Our President

**Axeager** · 05-04-07, 12:27 PM

[quote=pharrisonsg ]

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

Thanks man I was thinking of being a teacher.

[quote=tgross791 ]

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

Ever heard of a mistype? Would you like me to change that for you? I see you have some grammer errors too, who you like me to point them out for you?

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

**Axeager** · 05-04-07, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

Thanks man I was thinking of being a teacher.

Originally Posted by tgross791

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

pharris, i liked that too, i know i dont always spell correctly, but i liked that spelling of it and the spelling for realize........makes you wonder though about the comment someone way back in the posts made about bush buying his grades.....he may not be able to speak well but at least he can spell......

ooooooooooo and the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!!!

i will enjoy seeing what the future intercourse of this subject comes out of the last few posts...........

Would you like me to change that for you? Or are you just whistling win dixie out of your ass. I can notice some grammers errors you have too, would you like to me to point them out for you?

**greymata** · 05-04-07, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Would you like me to change that for you? Or are you just whistling win dixie out of your ass. I can notice some grammers errors you have too, would you like to me to point them out for you?

it's spelled grammar.

**MotoZ** · 05-04-07, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by greymata

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Would you like me to change that for you? Or are you just whistling win dixie out of your ass. I can notice some grammers errors you have too, would you like to me to point them out for you?

it's spelled grammar.

ROFLcopter.

**tgross791** · 05-04-07, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

Thanks man I was thinking of being a teacher.

Originally Posted by tgross791

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

pharris, i liked that too, i know i dont always spell correctly, but i liked that spelling of it and the spelling for realize........makes you wonder though about the comment someone way back in the posts made about bush buying his grades.....he may not be able to speak well but at least he can spell......

ooooooooooo and the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!!!

i will enjoy seeing what the future intercourse of this subject comes out of the last few posts...........

Would you like me to change that for you? Or are you just whistling win dixie out of your ass. I can notice some grammers errors you have too, would you like to me to point them out for you?

its OK, i know my grammer is prob not up to par, but ill try to keep my spelling neat and tidy like our president, and then if i really dont know how to spell it ill use spell check our (sp?)

**pharrisonsg** · 05-04-07, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

Thanks man I was thinking of being a teacher.

Originally Posted by tgross791

Originally Posted by pharrisonsg

Originally Posted by Blackhawkc99

Yes I am reading his posts very carefully thank you very much. Maybe if you read mine a little bit more carefully you'll actually relize that I am completely aware of the debate and it was a retoricle question when I asked to have one.

I see one point that Black has made out of all this...a new spelling for rhetorical...

pharris, i liked that too, i know i dont always spell correctly, but i liked that spelling of it and the spelling for realize........makes you wonder though about the comment someone way back in the posts made about bush buying his grades.....he may not be able to speak well but at least he can spell......

ooooooooooo and the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!!!

i will enjoy seeing what the future intercourse of this subject comes out of the last few posts...........

Would you like me to change that for you? Or are you just whistling win dixie out of your ass. I can notice some grammers errors you have too, would you like to me to point them out for you?

Sure why not ? I'm not thinking of being a teacher...

**...bigdog...** · 05-04-07, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

So....that's one line, of one resolution, that you can have.

I’ll take the win – because it’s the big one.[/quote]

and that's where you're wrong. You can't pick one line. ANY line that is material breach is ground for serious consequences. Aquiring weapons, firing at UN-patrol planes, kicking out inspectors.....anything in breach is everything in breach. This isn't a line item veto situation, and YOU are not qualified to say "well, that was just a little breach, and THIS was the most important piece of it". It wasn't. It's just made to sound like it was today, since.....like I said....that's the ONLY line anyone can hold onto and say "look at me, I'm right, and Bush is wrong". He's holding 100 lines....you're holding 1....and you declare victory. lunacy.

Don't blame the cops for enforcing the law, and killing someone. Blame the fucker who broke the law, OR, the one who was suspected of breaking the law, but rather than letting the cops come in, and VINDICATE himself.....he plays tough, waves a gun in the window, and gets himself killed.

Generally agreed. Not in the debate. No points.

You said this enough times. Taking my post, line by line, is an instant sign that, rather than discussing the point, you want to nit pick and bicker, rather than address what was said. To dismiss my "not in the debate, no points" statement means that I guess I'm off topic, right?

how is that again? Regardless of whether you've said it yet or not, you believe bush is a liar, the war is wrong AND illegal (and when I say illegal, that's something the UNSC and general assembly would POINT OUT....which they have not), that everything is a conspiracy, that everything was falsified, and that the current administration is evil.

My points, in advance, counter all of that.

"Each state is sovereign" applies to land and boundaries. Once you violate a UNSC resolution, you are NOT sovereign. You are now property of the UNSC, and they will do with you what they wish. Send inspectors, send peace keepers, send armies. And, according to the UN charter, the UNSC makes the rules, period. Violate the rules.....and it's your ass. Iraq broke the law. We busted their ass. Fair and square. If WMD was wrong....again....I'll take a 90% correct resolution (and actually, there's 70+ or so UNSC resolutions Iraq is/WAS in breach of) and get things done.

