 |
| |
|
|
orrery
|
 |
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
I will ignore your derogatory comments with the exception of this sentence of course.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
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. |
Everything you have said here is true and is not being refuted.
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; |
The fact that "Nothing" in the Charter pretty much defeats your entire argument. And the United States can make the case in its self-defense. 1.) Years of Death to America demonstrations 2.) The Willingness by Saddam Hussein to use anti-Zionist tendencies and direct them towards the US. 3.) The Willingness of Saddam to use terrorists against Israel. 4.) The Willingness to equate the US with Israel. 5.) The praise of the 9/11 Attackers in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
This article appears to be in contradiction to the case that you are attempting to make:
From the article:
"For such a cease-fire to be approved, he said, Iraq must comply with all 12 United Nations resolutions"
From what I can gather, the formal cease-fire was never "approved."
suspend offensive combat operations =! formal legal cease-fire w/ iraq
Last edited by orrery on 19-05-2004 at 10:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
Also, you will note that in the Executive Order there is reference to several Acts: IEEPA, NEA, sec301 title 3. 12722, section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-297), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relation, and I would like to discuss them in better detail because I haven't been able to assimilate them totally just yet, here is the Executive Order:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that the United States and Iraq are engaged in armed hostilities, that it is in the interest of the United States to confiscate certain property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities, and that all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated should vest in the Department of the Treasury. I intend that such vested property should be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, and determine that such use would be in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.
I hereby order:
Section 1. All blocked funds held in the United States in accounts in the name of the Government of Iraq, the Central Bank of Iraq, Rafidain Bank, Rasheed Bank, or the State Organization for Marketing Oil are hereby confiscated and vested in the Department of the Treasury, except for the following:
(a) any such funds that are subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or that enjoy equivalent privileges and immunities under the laws of the United States, and are or have been used for diplomatic or consular purposes, and
(b) any such amounts that as of the date of this order are subject to post-judgment writs of execution or attachment in aid of execution of judgments pursuant to section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-297), provided that, upon satisfaction of the judgments on which such writs are based, any remainder of such excepted amounts shall, by virtue of this order and without further action, be confiscated and vested.
Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform, without further approval, ratification, or other action of the President, all functions of the President set forth in section 203(a)(1)(C) of IEEPA with respect to any and all property of the Government of Iraq, including its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities, and to take additional steps, including the promulgation of rules and regulations as may be necessary, to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate such functions in accordance with applicable law. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult the Attorney General as appropriate in the implementation of this order.
Sec. 3. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 20, 2003.
Last edited by orrery on 19-05-2004 at 10:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orrery
Not in so long as there remains a "breach of the peace."
"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."
In short, the test for the U.N. would have been its ability to secure the cease-fire by compelling Saddam into compliance. The U.N. did not secure the cease-fire largely due to Saddam's irrational fear of "zionism" which made this seemingly impossible. |
Saddam was hornor the creasefire which is why the Bush couldnot get all 10 nonpremant member of the security conulate to vote in his favor, only 9 votes are needed to pass than action in the security council unless than veto is used.
Than the threat must be than real threast not than drunk NK soilder who open fire on than America solider, it must be than attack by than orginale force of men acting under the command of than leader of the force with the backing of that nation leaders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Saddam was hornor the creasefire which is why the Bush couldnot get all 10 nonpremant member of the security conulate to vote in his favor, only 9 votes are needed to pass than action in the security council unless than veto is used. |
I have to admit that I am not capable of believing that Saddam was honoring the cease-fire, especially in 1998 when Clinton made this Executive Order. Or in his praise of and harboring of terrorism in direct violation of the conditions for honoring the cease-fire. Note, :
quote:
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism; |
CharlesBHoff, this is between the U.S. and Iraq, and I respect your right to voice your concerns. Yet given the evidence of Saddam's willingness to praise acts of terrorism and to support and finance it against the terms of his surrender, on which a cease-fire is based.
If Saddam were someone that I could trust, then why did President Clinton issue this Executive Order in 1998?
quote:
On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because the Government of Iraq has continued its activities hostile to United States interests in the Middle East, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 1998. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iraq.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
William J. Clinton
The White House,
July 28, 1998. |
And also, the House Joint Resolution 114 seems to state definitively (and having been supported by a huge bipartisan vote) that Saddam was continuing to be in breach of the cease-fire conditions, and United Nations Resolution 1441 passed by a 15-0 vote in the Security also said that Saddam "has been and remains in material breach" I am not dismissing your feelings on this, I do however want to ask if you expect an American (the object of Saddam's hatred) to be able to trust Saddam Hussein. Just because we have power doesn't not mean we will abuse it, I believe that because of our Constitution that we can be trusted to work together for the prosperity of everyone. This is my intention, and I would take it a gesture of good faith if you would afford me the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orrery
I will ignore your derogatory comments with the exception of this sentence of course.
Everything you have said here is true and is not being refuted.
