 1992.


However, this time your candidate appears to be
Kerry, aka "Mr Special Interests". That must make
your liberal populist ass hurt.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Socky bitched:

However, this time your candidate appears to be
Kerry, aka "Mr Special Interests".

Any Democrat is better than Dubya. And that includes Sharpton.

George M. Mifddius wrote:


Socky bitched:

However, this time your candidate appears to be
Kerry, aka "Mr Special Interests".

Any Democrat is better than Dubya. And that includes Sharpton.













Agreed. And the idea of trying to tie the Democrats in particular to "special
interests" is a red herring, given the Republicans' well known affinity for
pandering to various special interests It will be interesting to see how the
whole "Medicare reform"/health care insurance issue plays out in the upcoming
election, given the Republicans' shameful concessions to the pharmaceutical
industry - to mention just one extremely "special" interest.



Bruce J. Richman

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky bitched:

However, this time your candidate appears to be
Kerry, aka "Mr Special Interests".

Any Democrat is better than Dubya. And that includes Sharpton.


Actually, he is the best.
He's got my vote in the primary.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Socky confesses.

Any Democrat is better than Dubya. And that includes Sharpton.

Actually, he is the best.

This shows how much your opinion is worth.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
George M. Mifddius wrote:


Socky bitched:

However, this time your candidate appears to be
Kerry, aka "Mr Special Interests".

Any Democrat is better than Dubya. And that includes Sharpton.

Agreed. And the idea of trying to tie the Democrats in particular to
"special
interests" is a red herring, given the Republicans' well known affinity
for
pandering to various special interests It will be interesting to see how
the
whole "Medicare reform"/health care insurance issue plays out in the
upcoming
election, given the Republicans' shameful concessions to the
pharmaceutical
industry - to mention just one extremely "special" interest.

Agreed, Bruce - and what you mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg that's
going to sink Dubya's ship.

My candidate is still Howard Dean, as only 10% of the country has voted in
the primaries to date. Anything could still happen. OTOH, I lost my
enthusiasm for Dean as a "candidate" months ago, as a result of his own
relatively poor performance in the debates, his poorly put-together TV ads,
his occasionally very poorly worded phrases, his general lack of talent as a
public speaker (as contrasted, especially, with Edwards), etc., etc., etc.
I will support him until he most likely will eventually drop out (he has
totally mismanaged his campaign finances, and has stubbornly refused to
listen to his supporters' advice, and continues to make the same mistakes).
In retrospect, Dean may be compared to Lech Walesa - a great revolutionary
who in Dean's case put some backbone back into the Democratic party by being
the first to really stand up to and call Bush out for all his crapola, and
in the process created a revolution of sorts, bringing in tons of new people
to the political process, and energized the country to wake up from its
Dubya/media-induced slumber. But like Lech Walesa, he has turned out to be
a poor "manager" - Walesa was overwhelmingly voted out of office after years
of mismanagement.

At this point I don't believe Dean will go all the way, but his legacy will
be that he defined the issues and put together a movement that other
candidates copied/plagiarized out of necessity (to survive), and he could
have enough delegates at the Democratic Convention to influence the
platform, and even possibly to be a "kingmaker" - e.g., if Kerry waffles on
enough core issues, Dean may hand all of his delegates over to Edwards,
which could tip the scales and send Kerry packing. Dean's still my
favorite, Edwards is a close second, Clark is third, and Kerry a distant
fourth.

As I said, anything is now possible, but I'll back my man to the bitter end,
out of principle.

Whoever wins will trounce Bush on *every* issue, and given the huge increase
in Democrats going to the polls this year, *no* Republican could win, thanks
to Bush's ****ing off so many Americans.

I'm not contributing any more pre-Convention money to anyone (I met the
federal limit with Dean) but will add another $1,800 to the DNC after the
Convention (which added to my $200 donation in 2003 will meet the federal
limit). And my wife will kick in another $2K at that time.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

Agreed. And the idea of trying to tie the Democrats in particular to
"special
interests" is a red herring, given the Republicans' well known affinity
for
pandering to various special interests It will be interesting to see how
the
whole "Medicare reform"/health care insurance issue plays out in the
upcoming
election, given the Republicans' shameful concessions to the
pharmaceutical
industry - to mention just one extremely "special" interest.


the probelm is Kerry's base hypocricy in claiming to be against special
interest groups

The man is an abject liar.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Socky whined:

the probelm is Kerry's base hypocricy in claiming to be against special
interest groups

The man is an abject liar.