"No points, everyone agrees"......such bullshit. If you actually agreed with the things you are quoting and saying we can move on from......then you'd be on my side, and you'd agree with me, totally.

In summary....

I still have 100's more. Material breach. Inspectors loss of access. Firing in the no-fly zone. Oil-for-food abuses. Human rights violations.

You can have those. They are not worth any argument points. Our government didn’t lie about them so I didn’t address them. Why would I argue about something that’s generally agreed upon?

......?

We went to war for all of the above. Not one reason. Dozens of reasons. That's the argument, that's my point, that's my debate. Dismissing it as irrelevant because it's agreed on is your ADMISSION that you AGREE with the reasons for going to war.

Now....we all KNOW you didn't mean to say that. But you certainly just did. So fix it.

**MotoZ** · 05-04-07, 05:52 PM

You are correct, we went to war for material breach, inspectors loss of access, firing in the no-fly zone, oil-for-food abuses, human rights violations, and the like. But those issues were debated before the UNSC during the summer and fall of 2002 and the world could not come to an agreement to attack Iraq on those grounds alone. Those were known issues that the UNSC wanted desperately to solve through diplomacy. So I didn’t choose that those issues were not persuasive or material enough to invade Iraq – the UNSC did.

After the U.S. could not persuade the UNSC to ratify an attack Iraq on those grounds the Bush administration turned up the heat by introducing the specter of nuclear weapons. The UNSC, faced with the nuclear specter, passed resolution 1441, which you posted above. After resolution 1441 the US brought its most reputable soldier, Colin Powell, to the UN to present the US findings regarding material omissions, i.e. breaches, on Iraq’s weapons disclosure. And, for added credibility, they seated George Tenet, then head of the CIA, behind Mr. Powell. George Bush reiterated the nuclear specter in his State of Union address a few weeks later.

Then, after the US scared the world enough, we were allowed to attack Iraq. And once we were in we said, whoops, no WMD. Sorry. And the nuke stuff – sorry. That was based on a forged document.

So the nuclear issue is the issue, and you gave it to me. And I didn’t dismiss the other issues as immaterial, the UNSC did.

But, right or wrong, that is all history. I still want to know why we really went into Iraq. Some say that Bush has a grudge against Saddam due to Iraq I. While that may be true, I don’t think Bush is small-minded or selfish enough to put our soldiers on the line to carry out his grudge. So common sense tells me there is another reason. Another good reason. And if Bush would have told the truth as to why we need to be in Iraq then America would have been behind him. But he didn’t tell the truth. He lied. And put a nuclear scarecrow on a stick and waved it around. And now America is in a war in Iraq and doesn’t know why. And we point the finger at Bush.

Respectfully submitted.

**...bigdog...** · 05-04-07, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

But those issues were debated before the UNSC during the summer and fall of 2002 and the world could not come to an agreement to attack Iraq on those grounds alone....

After the U.S. could not persuade the UNSC to ratify an attack Iraq on those grounds the Bush administration turned up the heat by introducing the specter of nuclear weapons. ....

But, right or wrong, that is all history. I still want to know why we really went into Iraq....

so....though the history lesson is certainly needed for some lesser participants in this discussion....I don't need it.

the UNSC does not HAVE to authorize enforcement of resolutions. The mere existence, and subsequent BREACH of a resolution justifies the action. Plain and simple. You break the resolution, you breach the law, and you suffer serious consequences. In 1441. In nearly every broken Iraq resolution prior. Any member of the UNSC, and maybe even the general assembly, is 100% authorized to ENFORCE UNSC resolutionsm assuming they stay within international laws and conventions to do so.

We did that, we enforced the resolutions nobody else had the nuts enough to do, and we blew up Iraq. That's it.

The only true criticism of the process we went to war with Iraq, that I see, is how come SOME resolutions are enforced, and others aren't?

the easy examples would be Iran, North Korea, Darfur, Sudan, Somalia.......

General Assembly legislation counts for nothing, so the pending resolutions against israel are rhetorical (but I feel just as applicable). Same goes for Pakistan and India.....breaching the non-proliferation treaties THEY SIGNED.

But as per the charter, and as per the LAW, you breach the UNSC, and you suffer "serious consequences". It is not required for them to be spelled out, unless the UNSC specifically wishes to limit such consequences.

They didn't.....so war, by definition, is a "serious consequence". And it doesn't matter if Sadaam was late on his child support, or if he was downloading pirated copies of fucking windows......if it's in the resolution that it's bad....and he does it anyway....it's his ass. He knew this. It's his responsibility. Not ours. The "reason" we went to war is pretty clear.

Breach = enforcement.

**Potemkine** · 05-05-07, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Breach = enforcement.

And unfortuneatly, because the UN is a bunch of pansies, they arent going to do anything. They are going to rely on us, (the US and to an extent the UK) to do the work. Then WE get the bad rap for going in and enforcing the the rules. WOW DOESNT THAT SEEM A BIT HYPOCRITICAL?

"I have never advocated war unless it is a means to peace" U. S. Grant. Sometimes we have to go to war to have peace. Somalia, Lebonon, Yugoslavia, the list goes on.