John Kerry for President!!!!!

“I figure this is a good place to post a blast from the past regarding Bush "making America safer".

Remember how Bush decided not to attack Zarqawi because it would undermine his case for war? Do you feel safer as a result?”

“Violin? The UNITED NATIONS (not the U.S., who cares about the U.S. right now in this discussion?) SAID IRAQ HAD UNACCOUNTED FOR WMDs THAT IRAQ WAS PREVIOUSLY "KNOWN" TO HAVE! Why else do you think they were in violation? Did you read the "unbiased" stuff I just posted?

"The chief UN arm inspector Hans Blix has told the United Nations Security Council that Iraq still needs to provide evidence to back its claims it does not possess banned weapons. - Hans Blix

"In early December 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN. After reviewing the document, U.N. weapons inspectors, the U.S., France, Britain and other countries felt that this declaration failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.""


What part of that is "United States claims only"? I'm lost. It doesn't matter what claims the United States made, we're talking Hans Blix and the United Nations saying this, even freakin' FRANCE!”

“"his opinion is false"

Buddha Bear -

Someone who makes statements like this shouldn't be talking giving other people training wheels, thank you for proving my point.

Here's a little lesson for you from elementary school BB -

Opinions are held beliefs, they are neither inherently true or false.”

“Great speech about having a strong military from a guy who:

1. Opposed the Patriot Missile, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the B2 Stealth Bomber

2. Voted to cancel or cut spending on the M1 Abrams tank, the Apache helicopter and a variety of Jet fighters.

3. Introduced a bill in 1996 to cut the deficit that cut spending on defense and intelligence by $6.5 billion.

Just how do you intend for America to defend herself Mr. Kerry? By throwing empty jars of Grey Poupon at the bad guys?”

“"empty jars of Grey Poupon at the bad guys?"

Savage
03:16:06 PM
09/22/04

Excellent Savage, much more inventive than Zell.

Buck - As BB would say what use is it to keep throwing facts up against a brick wall :)”

“Violin (and Treebeard?), please read this CNN story on Hans Blix and the UNACCOUNTED WMDs Iraq was KNOWN to have.

This is CNN



Blix: Iraq can't account for deadly gas, germs

Monday, January 27, 2003 Posted: 5:04 PM EST (2204 GMT)

CNN) -- The chief U.N. weapons inspector said on Monday that Iraq could not account for stocks of anthrax and a deadly nerve gas that it said it had destroyed.

Hans Blix made his remarks to the U.N. Security Council, which in November passed a resolution ordering Baghdad to disclose all weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

The progress report, which followed 60 days of weapons inspections, indicated that there were discrepancies between what inspectors found and what Iraq declared in a report to the United Nations.

For example, Baghdad admitted producing 8,500 liters of anthrax, but said they were destroyed in 1991, Blix said.

"[Yet] there are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist," Blix said.

Moreover, Iraqi documents indicate that Iraq produced a higher grade of the poison gas VX than previously admitted, which might have been used in weapons production, Blix said.

In addition, Blix said several thousand chemical rockets like those inspectors discovered earlier this month remain unaccounted for, and about 3,000 pages of documents relating largely to uranium enrichment programs are in the possession of an Iraqi scientist.

"Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/”

“Treebeard, there is hope for your sons. :^D”

“Buck - You're off on a wild tangent.

I wrote: "Some of the ommisions in the Iraq declaration cited by the US included failure to account for mobil weapons labs, aerial chemical/biological agent spraying programs and nuclear material procurement from Niger."

To which you responded: "Violin? The "omissions" by the Iraqis were previously "known" WMDs documented by the United Nations, not some U.S. accusation omissions. These were United Nations dealings, not United Sates dealings."


Bush never did go back to the UN for a vote authorizing force, even though he promised to, because he had bugged their consulates and knew he would lose. This was not a UN sanctioned war and you know it.”

“This election is a win/win for me. If Bush wins I get to sit back and be a sore winner and yell “HAHA! Nanny nanny booboo!” for four years, or Kerry wins and get four straight years of saying, “Way to go guys!” every time he screws the pooch. I think Buddha Bush will either leave the country or just explode if Bush wins. Again, win/win.

Come on November!”

“Violin, we (at least I was) were discussing "omissions" in the Iraqi declarations given to the United Nations.

Iraq had known WMDs that weren't accounted for in their submission to the United Nations. That wasn't something the United States fabricated. And Saddam continued to refuse to account for them. We don't take the word of a guy like Saddam when he's in international violation of unaccounted for WMDs. Not even John Kerry took Saddam's word for it (at least not back then, that was the old John Kerry).”

“So again Nigal - Vote your conscience and write in Lieberman. That must be a win-win-win.”

“No I have to go for the BIG win and keep Kerry out of power.”

“Vote for Kerry
if you hate America and want to die soon
By J.D. Stone

Last week our great Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney eloquently told the American people that if they made the mistake of electing John Kerry as president that deadly terrorist attacks were sure to follow.

Being a great supporter of the Cheney/Bush administration (aka the "Dick in the Bush" regime), I got to thinking about what other tragedies might befall the American people if we were to make the grave mistake of putting our electoral muscle behind John Kerry instead of George W. Bush.

The following list itemizes many other bad things that are quite likely to happen to YOU if you vote for John Kerry:

X If you vote for John Kerry it is very likely that you will start getting extreme body odor that would ruin any social life you might have.

X If you vote for John Kerry it is very likely that your dog will die.

X All men who vote for John Kerry can expect a bad case of erectile dysfunction.

X If you vote for John Kerry, Osama bin Laden will pay a personal visit to your house and, along with Willie Horton, gang rape your loved ones.

X If you vote for John Kerry and you are a Yankee fan it is very likely that the Red Sox will win the World Series this year.

X If you vote for John Kerry and you are a Red Sox fan it is very likely that the Yankees will win the World Series this year.