Now compare Kerry's record of "lies" -- enriched and embellished to
your heart's desire -- with that of Dubya. Kerry really isn't
against special interests, you claim. To what degree has he sold out
his principles? How does whatever malfeasance you attribute to him
compare with the rape and pillage of 99% of American taxpayers that
Boosh has accomplished? Has Kerry done anything like lying to the
public in order to get us into a war? And let's not skip over the
real reasons for the war -- revenge is only secondary. Primarily,
Dubya is fulfilling yet another "debt" to his infinitely greedy
benefactors.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky whined:

the probelm is Kerry's base hypocricy in claiming to be against special
interest groups

The man is an abject liar.

Now compare Kerry's record of "lies" -- enriched and embellished to
your heart's desire -- with that of Dubya. Kerry really isn't
against special interests, you claim. To what degree has he sold out
his principles? How does whatever malfeasance you attribute to him
compare with the rape and pillage of 99% of American taxpayers that
Boosh has accomplished? Has Kerry done anything like lying to the
public in order to get us into a war? And let's not skip over the
real reasons for the war -- revenge is only secondary. Primarily,
Dubya is fulfilling yet another "debt" to his infinitely greedy
benefactors.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...c04.prez.main/

http://www.beakerscorner.net/archives/000795.html

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/30/191026/562

http://www.gagop.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=78

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

And. from Kerry's site, he blasts special interests!!!

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...003_1220a.html





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Denial, denial, denial.

the probelm is Kerry's base hypocricy in claiming to be against special
interest groups

The man is an abject liar.

Now compare Kerry's record of "lies" -- enriched and embellished to
your heart's desire -- with that of Dubya. Kerry really isn't
against special interests, you claim. To what degree has he sold out
his principles? How does whatever malfeasance you attribute to him
compare with the rape and pillage of 99% of American taxpayers that
Boosh has accomplished? Has Kerry done anything like lying to the
public in order to get us into a war? And let's not skip over the
real reasons for the war -- revenge is only secondary. Primarily,
Dubya is fulfilling yet another "debt" to his infinitely greedy
benefactors.


[snip meaningless links]

So addled you can't put your rage into words, eh?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Denial, denial, denial.

the probelm is Kerry's base hypocricy in claiming to be against
special
interest groups

The man is an abject liar.

Now compare Kerry's record of "lies" -- enriched and embellished to
your heart's desire -- with that of Dubya. Kerry really isn't
against special interests, you claim. To what degree has he sold out
his principles? How does whatever malfeasance you attribute to him
compare with the rape and pillage of 99% of American taxpayers that
Boosh has accomplished? Has Kerry done anything like lying to the
public in order to get us into a war? And let's not skip over the
real reasons for the war -- revenge is only secondary. Primarily,
Dubya is fulfilling yet another "debt" to his infinitely greedy
benefactors.


[snip meaningless links]

So addled you can't put your rage into words, eh?



(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The bloodthirsty Bush-booster drools over the mountains of corpses
in Iraq.

So addled you can't put your rage into words, eh?

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.

Okay, Mikey. Whatever you drool is fine.

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine if the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

There was no unilateral decision.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

At least *someone* here has a grasp of international law.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

At least *someone* here has a grasp of international law.

Said the defender of Saddam.
This humanitarian opposition to the war in Iraq for obvious
political reasons is embarrassing to humanitarians everywhere.

ScottW

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other nation to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

There was no unilateral decision.

I suppose getting England to go along with us makes that true technically. I
think it is fair to say that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was unilateral.
We did not look for permission from any other country. We were happy to have
England join us but I think it is fair to say we did not rely on their aproval
of the decision.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote. Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote. Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my claims? It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




My claim does not include the idea that our policies are bound by the U.N.
resloutions. My claim is that the enforcement of U.N. reslotutions is bound by
the U.N. resolutions.

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




My claim does not include the idea that our policies are bound by the U.N.
resloutions. My claim is that the enforcement of U.N. reslotutions is bound by
the U.N. resolutions.