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; |
The fact that "Nothing" in the Charter pretty much defeats your entire argument. And the United States can make the case in its self-defense. 1.) Years of Death to America demonstrations 2.) The Willingness by Saddam Hussein to use anti-Zionist tendencies and direct them towards the US. 3.) The Willingness of Saddam to use terrorists against Israel. 4.) The Willingness to equate the US with Israel. 5.) The praise of the 9/11 Attackers in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368. |
Are you useing drugs. The United State havenot make than case for acting in self-defences at all. Being anti-zionist doesnot make you than bad person and isnot than vaid reason for self-defence at all. He commitee no terrorist act against Israel or allow terrorist to use Iraq as than base of operateion at all.
We annoy other nations around the world by passing than supid law saying that we will put on trial in america any person who harm than america oversea. Are we saying that other nation are incapity of enforement of laws in they territy under they control. Let say than french man rape than america female that french cannot
put that man on trial under they own law or it than america man rape than french woman in French that the French have no right to put that man on trial for his action under they own laws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
CharlesBHoff, there are many parts of the cease-fire that Saddam was trying to bypass and he was trying to put his own conditions on them. The situation degraded as people came to accept more and more of his violations as behaviors upon which the peace that was lost upon his invasion of Kuwait could be maintained and a foundation of the peace that our cooperation through international organziations like the U.N. and respect for eachother's nations can be built upon.
Last edited by orrery on 19-05-2004 at 11:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
|
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
The United State havenot make than case for acting in self-defences at all. Being anti-zionist doesnot make you than bad person and isnot than vaid reason for self-defence at all. He commitee no terrorist act against Israel or allow terrorist to use Iraq as than base of operateion at all. |
I agree that holding religious beliefs that put you at odds with Zionism does not make you a bad person. However, Saddam did publicly state his support for terrorist actions against Israel, PLUS, PLUS, he constantly repeated in his propaganda that the US *was* Israel!!! The Law of Equivacation states that when he states his approval of terrorist activity against Israel, he is stating them by his rules, not ours, his approval of terrorist actions against the U.S. (think about how Iraqi children being raised to admire this men are being indoctrinated to believe Kill Israel = Good & US = Israel therefore Kill US = Good. TOTALLY FORBIDDEN in the terms of his surrender and the conditions for a cease-fire after his invasion of Kuwait, which I have posted. Plus, he praised 9.11 terrorists after UNSC Resolution 1368, even while arguing his adherence to Resolution 687 where he is legally obligated to denounce sed acts! He did allow Iraq to be a safe haven for many terrorists in violation of the surrender conditions for his imperialist oil grab in Kuwait. Also, he did provide incentives for terrorist activities by awarding families of those who committed homicidal suicide bomb operations inside Israel. So, for the reasons just stated, I have to deny you the undeterred use of your argument. (I hope that we can still be friends)
quote:
We annoy other nations around the world by passing than supid law saying that we will put on trial in america any person who harm than america oversea. Are we saying that other nation are incapity of enforement of laws in they territy under they control. Let say than french man rape than america female that french cannot
put that man on trial under they own law or it than america man rape than french woman in French that the French have no right to put that man on trial for his action under they own laws. |
I understand if English is not your first language, so we are going to have difficulty communicating at times. If you go overseas and are harmed, I promise you that the United States will work to its fullest to assist you through one of our Embassies and through the Treaties that we have signed with those other nations. Definitely, if an American woman is raped by a French man, the U.S. should full participate with France its total commitment to prosecute that rapist to the full extent of the law.
Charles, I believe that despite your class, race, or religion, the U.S. can be your best friend. Given our Constitution and the trials and sufferings that this nations has had to go through, equal rights for all, I see no reason why you would want to deny yourself that type of a friend. If you can give Hussein the benefit of any doubt, then surely you can afford the same for Dr. Bush, who's only failing (if you can call it that, but I won't) was being unable to bring himself to trust Saddam.
Last edited by orrery on 19-05-2004 at 11:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orrery
I simply can't grasp the logic of your argument.
You state in one sentence that the US and Iraq established CONDITIONS of a cease-fire, and then state that the establishment of conditions is in itself a cease-fire? This does not compute. It is my understanding that Conditions have to be 'met' before there can be a cease-fire and that appears to be what your New York Times article is saying as well. |
The president declared a cease-fire, and the generals representing the two sides signed a cease-fire.
Then it becomes an issue of formalizing the peace, and when it came up, a month later, to the UN security council, it placed a large number of conditions to make the cease-fire permanent and turn into a true peace.
For you to say there was no cease-fire then is completely incorrect-you keep quoting the president (current), well, he has never claimed there is no cease fire, but that Iraq broke the conditions OF the cease-fire. That assumes there being one, as sort of backed by the simple fact that 99.9% of the time from March 1991 to March 2003 there was no fighting going on: unless you fail to classify that as a ceasation of the firing going on....
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-05-2004 09:07
* grabs popcorn
|
|