X If you vote for John Kerry your TV will break.

X If you vote for John Kerry you will lose your job.

X If you vote for John Kerry it is quite likely you will begin flip-flopping on all major decisions.

X And if you vote for John Kerry you will become homosexual and want to move to Massachusetts to marry a same-sex partner.

So, if you were of the opinion that this election didn't mean much to you personally, think again! Be a patriot and don't let fear get the better of you, join the team and vote for four more years of "Dick in the Bush."

*Paid for by Bush/Cheney 2004 - Operation Sensitive Destruction”

“I'm Nigal J. McGilicutty and I aprove this messge.”

“Man, I love the name McGillicuddy. I'm jealous, Nigal.”

“The only reason to be jealous of Nigal is if you are a drooling overweight copperfiliac, and you wanted the world title in the aforementioned categories. Otherwise, I'd stick to rooting for the jayhawks, who have much more chance of being a winner (and that ain't sayin' much folks).”

“Bush’s mistakes are as follows:

Trying to enforce an UN resolution without authorization.

---Yes, Iraq and Saddam were in many violations of the UN. 1441 outlined that IF Iraq didn't comply and show accountability for WMD, there would be a serious situation they would have to deal with. ---

*I know that I paraphrase here, but that was about the jest of it. Problem is that 1441 didn't say, "comply or we're coming in there to kick your ass". That requires another resolution, which we did want to have, because the votes were not there. We discredited the UN and went in any way. Remember, Iraqi had to show that they were in compliance, which they submitted documentation, which was dismissed. Both of these situations stood in the way for a speeding ass kicking that was felt was necessary for *Joe Bubba* back in the states, because we here -- when something like 9/11 happens, we want someone’s ass and Afghani wasn't good enough. Which leads me to --

Trying to fight an unconventional war, conventionally.

----As it is clearly pointed out at nassium on this board, this war is something we have never fought before on this scale. When confronted with this type of warfare...like the Beirut situation, our stand was to turn tail and run. That was Reagan’s fault and gave fuel to the terrorists back then for future events, both against Israel and us. Now, America only knows one, or two ways to fight a war: Conventionally by putting asses on the ground and kicking those that oppose you, or - like what we did with the Russians - out build your enemy so they'll give up. Both of these solutions fail in the post 9/11 worlds to combat the WTO. This is almost the same type of thing that happened when the Brits tried to take out the *patriots* of America. I put that in asterisks because during that situation, the Brits looked at us as terrorists, just like we look down on those fighting this war. At this point, let's leave this subject for a future debate and stick to the topic. At the heart of my point, the Bush Admin failed to realize what it would take to deal with the WTO and decided to, on purpose, destabilize Iraq to draw the *terrorists* to that part of the world, so that we could fight them conventionally. Saddam is just a puppet, like he has always been to us, in this situation. Again, we used him to further our own cause. He was a convenient pasty; everyone here hates him and it would be an easy sell on the idea. Main problem with this situation, is that *they* called our bluff and now we have a possible civil war. Again, the Bush people thought that this would be a cake walk and never thought in their wildest dreams, as backed up with recent reports, that this would ever happen.


----Saddam has been stalling and invading the inspectors for 11 years. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power ---

I'm real sick of this line. Its bullchit in it's purest from and at best, a real shabby attempt to sugar coat what's going on. Why? Well, over 11 years, if you want to say that - bison - that spans 3 Presidents foreign policies. Out of the 3, Bush I kicked Saddam's ass out of Kuwait (and a very good thing!). Remember, Bush I didn't *finish the job* because the UN resolution didn't call for that. GASP! We followed the rules? Oh my! (and might I add that this is now called *cow towing* to the UN. pluzzze). Clinton had a different policy toward Iraq, for whatever the case argue that later. MY point is that you, as the President, cannot point to and use, another President's foreign policy to use as your own! Bush II should have made it know, in his policy that he would nation build if he had to. In fact, he pointed to the Dems during the last election and painted them as nation builders and that it was a bad thing! WoW! Go friggin` figure. Why? Because we had a little situation that happened to turn out good called *the Serbian conflict* and America, at that time, scorned Americans loosing their lives for another countries *liberation*. This shows again, that he was not prepared to deal with anything like this -- he had no foreign policy towards Iraq! Now he does, because he's knee deep in it and it's only gettin deeper.

Folks, this situation, no matter what side of the fence you are at, sucks and it possibly could have turned out a different way, had the Bush Admin did things in the right way. The cowboy thing worked for Reagan cuz he sold it - it ain't working now. If the Repubs on this board say, "well, screw the rest of the world", I will point out that we have interacted on many levels with the rest of the world and have done some great things in the past. With our actions presently, it shoots all of that in the foot. We are part of the world community, whether you like it or not and really - it's not up for you to totally choose! I feel very comfortable voting for someone like Kerry, yes, Kerry, because just like back in the day when the USA phucked up under Carter, we made a change. We as a people felt that he wasn't cuttin it. I know that their was other *factors* but understand that those factors would not have played a role if Carter was a strong President.



What's the solution?

Well, you ain't gonna like it and I stand a chance on burying my rep here, but if that's the case, so be it.

1. Hold Israel to the same levels that we want to hold the Arabs to and enforce it, though the UN. You do this; you've won about 50% of the battle on the WTO. I guarantee it. The rest is down hill after that, because you castrate all of the Imams out there preaching (and using their *peaceful religion*, I say *peaceful* because we do the same thing through our countries dominate religion) "death to America"! Hell, talk about "reverse-terrorism"! Hit them INSIDE the *untouchable area* - the Mosque!

2. Ask the countries around Iraq, those who stand to be impacted by our actions in Iraq, to be a part of the stabilization force in Iraq. Yep, even Iran.

3. Realize that 3rd world countries see the only way to power (read: Being able to be noticed by the US and to stand up to the US), it through Nukes. Any Arab country even sez the world *nuke*, we listen. Develop new ways to assist these countries to proved power and resources, without he use of nuclear technology. We have a lot of bright people here looking fer work.