You seem to be implying that the action in Iraq was taken solely on
the basis of enforcing U.N. resolutions. That was just one plank in
the case to go to war.
Personally, I think a humanitarian case to remove the regime which
would lead to a lifting of sanctions against Iraq was sufficient.
Unfortunately, the UN was deadlocked and the coalition was forced to
act without it's blessing.
Check the post vote 1441 statement by the US.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htm

It says we would bring the matter back to the U.N. (which we did with
the resolution proposed in March '03). It also says, "If the Security
Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi
violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from
acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to
enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."

I think that is pretty clear.

ScottW

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.

Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine if the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution has been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight.

Your opinion doesn't alter the facts which Scott presented - so your
refutation of what he said was "a bunch hot air".


france does not have a veto power over our national interests.
I really don't give a **** about UN niceties.
If they weren't in New York City, I would
just as soon bomb them!

Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.

As I just wrote elsewhere, you demonstrate an obtuseness to
rationality in politics.

BTW, can you do something about your noosreader?

No.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

At least *someone* here has a grasp of international law.


Our right to protect ourselves, supersedes international law.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

There was no unilateral decision.

I suppose getting England to go along with us makes that true technically.
I
think it is fair to say that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was
unilateral.

30 countries is not unilateral.

We did not look for permission from any other country. We were happy to
have
England join us but I think it is fair to say we did not rely on their
aproval
of the decision.

Because they and the others agreed with us.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Our right to protect ourselves, supersedes international law.

No, it is consistent with international law. Read the U.N. Charter. There
are, however, limits to that "right" - no nation can just go around invading
any other nation because they don't like their leader, or imagine "maybe"
they *might possibly* pose a danger to someone someday.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Our right to protect ourselves, supersedes international law.

No, it is consistent with international law. Read the U.N. Charter.
There
are, however, limits to that "right" - no nation can just go around
invading
any other nation because they don't like their leader, or imagine "maybe"
they *might possibly* pose a danger to someone someday.


Then why isn't there a provision that the UN has to enforce it's own
resolutions.

Bush's attack on Iraq was formulated because of 9/11. He figured that we
can't wait people like Saddam to produce weapons that they will likely use
again or sell to other terrorists.

The entire world believed Saddam had such weapons, including Bill Clinton
and John Kerry, both of whom saw the same evidence Bush had.

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

At least *someone* here has a grasp of international law.


Our right to protect ourselves, supersedes international law.









Our right to protect ourselves was not addressed in any way in any of my
claims.

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not
OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council,
and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world,
and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have
numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and
carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991
war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




My claim does not include the idea that our policies are bound by the U.N.
resloutions. My claim is that the enforcement of U.N. reslotutions is bound
by
the U.N. resolutions.

You seem to be implying that the action in Iraq was taken solely on
the basis of enforcing U.N. resolutions.


My claims were not meant to imply any such thing. I don't believe they do imply
that at all.


That was just one plank in
the case to go to war.

It was one ilegitimate plank IMO. I am not addressing any of the other reasons
anyone cites as a cause for our invasion of Iraq.


Personally, I think a humanitarian case to remove the regime which
would lead to a lifting of sanctions against Iraq was sufficient.

I meant to express no opinion one way or another on the legitimacy of our other
reasons for invading Iraq. My comments were directed specifically at the idea
that we were attacking Iraq because they were in violation of the terms of the
U.N. resolutions. That per se was not a legitimate grounds for attack without
the U.N. saying it was.


Unfortunately, the UN was deadlocked and the coalition was forced to
act without it's blessing.

Which IMO means we acted on our own and have no business citing the U.N.
resolutions as any grounds for our invasion.


Check the post vote 1441 statement by the US.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htm

It says we would bring the matter back to the U.N. (which we did with
the resolution proposed in March '03). It also says, "If the Security
Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi
violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from
acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to
enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."

I think that is pretty clear.

ScottW







The mere existance of "The threat" is a hotly debated topic. I think it is
pretty clear that at the time we invaded Iraq there was no real "threat" posed
by Iraq to the U.S. You did use quotation marks so I think it is fair to say it
says nothing about *potential future threats* and is only speaking of *actual*
threats that were *currently* in existance.

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

There was no unilateral decision.

I suppose getting England to go along with us makes that true technically.
I
think it is fair to say that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was
unilateral.

30 countries is not unilateral.


30 countries invaded Iraq? I know of two, the U.S. and England. Please feel
free to cite the other 28.


