 |
| |
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it. |
So? We spray pesticides on entire farms.
Intent is what matters, not effect.
quote:
2. Even if it where to only kill plants, that would leave everyone starving and unable to grow more food. |
Which is still a) not WMD and b) not true. Do you really think they got their food from the thick jungle shrub-thingies?
quote:
3. It's results where not unnattended, but ignored. It is impossible that the scientists who created this chemical where not aware of it's poisonous and toxic nature. They where designing it to to annhilate all life. The fact that they intentionally left animal (human) life out of their equation does not excuse it. |
They were designing it to destroy foliage. They couldn't have cared less about whether or not it killed animals.
quote:
But I'd say that all weapons lend themselves towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort, anyways. |
But some more than others.
This whole argument is basically pointless anyway, as anyone (important) means NBC weapons when they refer to WMD. |
Stop soundly like than evil lawyer defender the Evil America Government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
They could certainly be used that way. Just look at what DDT and other pesticides have done, and they wheren't even used as a weapon.
Although agricultural herbicides and pesticides are far, far, far more tame than agent orange which was designed to turn lush jungle into deadlands.
They where used in afghanistan, atleast.
Yes... this is why they are called 'cluster bombs' - they are a large quantity of bombs packaged together.
So it's the sheer destructive force of a weapon that makes it a WMD? Then surely the air-fuel bombs must be a WMD?
Yes, I know - your answer will of course be no. But it's a strange scenario where the 'mother of all bombs' is not a weapon of mass destruction, but an antique artillery shell with nerve gas in it is. |
The German Chemist who dicover nerse gas was looking for the perest pesticle was disappoint when it turn out it killed dogs,cats, and people also.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
That's the limited recruiting excuse and propaganda tool to make most of the rest of the western world figure they're safe. For the real answers, read Ma'alim fil tariq, and any of a number of works by al Maududi.
A majority of the CW casualties at Halabja had symptoms consistent with exposure to CW agents known to be in Iranian arsenals, but not in Iraqi arsenals. The DIA concluded both sides used CW agents in attacks and counterattacks at Halabja, and for a number of reasons, a majority of casualties were caused by Iranian CW agents. It wasn't that big of a deal because (a) we already hated them, and (b) we didn't need more stuff to demonize the Ayatollahs, we needed stuff to demonize Saddam. |
America was the nation that lower the theadhold of useing chemical weapon, We allow Iraq to use Chemical Weapon against Iran and we never said aword about it or told him not to. We veto than UN security counil resolution against Iraq useing chemical weapons against Iran than supid veto. It was the USSR that gave Iran chemical weapons to use back at Iraq includeing Soviet nerse agents and cryan gas which is than blood poison agent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
 |
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
I believe that its time for us all to come together for the good of the union and admit that it one could not expect Bush to trust America's future to Saddam Hussein behaving himself. The man did have connections to terrorists and actively pursued a propaganda campaign with the slogans of "death to america"
I believe that it would have been immensely irresponsible to allow a nation's entire generation to be raised in this kind of war-mongering environment. I have no doubt, that left in power, Saddam would have in 10 years time helped some terrorist smuggle a WMD into the U.S.
Furthermore, the U.N., not the U.S. is to fault for its failure to never getting the cease-fire demanded out of Iraq between it and the Coalition. Our job is to defend and preserve the union for our children. Dr. Bush is a good man, and none of us can fault him for him not being able to trust the word of Saddam Hussein. I voted for Gore in 2000. I'm voting for Dr. Bush this year and the posts of ignorant children, whose only claim to intelligence is being objectionable to people who spent their entire youths as liberals and must do what they must to make the world safe for liberalism. It took me many years to realize it, but that is what it means to be conservative.
You may be able to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. With his many death to america remarks and statements, with his support for terrorism and attitude against the United States, even during the Clinton years.....
But I can not. Nor can I trust the future of my Constitution to those who would argue the position of devil's advocate when we have been attacked. Not by 19 men, but by an entire culture of anti-americanism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orrery
I believe that its time for us all to come together for the good of the union and admit that it one could not expect Bush to trust America's future to Saddam Hussein behaving himself. The man did have connections to terrorists and actively pursued a propaganda campaign with the slogans of "death to america"
I believe that it would have been immensely irresponsible to allow a nation's entire generation to be raised in this kind of war-mongering environment. I have no doubt, that left in power, Saddam would have in 10 years time helped some terrorist smuggle a WMD into the U.S.