3. Shed the *we are the best, you all suck* theme. Hey! This has nothing to do with *surrendering* anything. If anything, becoming *one* with the world shows that we are not *untouchable* and want to lead into the world into the future, not kick the hell outta ya if you don't follow; that's soooooo 20th century!

4. Understand the fact that the rules apply to EVERYONE. There should not be separate rules for them and us. This is like telling your kid it's wrong to lie, but telling them to tell the telemarketer on the phone that you're not home when they call. Double standard breeds hypocrisy, no matter the level.



I don't profess to know all of the answers, but I do profess that I see the symptoms of our actions. Until we all realize just what our standing is in the world, and we're not that high people, we will be - as asspac so dutifully put it - reaping what we sow. That might work for people who have an interested in the war profiteers, but not for me.”

““Well, Bison, the FACT is, there was no WMD's, Bush lied when he said it was a fact, and therefore his opinion is false.”
Buddha Bear

I guess it really is that simple to some, even though Kay, US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, and many others all had have publicly stated that they had reason to suspect WMD. So, …what buddha? You think Bush went to Iraq incognito, personally gathered his own data, saw that there were no WMD, then came back and lied? Or are you accusing all of his sources, WHO HAVE PUBLICLY STATED that they suspected WMD, and just accidentally refer to them collectively as Bush? Are you roseymonster’s twin??"


“This was not a UN sanctioned war and you know it."
Violin

When has the UN EVER sanctioned war? And why does this matter? The UN has enough problems as a completely corrupt institution that was selling perfume to Iraq under the umbrella of their “Food for Oil” program. Why do some insist of deferring to an institution that kicks the US off its Human Rights Commission and replaces it with Sudan?



Buddha mentions talking to a brick wall. I know the feeling. Although I don’t care if people agree with me or not. I can’t teach anyone anything they aren’t willing to learn for themselves. And I don’t have much respect for the logical reasoning capacity of most people. It’s a view that keeps getting reinforced by reading many of these posts.



Hey, how about Dan Rather? Remember him? The book Bias talks about his arrogant partisan views. Now he’s embroiled in a scandal involving said same views. But the libs will have a spin they can put on that that allows them to completely deny “liberal” bias in the media. Talk about a brick wall.”

“why are you folks arguing over what is, and what isnt. Iraq is war profiteering. period.”

“"When has the UN EVER sanctioned war? war? ....."

Arc - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Korean *conflict* a UN action?

Didn't the UN support/sanction the first Gulf War?”

“I feel safer. What makes you feel less safe?”

“Here we go laqtis:


Korean War


June 25, 1950
At approximately 4 a.m. (Korean Standard Time) on a rainy Sunday morning Democratic People's Republic of Korea Army (DPRK - North Korea) artillery and mortars open fire on Republic of Korea (ROK - South Korea) Army positions south of the 38th Parallel, the line then serving as the border between the two countries. The opening barrage is followed shortly by tank/infantry attacks at all points along the Parallel. At 11 a.m. North Korea announced a formal declaration of war and what is now known as "The Korean War" officially began. In this announcement North Korea claimed ROK forces on the Ongjin Peninsula attacked North Korea in the Haeju area (west) and their declaration of war was in response to this attack. This claim was bogus.
U.S. President Harry S. Truman was notified of the invasion and returned from his home in Independence, Missouri, to Washington, D.C., arriving in early afternoon. Meanwhile the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to north of the 38th Parallel.

June 26, 1950
Uijongbu falls to North Korean forces. South Korean government - President Syngman Rhee and cabinet - leave Seoul for Taejon.
President Truman meets with State Department and Defense Department officials. He authorizes General Douglas MacArthur to:
(1) send ammunition and equipment to prevent the loss of Seoul,
(2) provide ships and aircraft to evacuate American citizens, plus Air Force fighters and Navy ships to protect the evacuation, and
(3) send a survey party to Korea to study the situation and determine how best to help the ROK government and military. Later in the day President Truman expanded his instructions by ordering General MacArthur to use Air Force aircraft and Navy ships against all North Korean military targets south the 38th Parallel. General MacArthur issues an "alert order" telling all combat units in the Far East to prepare for possible deployment to Korea.

June 27, 1950
U.S. Ambassador Muccio & staff leave Seoul for Suwon. ROK Army headquarters leave Seoul for Sihung-ni (about 5 miles south of Yongdungp'o) without informing their U.S. advisors with the Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG.) KMAG follows ROKA Hq to Sihung-ni shortly thereafter. After discussions, most of ROKA Hq and KMAG return to Seoul a few hours later.
During the late evening, the U.N. Security council passes a resolution calling for member nations to give military aid to South Korea.

July 7, 1950
The UN Security Council passes its third resolution asking the United States to name the commander for UN Forces in Korea.

July 8, 1950
President Truman names Gen. Douglas MacArthur as Commanding General of United nations Military Forces and directs him to use the United Nations Flag, concurrently with the flags of the various nations participating, in the course of operations against North Korean Forces.

July 27
The United States, North Korea and China sign an armistice, which ends the war but fails to bring about a permanent peace. To date, the Republic of Korea (South) and Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (North) have not signed a peace treaty. North and South Korea did sign a non-aggression treaty in 1991.

The Security Council was often crippled by vetos, which by the end of 1955 had been used 78 times, 75 of them by the Soviet Union. At that time the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council because of the UN refusal to admit the People's Republic of China as a member. Since the USSR was not present to cast a veto, the Security Council was enabled to establish armed forces to repel the North Korean attack on South Korea

In answer to your question, laqtis, yes the UN actually sanctioned a war in 1950. The UN sanctioned the Korean War AFTER the US unilaterally decided to invade. As is the case today with squabbling nations, the UN would not have been able to sanction that war if the USSR had been present.