We did not look for permission from any other country. We were happy to
have
England join us but I think it is fair to say we did not rely on their
aproval
of the decision.

Because they and the others agreed with us.










Balony. Many countries did not agree with us. Have you forgeotten why people
poured out expensive French wine that had already been payed for and started
serving "freedom fries?" We did what we did regardless of what other countries
thought. The decision for the U.S. to invade Iraq was clearly a unilateral
decision.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

There was no unilateral decision.

I suppose getting England to go along with us makes that true
technically.
I
think it is fair to say that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was
unilateral.

30 countries is not unilateral.


30 countries invaded Iraq? I know of two, the U.S. and England. Please
feel
free to cite the other 28.


We did not look for permission from any other country. We were happy to
have
England join us but I think it is fair to say we did not rely on their
aproval
of the decision.

Because they and the others agreed with us.










Balony. Many countries did not agree with us. Have you forgeotten why
people
poured out expensive French wine that had already been payed for and
started
serving "freedom fries?" We did what we did regardless of what other
countries
thought. The decision for the U.S. to invade Iraq was clearly a unilateral
decision.

So the coalition of countries that support us there are an illusion?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not
OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation
of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and
take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council,
and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world,
and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have
numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and
carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991
war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my
claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




My claim does not include the idea that our policies are bound by the U.N.
resloutions. My claim is that the enforcement of U.N. reslotutions is
bound by
the U.N. resolutions.


Considering France and its veto power, they were not going to
be enforced by the UN. France declared it would veto any
enforcement by forcible means. Why bother having resolutions. Why
bother having the UN. Any one of the five can prevent Un enforcement
of its own resolutions. However, there were more than UN resolutions
involved. And Iraq had been continuously been violating UN resoltions for 18
years.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

And Iraq had been continuously been violating UN resoltions for 18
years.

Falacious argument. Israel also use to do that but nobody moves.

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

There was no unilateral decision.

I suppose getting England to go along with us makes that true
technically.
I
think it is fair to say that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was
unilateral.

30 countries is not unilateral.


30 countries invaded Iraq? I know of two, the U.S. and England. Please
feel
free to cite the other 28.


We did not look for permission from any other country. We were happy to
have
England join us but I think it is fair to say we did not rely on their
aproval
of the decision.

Because they and the others agreed with us.










Balony. Many countries did not agree with us. Have you forgeotten why
people
poured out expensive French wine that had already been payed for and
started
serving "freedom fries?" We did what we did regardless of what other
countries
thought. The decision for the U.S. to invade Iraq was clearly a unilateral
decision.

So the coalition of countries that support us there are an illusion?









They were irrelevant to our unilateral decision to invade Iraq. But please feel
free to cite the other 28 countries that invaded Iraq along with the U.S. and
England. Then feel free to cite the other countries that were involved in our
decision to invade Iraq.

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not
OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation
of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and
take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council,
and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world,
and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have
numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and
carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991
war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my
claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




My claim does not include the idea that our policies are bound by the U.N.
resloutions. My claim is that the enforcement of U.N. reslotutions is
bound by
the U.N. resolutions.


Considering France and its veto power, they were not going to
be enforced by the UN. France declared it would veto any
enforcement by forcible means. Why bother having resolutions. Why
bother having the UN. Any one of the five can prevent Un enforcement
of its own resolutions. However, there were more than UN resolutions
involved. And Iraq had been continuously been violating UN resoltions for 18
years.


Your frustration with the U.N. does not make my claims about the U.N.
resolutions any less true. The enforcement of those resolutions by military
means had to be orderd by the U.N. So citation of violations of those
resolutions as a reason for invading is inherently self-defeating. As soon as
we decided to bypass the U.N. in our decision to invade Iraq we by passed the
U.N. resolutions as a reason for invading Iraq as well.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Our right to protect ourselves, supersedes international law.

No, it is consistent with international law. Read the U.N. Charter.
There
are, however, limits to that "right" - no nation can just go around
invading
any other nation because they don't like their leader, or imagine "maybe"
they *might possibly* pose a danger to someone someday.


based upon the history of Iraq's behavior, there is
no 'imagining' about the danger it poses.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

S888Wheel said:

30 countries invaded Iraq? I know of two, the U.S. and England. Please feel
free to cite the other 28.

Canada, Italy, Spain, and Australia helped. I don't know about the
putative other 24 though.