Furthermore, the U.N., not the U.S. is to fault for its failure to never getting the cease-fire demanded out of Iraq between it and the Coalition. Our job is to defend and preserve the union for our children. Dr. Bush is a good man, and none of us can fault him for him not being able to trust the word of Saddam Hussein. I voted for Gore in 2000. I'm voting for Dr. Bush this year and the posts of ignorant children, whose only claim to intelligence is being objectionable to people who spent their entire youths as liberals and must do what they must to make the world safe for liberalism. It took me many years to realize it, but that is what it means to be conservative.
You may be able to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. With his many death to america remarks and statements, with his support for terrorism and attitude against the United States, even during the Clinton years.....
But I can not. Nor can I trust the future of my Constitution to those who would argue the position of devil's advocate when we have been attacked. Not by 19 men, but by an entire culture of anti-americanism. |
Than other human right criminal and civil right crimunal and war criminal. First defending War Criminal Bush the way you are make you than war criminal also.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
There is no reason to think that Saddam has the smallpox virus anyway. It's been eradicated in the wild for years. And we all know how dangerous anthrax is. What? Four or five deaths? Hardly panic material. |
Actually, smallpox still exists in the "wild". It's just relegated to small parts of Africa, Asia, and IIRC South America. |
Than Arab Muslum in the 8th century said smallpox is than illness that needed than human host than is only found in human being it isnot found in any other animal on this planet. The Black Death is than rodent illness which can crossover to human being. The Muslum also said most illness are cause by than invisble agents which cannot be seem by the Human eyes. Loula Pasteur said the same and he stole the idear from the Muslum. The Muslum doctor wash they hands before seeing each patient, did operation on clean table wash down with than cautic agent, heated they surgical tool in a hot flame before useing then in a operation. You have than 90% less change of dieing from than inflected wound compare to Euporean doctor which didnot wash their hand or wore cleaning clothes(no blood or gut on then) or sterial they medical tool untril 1880.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Bush has powers, yes, but so does Congress and so does the Judiciary. Our President is not a king nor emperor-he is the head of state but the people are sovereign, they are not subjects and they owe their representative in office no alliegence. Their alliegence is to the consitution which makes them soverign. |
Exactly, the power of the President is that it his duty to implement and see to the enforcement of the legislation of the Congress. Legislation, like the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, for instance. Also, he is the chief enforcer and representative of that last sentence you state. The President's allegiance to the Constitution makes him as sovereign as every other individual and it is his duty to protect that not only for himself and us, but for our children. Or, in the words of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That is why, it my belief, that we must be like a people onto ourselves, but never forsaking others from joining the union. Our Constitution has been built upon the firm foundation of every human generation. The founders were not just those present during the Revolution, but every individual and prophet from the past on whom their achievement was based, and yes, even the Mohammedans. In the words of Isaac Newton:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
GePap, if you choose to call them muslims that is your decision. I will not submit to having your conventions forced upon myself. I use Mohammedans because it was used by Thomas Paine who wrote Common Sense, the Age of Reason, etc.
The resolutions are proof of the U.N.'s inability to negotiate a cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq. The war can not be illegal on the authority of the U.N. because the U.N. does not have legal authority over the Constitution. We have never surrendered our authority to the U.N. So I consider your argument moot, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from playing Devil's Advocate by proposing that such a thing had ever happened or should. The reason for the war, has in my best estimation always been the attack on Kuwait and the U.S. action continues to be legally protected by the U.N through Article 51.