Gulf War


1990
Iraq invades its tiny neighbor, Kuwait, after talks break down over oil production and debt repayment. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein later annexes Kuwait and declares it a 19th province of Iraq
(Aug. 2). President Bush believes that Iraq intends to invade Saudi Arabia and take control of the region's oil supplies. He begins organizing a multinational coalition to seek Kuwait's freedom and restoration of its legitimate government. The UN Security Council authorizes economic sanctions against Iraq. Bush orders U.S. troops to protect Saudi Arabia at the Saudis' request and “Operation Desert Shield” begins
(Aug. 6). 230,000 American troops arrive in Saudi Arabia to take defensive action, but when Iraq continues a huge military buildup in Kuwait, the President orders an additional 200,000 troops deployed to prepare for a possible offensive action by the U.S.-led coalition forces. He subsequently obtains a UN Security Council resolution setting a Jan. 15, 1991 deadline for Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait (Nov. 8).
1991
Bush wins congressional approval for his position with the most devastating air assault in history against military targets in Iraq and Kuwait (Jan. 16). He rejects a Soviet-Iraq peace plan for a gradual withdrawal that does not comply with all the UN resolutions and gives Iraq an ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait by noon Feb. 23 (Feb. 22). The president orders the ground war to begin (Feb. 24).

In answer to your question, laqtis, no the UN did not sanction the Gulf War. The US unilaterally decided to invade after forming a coalition on its own.





Iraqi War

Saddam Hussein violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
 Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
 Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
 Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
 Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
 Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
 Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
 Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
 Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
 Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
 Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
 Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
 Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
 Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
 Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
 Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
 "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
 Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
 Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
 "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
 "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
 Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
 Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
 Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
 Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
 Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
 Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
 "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
 Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
 Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
 Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
 "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
 "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
 Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
 "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
 Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
 "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
 Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
 "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
 Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
 "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
 Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
 Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
 Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
 Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
 Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

“In regard to international law the U.S. government has taken the position that the government of Iraq is in “material breach” of the UN Security Council resolutions which provided the legal framework for ending the 1990–91 Gulf War. The U.S. government therefore claims that it is legally entitled to go to war to force Iraqi compliance. Of the five national governments which are permanent members of the UN Security Council and therefore have the procedural means (veto power) for sovereign decision-making at the UN, three—France, Russia, and China—have equivocated about whether they agree with the U.S. position that Iraq was in material breach of relevant Security Council resolutions.
That is, they equivocated until November 8, 2002. On November 8 the fifteen members of the UN Security Council voted unanimously in support of a new legal document, Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 stipulates that Iraq is and has been in material breach of all (about fifteen) Security Council resolutions pertinent to the 1990–91 Gulf War.”


This did not authorize the US to use force but it sure created some legal “wiggle room.”



The UN didn’t authorize the Vietnam War. The UN didn’t authorize the Bay of Pigs. The UN didn’t authorize the use of force during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The UN didn’t authorize the US invasion of Grenada. The UN didn’t authorize a US invasion of Iran to rescue the hostages. The UN didn’t authorize the US invasion of Panama to capture General Noriega. The UN didn’t authorize the NATO bombing in Serbia. The UN didn’t authorize the June 26, 1993 bombing of downtown Baghdad by the US. The UN didn’t authorize the August 20,1998 attacks on "terrorist related facilities" in Afghanistan, bin Laden’s country of residence, and Sudan by the U.S. military. The UN didn’t authorize the December 16, 1998 three-day bombing attack against Iraq after Saddam Hussein refuses to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

So what you’re saying, laqtis is that our unauthorized use of force in Iraq was an unconscionable action by the US? Or are you just tired of our long history of unilateral actions?

And how about that UN? The UN has suffered severe setbacks in East Timor and Sierra Leone. The UN has ignored bloodshed in Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. The UN has completely failed its missions in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda. You do know something about the “food-for-oil” scandal investigation don’t you? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The UN is a corrupt organization. Does anyone doubt this?

Now a good case can be made for getting consensus on world affairs. It is true that Bush failed to do this and Po’d some folks. Folks like China, which is seriously thinking about unilaterally invading Taiwan. Like Russia that is unilaterally waging a war against Chechen rebels despite world condemnation. And let’s not forget the French. Yessir, those lovable ragamuffins who helped create a war in Vietnam, then bailed. Who helped create genocide in Rwanda, then bailed. Who profited by selling perfume to Iraq during the UN “oil for food” program, then condemned us for ending their lucrative little venture without their permission. Yes, a good case can be made for getting consensus on world affairs. But I believe that a good case can also be made against consensus with countries like this in some instances.”

“Plain and simple, this guy's head is too oblong to be president. I can't stand looking at him now, nevermind for 4 years.

Besides, his wife was a republican when her first husband was alive. She just can't switch sides like that. She's a hypocrite.”

“Dammit arclite, stop bothering Buddha Bear and Laqtis with the facts.”

“I keep wishing for a miracle and that FDR would come back from the dead and be the President forever.”

“In my best Joey voice *Ahem* -

Whoaaa!

Remember Blossom?!? She was hot, but I digress.....



You asked if the UN ever sactioned a war. I asked "What about Korea? What about the first Gulf War?"

In which you so greatfully confirmed my point. Thank you and I owe you one!

Now, on to bigger things!

I say - So what? Well:

The UN didn’t authorize the Vietnam War.

Q sez agreed, but so what? What does this have to do with the subject?


The UN didn’t authorize the Bay of Pigs.

Q sez agreed, but so what? Really, didn't we protest to the UN? This was a direct threat to our soil, not some lilly-livered hodge bogged assertion. Are you just drawing this line because Powell looked like that dude that present the USSR threat back then? Surely I jest, but don't call me Shirley!



The UN didn’t authorize the use of force during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Q sez agreed, but so what? Really, didn't we protest to the UN? This was a direct threat to our soil, not some lilly-livered hodge bogged assertion. Are you just drawing this line because Powell looked like that dude that present the USSR threat back then? Surely I jest, but don't call me Shirley!



The UN didn’t authorize the US invasion of Grenada.

Q sez agreed, but so what? And after this and the other actions, ie. Iran, Panama, we passed legislation stating that we could no longer take out heads of government! UN fault? Maybe! LOL!



The UN didn’t authorize a US invasion of Iran to rescue the hostages.

Q sez agreed, but so what? And after this and the other actions, ie. Iran, Panama, we passed legislation stating that we could no longer take out heads of government! UN fault? Maybe! LOL!



The UN didn’t authorize the US invasion of Panama to capture General Noriega.

Q sez agreed, but so what? And after this and the other actions, ie. Iran, Panama, we passed legislation stating that we could no longer take out heads of government! UN fault? Maybe! LOL!


The UN didn’t authorize the NATO bombing in Serbia.


Q sez agreed, but so what? You mean to tell me that there was no resoulations comdeming Solbo? Tere was no resolutions stating that if he continued, there was going to be some serious chit come his way? You mean to tell me that the UN didn't tell him, either through the NATO or the US, that if he continued, we were coming inthere to kick his ass? You mean to tell me that the UN didn't approve of our action?


The UN didn’t authorize the June 26, 1993 bombing of downtown Baghdad by the US.

Q sez not agreed, but so what? Dood, wasn;t this *covered* by our surrender tready with them, that we controlled the skys so as along Saddam was in power? Why would we need to get aporal from teh UN, when we already had approval?

The UN didn’t authorize the August 20,1998 attacks on "terrorist related facilities" in Afghanistan, bin Laden’s country of residence, and Sudan by the U.S. military. The UN didn’t authorize the December 16, 1998 three-day bombing attack against Iraq after Saddam Hussein refuses to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.


Q sez agreed, but so what? Which one we going with? One outta the three you listed was already covered by UN action, Iraq. Why else would we bomb them for shunning the UN? We that bad? LOL!

Dood - the other two, well ,I seem to remember, and after this tasty bottle of red I could very well be wrong, that the UN approved of our action those situations, either through resolutions or otherwise.

I'm gad that we agree that Bush screwed up Royale! He has no dipolmacy what so ever. He's got Powell doing photo opps with a cat, for god's sake! That man, lke Jame Baker, should be onhis plane, cooling things down! Remember the *good old days*, where when ever there was a problem (read: we had to pay off some dictator because he was making too much noise?), we'd send our bag man, I mean our Sec. of State to go and pay them off, I mean set up negotiations?

hehehee. I wish that we were in the same time zone, arcie old boy! I've got to rise early in the morning (and I have to get up too!), so I'll read ya tomorrow.

Have a great night!”

“Lipstick, do you know for a fact that Teresa Heinz was a registered Republican when she was married to John Heinz? And, do we know what her affiliation is now? She might still be a Republican who supports John Kerry.
As far as an oblong face is concerned, let's not be subjected to the chimpanzee for another four years, please.”

“Bush is my shepherd, I shall be in want.
He maketh me to lie down on park benches,
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my doubts about the Republican Party.
He leadeth me onto the paths of unemployment for His cronies sake.

Yea, though no weapons of mass destruction have been found, He maketh me to continue to fear Evil.
His tax cuts for the rich and His deficit spending discomfort me.
He annointest me with never-ending debt:
Verily, my days of savings and assets are kaput.
Surely poverty and hard living shall follow me all the days of His administration,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.”

“Laqtis, my buddy, let’s start with the facts:

The UN failed its peacekeeping missions in Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Iraq. These being just a few of its many failures.


Now let me understand your point of view:

You, John Kerry, violin, buddha, et. al. still think that getting UN authorization for invading Iraq would have made everything all better?


Let’s examine more factual information:

The UN authorizes the use of force for war one time in its history and what is the result? There is no peace treaty, fifty years of armed conflict between neighbors, and now we are left with a lunatic who threatens the world with nuclear weapons.

So you, John Kerry, et. al. STILL believe that getting UN approval was and is necessary?


Let me just shoot myself in the head so that I can achieve the proper mind-set necessary to understand THAT gem of logical deduction.






Oh by the way folks, Porter Goss of Florida was just confirmed to head the CIA! Now we’ll get some action!!! Now Al Qaeda will be brought to justice!!! Now that Florida is in charge of the CIA I expect to see Bin Laden hanging from a chad any day now.”

“Mornin` arc!!

"Now let me understand your point of view:

You, John Kerry, violin, buddha, et. al. still think that getting UN authorization for invading Iraq would have made everything all better?...."


Well, let's see. That's quite a grouping there! Would it have made the Iraqi thang better? Hmmm, good question and only one that can't not be answered with facts, only ASSumptions and speculation, which sucks because there are soooo many variables going into that. But I'll give this a shot any ways. Remember, this is all just IMHO!


I think that it is possible that the situation in Iraq could be a little better. Where you point out the failures of the UN, and I noticed that those failures mainly happened when the US was not involved, I will rely on the *successes* of the UN as a whole. Serbia, with major help from NATO, was a good thing to build upon. We went through a lot during that situation: brought a leader who slaughtered his own people, invaded another country to further his own will, who was doing the types of things that Hitler was doing to the Jews in WWII, had his own family involved in killing/executing people that were against him, had his own secret police, possessed a threat to the countries around him and threatened to destabilize eastern Europe! Saddam? Sounds very close to the same person in my opinion! Heck, didn't good old Slobo HAVE WMD left over from back in the day? I can't remember what the Russian gifted him.....

Any ways, us and our buddies, squabbling and all, took care of business and Solbo is now facing the music in the world court, a court that we don't even recognize anymore. At any rate, this is a large-scale operation that worked out. Yes, as some will point out, we still have a small force there, but that shows our commitment to making sure that situation is finished. We don't want to undo what we did there.