Some will tell us that all mankind is one, however, pan-arab imperialists are more equal than others when it comes to overthrowing westerners, they don't acknowledge that they are followers of the prophets. Lacking Mohammed due to geo-historical circumstances is hardly a crime, and by persecuting those who still follow the pre-Mohammed prophets, they do, in fact, retract the blessings they claim to give to "all the prophets" who are "all equal" and "peace be upon them all"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
1. A Ceasefire was reached-it was signed.
2. The US signed the UN Charter and according to the consitution the US must follow the rules set by the treaties it signs. The US has signed over authorities to the UN-the US is bound by law to follow the mandates of the UNSC (of course, since we have a veto, this is no problem for the US). The very consitution you say you follow and defend and whatever proves your point wrong.
3. Not a single Admin. lawyer claims this act falls under artcile 51, becuase the US can show NO imminent danger to itself or pressing need for self-defense, for all the claims made prior to the war. This was a war of choice, NOT of necessity-so again, it in no way falls under article 51. |
1. No, a cease-fire was reached between the United Nations and Iraq. A ceasefire was not reached between the members of the Coalition. The U.N. is an organization seperate from its members. It does not preside over them or exercise authority over them. So your point is moot.
2. The U.S. participation in the United Nations is outlined in the United Nations Participation Act. I suggest you read it. It states that the President retains full authority over our Nations participation in sed organization. It is the President which enforces the law of the United Nations Charter, not you, and not the United Nations. The President. Therefore, only by the President can it be illegal or legal. Remember your earlier comment, by the Constitution is the individual sovereign, not by the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter is not a document of Sovereignty.
3. Moot, Resolution 660 meant that the U.N. declared Iraq to be a threat to international peace & security, and having never absolved itself of that status, any action by the coalition to remove sed threat falls under the Protection of Article 51. The U.N. being a seperate entity from the U.S. was contracted to resolve the issue by acquiring a ceasefire not only for itself, but for the U.S. and Kuwait. The means with which to do this are detailed in Resolution 687, the terms of which were never fulfilled and therefore, no cease-fire ever existed between the U.S., Kuwait, the Coaltion --- and Iraq. Thus, the No-Fly Zone, and Operation Desert Fox.
If you like, over the past 3 years I have done my best to commit each line of each resolution and Congressional Act and Executive Order to memory, and harddrive and would be more than happy to find someone to discuss them with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orrery
2. The U.S. participation in the United Nations is outlined in the United Nations Participation Act. I suggest you read it. It states that the President retains full authority over our Nations participation in sed organization. It is the President which enforces the law of the United Nations Charter, not you, and not the United Nations. The President. Therefore, only by the President can it be illegal or legal. Remember your earlier comment, by the Constitution is the individual sovereign, not by the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter is not a document of Sovereignty. |
The president enforces the law of the land as the chief executive. Waht you say therefore is meaningless, as enforcing the law is his job. Certainly the president can act illegaly, just as a cop can break the law even though he is charged with maintaining the law. And again, the US signed the UN charter, it is a treaty the uS signed, and according to, I believe article four, it is the law of the land. The president, for example, could not pass an executive order to allow the restart of the ivory trade, as such an order would violate treaties ratified by the US and hence US law.
quote:
3. Moot, Resolution 660 meant that the U.N. declared Iraq to be a threat to international peace & security, and having never absolved itself of that status, any action by the coalition to remove sed threat falls under the Protection of Article 51. The U.N. being a seperate entity from the U.S. was contracted to resolve the issue by acquiring a ceasefire not only for itself, but for the U.S. and Kuwait. The means with which to do this are detailed in Resolution 687, the terms of which were never fulfilled and therefore, no cease-fire ever existed between the U.S., Kuwait, the Coaltion --- and Iraq. Thus, the No-Fly Zone, and Operation Desert Fox. |
From the resolution you speak, first operative clause:
quote:
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire; |
Admin. supporters may claim that the Iraqis did not live up fully to the conditions of the cease-fire (hence breaking the cease-fire), but to say a cease-fire never existed? See my comment bellow.
quote:
If you like, over the past 3 years I have done my best to commit each line of each resolution and Congressional Act and Executive Order to memory, and harddrive and would be more than happy to find someone to discuss them with. |
Sadly you forgot the fact that data without annaylysis is useless, and if anything, more likely to lead to the wrong path. So maybe you should stop memorizing and start annalysing.
This was edited, of course.
Last edited by GePap on 19-05-2004 at 09:05
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2004 10:06
|
|