Getting back to Iraq and to directly answer you question, I say it is very possible things could be very different there. I understand the need to bloody the nose quickly of someone who sucker punched us; however, as we see now, the world is more unstable because of our action in Iraq because we didn't approach it correctly. To the world (and it's kinda funny that we have split our allies, just like we are split in our country), we appear to be too divided, too *cow boyish*. By having patience and going through the motions, we would possibly have more troops over there, show the Middle East that we are in fact united in taking care of that region and that we -- as the world -- will come together to deal with serious issues like we have done before in the past.

We would not be footing the bill alone for this war, which is troubling. Did you know that Bush is one of a very few, if any, Presidents that cut taxes during a war? Why in the heck would you slice out resources like that, when we need cash to fight this thing?

NATO, our *friends* are not even involved in Iraq, they are in Afghani, but not in Iraq. I find that very troubling, as Iraq is closer to them than Afghani! But again, this shows our split persona.

This is not *cow towing* to the UN, this is making sure that the UN can work. Yes, the UN has failed in areas, but they have provided an avenue where countries, small countries, can come and feel as though they can at least be heard, ask for help, etc. IMHO, I would like to see the UN become more of a NGO, than an IGO, where they focus on helping people around the world.

I present this also: If the UN isn't so important now, why did we just go to them, hat in hand, and ask them for help now? I'm sorry, dictated that they help now? Why should they help us now? That was a very stupid move and shows the arrogance of our President. This is like being on a hike, I take a HUGE dump, scatter blast and everything, hand you the shovel and towelette and say *Here, take care of this and me*. LOL!

I know I'm getting a little loooooong winded here, but really, I have no idea truly, 100% if it would have been better, who knows, it might have been worse! (YIKES!!) What I do know is that when I saw that second plane hit that second tower, I said out loud to the people around me "Whelp, next stop Iraq!” We were going in there Hell or high water, it was only a matter of time, nothing was going to stop us.

I’m one of those idiots that feel we should be part of the world community; that we should use our #1 standing for good. This whole Iraq thing was handled like a second grader would have done it.

Is John Kerry the answer? I’ll be real honest with you and say ‘I don’t know’. What I do know is that Bush is not a good leader, he’s not even a fair leader and will prolly go down in history as one of the worst ones we’ve had in a real long time, but that is for history to judge, not me.

Kerry, Kerry…..I think honestly that the Dems really missed a good opportunity here. They screwed up by not giving the people a good choice to Bush by throwing Gore up there last time. I think they might have screwed up again, as the horse race poll shows America still not too sure. I’d like to wait until after the debates happen, where neither one of them has a “loaded” audience to speak in front of. Like I’ve said before, I haven’t been able to vote ‘for’ someone in a real long time, which sucks!! My vote, again, is against another person. Yep, I did register as a Dem this time around, because I’m thinking of getting involved in this mess later on down the road. Not as a Dem, but get involved in a third party. I have plans to do my part. We’ll see!

Have a goot day, there arc! Get out there and show “tha man” that you care!

LOL!”

“Last Thursday I put out one of my Bush/Cheney signs in my front yard. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m. someone stole it. On Friday night I put out sign No. 2. Since I didn't have to get up early, I thought my dog and I would "stake out" our sign. This time I put the sign a little closer to the gate leading to my backyard. With my dog on an extra long leash, I planted myself on a lawn chair and read "Unfit for Command" by flashlight until about 1:00 a.m. Here comes the fun part . . . I noticed that the car coming down the street was slowing down and pulling over to the curb right next to my yard. Sure enough, he gets out of his car and heads right for my sign. Just as he was about to uproot and desecrate it, I opened my gate and let my dog make the initial introduction! As he ran to hide behind the rear end of his car, I promptly moved to the driver-side door, which was still open. It was a fairly nice car with power everything and still running. While my dog continued to "introduce" herself, I rolled up the window and hit the power door lock button. With that, I slammed the door, grabbed my Bush sign and headed into the back yard.

And now for the "rest of the story." About 40 minutes later, I heard a knock at the door. I opened the door to one of our city's finest . . . the Vancouver Police Department. The officer asked me what was going on and when I told him, he could not stop laughing! I followed him out to the perp's car and stood there while he asked the guy a few more questions. Upon learning that the guy lived a couple of streets down, I -- knowing what was about to happen -- asked him, "Why do you have Oregon plates on your car if you live just down the street (here in Vancouver, Wash.)?" Larry, Oregon has no sales tax, so often Washington residents will buy and register cars in Oregon to avoid paying sales tax . . . it's a crime and the fine is pretty stiff. Here comes the best part. . . . The look on this guy's face told me he knew he was about to get busted. When the officer asked for his license and registration, the "Democrat" mumbled that (his license) was suspended. Just for kicks and giggles I asked the officer if he smelled any alcohol coming from the guy! The officer looked at me, smiled and promptly gave him a field breathalyzer test. Guess what? You got it, he blew a .10, legally drunk in the state of Washington.

DUI, illegal registration and the brand of "MORON," all 'cause he hates Bush!

Sincerely,

John”

“Jeezus, how do you all read each other's babbling without falling asleep?”

“Dick Cheney is a Democrat?!”

“THIS ARTICLE FORWARED BY: http://Vets4Bush.com


John Kerry Does it Again
by Cal Thomas

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has achieved something that may be unique in the history of our country. He has managed to oppose two wars while they are being fought, undermine the objective of the nation and give aid and comfort to those who are killing American soldiers and kidnapping American civilians.

In a speech at New York University on Monday, Kerry questioned President Bush's judgment in ordering American troops to topple Saddam Hussein, saying the president had exchanged a brutal dictator for "chaos."

While acknowledging "there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, (and) schools, shops and hospitals have been opened, (and) in parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails," Kerry claimed that "most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence . . . instead of siding with us against the insurgents."

Kerry is an expert at fence-sitting, having sat on one most of his life. He has taken both sides in the war and tried even in this speech to distinguish between granting George W. Bush authority to wage war and reserving his right to micromanage the war the president wages if it doesn't immediately produce victory.

It wasn't long after Kerry returned from Vietnam that he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He slandered his fellow soldiers, calling them indiscriminate killers and comparing them to Genghis Kahn.

Returning prisoners of war said their North Vietnamese captors played excerpts from Kerry's congressional testimony in an attempt to break their morale and convince the POWs their country had abandoned them. Sound bites from Kerry's NYU speech could be played in certain mosques to persuade the insurgents and other Muslim extremists that all they have to do is step up the killing between now and the U.S. election and victory for them is assured. They have seen America cut and run before. Kerry's address may again provide aid and comfort to America's latest enemy.

Kerry claimed President Bush has offered "23 different rationales for this war." Even if that were true, he is still far behind the number of flip-flops committed by Kerry on the war and a long list of other issues.


Kerry once again returned to his pledge to seek help in Iraq and against terrorism (as if the two can be separated) from America's "allies," despite statements from many European leaders indicating that they will not become involved in Iraq no matter who wins the November election.

Kerry criticized the president for "colossal failures of judgment - and judgment is what we look for in a president." So is decisiveness, and Kerry fails on both counts. There is nothing in his Senate record, in his pronouncements during this campaign, or in much of his life story that gives voters confidence that this is a man with strong principles whose judgment and vision can be trusted. Instead, Kerry's life has been one of self-promotion and self-indulgence. As with the Vietnam War, he doesn't talk about victory, or America's unique place in the world to which free people, and those yearning for freedom, can look.

Terrorism didn't begin on September 11, 2001. It started earlier than the Beirut barracks attacks in 1983. It began in the hearts of evil men who preached about an angry god intent on wiping out his enemies through violent acts. That disease spread, and whether it found a host in Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, the virus exploded into a worldwide plague. Sen. Kerry's remarks were not about finding a cure to the plague but about surrendering to it, or taking diplomatic placebos hoping the disease will go away.

It won't go away, even if America withdraws from Iraq tomorrow. Had we not gone there in the first place, terrorism would still be around.

The objective should be victory. It was a word absent from Kerry's speech, because it is a concept foreign to a man who has demonstrated his preference - first with Vietnam and now with Iraq - to help America's enemies in times of crisis far more than helping his own country.”

“"Jeezus, how do you all read each other's babbling without falling asleep?......"

I built up stamina from reading yours!”

“I think we need a 100 word limit.”

“And let's limit the words to six letters or less, just to make it fair for fans of GW.”

“Maybe an 18-word limit would be best - it would cut out haiku graffiti.”

“Giving aid and comfort to the enemy... I sure do wish these unamerican repub-sluts would quit trying to characterize dissent in time of war as aid to the enemy.

Are they really that feebleminded?”

“Ya knop all these polls that they are taking? They don't include all of the newly registered voters since the past election. In Ohio, we've signed up about 200,000 people to vote since then. I wonder if those people would influence the polls?”

“Earlier in the summer when Kerry was leading, the liberals were flaunting the polls. Now that Bush is ahead, the polls are obviously inaccurate.”

“

The majority of the country isn't satisfied with how things are going in America at this time, and that number is rising. This will ultimately bite GWB in the a$$.”

“Oh, I see, somehow that graph isn't affected by the polling techniques you just criticized. Good grief, what a maroon.”

“I'll tell you what'll affect the polls, Karl Rove now has this gem from John Kerry on tape to use in TV ads -

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

- John Kerry


What is your position on the war in Iraq Senator?”

“Sorry Buddha, but the more Shrub screws things up, the higher he goes in the polls. At this rate he'll have a landslide by election day. That's more than a month away, and that's a lot of time to screw things up. Kerry doesn't stand a chance.”

“Laqtis, you are making this way too easy. Let me just deal with a couple of your points-



“I think that it is possible that the situation in Iraq could be a little better.”

laqtis


Whoa! Now there’s a news flash! Do you believe that Kerry’s just the man to make it better?



“Where you point out the failures of the UN, and I noticed that those failures mainly happened when the US was not involved…”

laqtis


What are you saying here? Without US leadership, the UN is just a bunch of screw-ups?



And here's where it really gets fun-


“I will rely on the *successes* of the UN as a whole. Serbia, with major help from NATO, was a good thing to build upon.”

laqtis


Let’s hop in our way-back machine Mr. Peabody. Here’s the way it went down:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~bosnia/doc/start.html

Excerpted from that website-

“For a short while in the first months of 1992, it appeared that the Yugoslav crises might, indeed, finally be settled peacefully. Representatives of the European Community and later the United Nations had spent many months trying to find a solution acceptable to Milosevic. Cyrus Vance, the chief United Nations negotiator, after months of foot dragging by Milosevic and the federal army, appeared to have convinced the Serbian and "federal" military leadership to agree to withdraw federal forces from Croatia. But peace was not to be, and what followed cast grave doubt that Milosevic and the federal military leadership had any intention of respecting UN or European Community-sponsored agreements. After considerable delay, the United Nations sent peace-keeping forces into the designated areas of Croatia, but none to Bosnia. The "Federal" and Serbian military and civilian leaders have blocked the repatriation of thousands of Croatians who were driven out of their homes and are claiming the right to determine which Croatians will be allowed into the areas they control. The federal army handed much of its heavy weaponry over to local Serbian militias in Croatia, who have put on the uniforms of local police forces allowed by the peace agreement. Efforts by UNPROFOR to collect weapons from Serbian forces in Croatia have been ineffectual and are hopelessly behind schedule. Because of the UN failure, the Croatian government has now launched military action to reestablish control over part of the occupied areas. The United Nations has been unsuccessful in overseeing the return of any but a small handful of Croatian refugees all of whom face dangerous and uncertain conditions. In the meantime the Belgrade regime and its allies in Bosnia-Hercegovina have launched a new war of aggression.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Croats were driven from their homes by the Serbian forces in a deliberate campaign of territorial conquest and ethnic purification. At the last count, the number of refugees from the Serbian war of destruction and extermination in Bosnia was approaching two million. [note: updated to 3.5 million by October 1995.] The "federal" military in Bosnia joined the fight on the side of the Serbian new-fascist legions and added its weaponry for the step-by-step destruction of Sarajevo. Whenever Bosnians and Croatians have been able to organize defense forces to resist the Serbian attacks, the systematic mass killing and ethnic cleansing of these two peoples have been prevented. In areas where the Bosnians handed over their weapons to the Yugoslav army or Serbian militias, the local non-Serbian population have been totally defenseless and has suffered mass atrocities. Areas which were well defended by local Bosnian Muslim and Croatian militias were spared this fate. Bosnian Muslim and Croatian forces have generally defended only areas where members of these nationalities are in a majority. They have not engaged in systematic ehtnic cleansing, and their actions have been largely defensive.
By imposing an arms embargo on all of former Yugoslavia by Resolution 713 on September 25, 1991, the United Nations Security Council effectively granted a monopoly on heavy weaponry and air power to the aggressors in the conflict, the "Yugoslav National Army" and the various Serbian and Montenegrin paramilitary forces supported by the army leadership.
The United Nations has failed to provide effective support for a just and democratic resolution of the crisis and has passed a number of ineffectual resolutions all of which have done nothing to stop the continued onslaught of Serbian military forces. On May 31, 1992, the United Nations imposed economic sanctions on the rump Yugoslavia or Serbia and Montenegro. This resolution for the first time singled out Yugoslavia or Serbia and the aggressor in the Bosnian conflict. The sanctions have created considerable economic discomfort in Serbia and Montegegro but have had little effect on Serbia's policy towards Bosnia-Hercegovina or the behavior of the Serbian forces in Bosnia. In summer of 1992, the United Nations belatedly began providing food and medical supplies to the hungry, sick and blockaded citizens of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities. The aid mission has done nothing to address the fundamental cause of hunger, disease, injury and death, which is the war itself. The United Nations forces sent to deliver humanitarian aid and monitor cease fire agreements have become virtual hostages. For months after the outbreak of the conflict United Nations officials failed to heed the many reports of ethnic cleansing, rape and mass killing being carried out by Serbian forces on a massive scale. In a similar fashion, the Bush administration for months suppressed daily reports of atrocities in Bosnia which were reaching the United States Embassy in Belgrade. Only after television news reporters showed the world public video footage of the appalling treatment of prisoners at Serbian run camps did United Nations officialdom or leaders of major world powers take notice of the problem. The arrival of Red Cross monitors and United Nations special missions have done little to change the situation. While some prisoners were released from the most notorious camps, many others were merely transferred to unknown locations or perhaps killed.


And YOU think that the UN was successful there?




Laqtis, one thing is absolutely crystal clear to me. It is that you have learned an important lesson of “liberal” theology:


"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

John Kenneth Galbraith





Personally, in order for me to consider myself a liberal, I actually feel that I need to keep an open mind to facts that contradict my opinions.


“An adult who ceases after youth to unlearn and relearn his facts and to reconsider his opinions…is a menace to a democratic community.”

Edward Thorndike




Your opinions very clearly state: That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Ah yes, the dogma of the open-minded “liberal.” You learn well, grasshopper.”

“I just looked up "broken record" in the dictionary and there was this picture!

”

“"Laqtis, you are making this way too easy....."

Always glad to help ya out there, arcie!


That's a cool pack! What is it?

I have no problem changing my mind. In fact, I did just a year ago when I stopped supporting our President in the Iraqi action, so I ain't all one way, pali!

It seems that I remember the things you cited; although it seems as though that info you present was gained during the process and does not have a "final result" of the action as a whole. However, do now know that the end result was a positive one and many people that could have been killed with a traditional "conventional" war, were not. Many people did loose there lives in this process and to me, that is most unfortunate and they should be mourned.

So let me ask this, answer man!

What would YOU do in this situation? I'm open to listen to what your stance would be inhow we wnet in, what to do now and in the future. I am always impressed with your insight on these kinds of issues and I feel it is a disservice to you for me to be monpolizing all of the "defense" time.

Remember, I did not say that I had all of the answers; I'm still searching! I do know that we have a major problem on our hands. Understand that I am not your "traditional" liberal; although I did grow up in the communial lifestyle, in typical young rebellion I first declared myself a Republican, much to the suprise of my folks, at age 8. I was a big Ford backer back in the day, dontcha know! The fact that I have now moved from "Indie" to Dem, is shearly to impress my wife in hopes of a little additional "nuge, nuge, say no more".



I jest, however, I will be switching back to my Indie status after I have gain enough knowledge from the Dems on how the Poli system runs from the inside. Even if Mr. Kerry finds a way to pull this thing out, I will always be an indie.

I would have joined the local Greens for this type of experiance; however, the head of the local Greens, Mr. Ness, just outted himself as a "transgendered" person, which is fine mind you - to each their own, and I feel that it would not give me the kind of *exposeur* I'm looking fer.


Let'er rip!”

“The war on terror being condicted by Bush isn't working! Shocking!

Correcting data, US says terrorism incidents increased in '03
By Barry Schweid, Associated Press |

WASHINGTON -- The State Department acknowledged yesterday it was wrong to report that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding that was used to boost one of President Bush's top foreign policy claims, success in countering terror.

ADVERTISEMENT
Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials asserting success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time; the facts that we had were wrong," department spokesman Richard Boucher said.



Did anyone else see this when it first broke?

Hey, in fact, terrorism is increasing since Bush jumped blindly into Iraq!

I DO FEEL SAFER!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/11/correcting_data_us_says_terrorism_incidents_increased_in_03/”