Maybe Bush didn't lie after all...

[glenn1]

I already gave you some. My point is that more information is necessary to reach credible conclusions. The most likely option is one based on best available evidence and a minimum of speculation. My alternatives . . . which could easily go into the double letter alphabet . . .

Sorry, but you and all your double digit alphabet alternatives lost the argument. I can't help you in that the overwhelming majority of the American people didn't and don't agree with you. The U.S. invaded, Saddam is either dead or as good as dead, and your alternatives are moot. Game, set, match. I suppose you have the pride of knowing in your heart of hearts that "i was right!" though.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Too lazy to do a search on the web?

http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org

this isn't hard to find

lol! When I asked for UN sources, not pro-Islamic sources, I presumed you were intelligent enough to figure that included other polemic political sources, such as anti-US or pro-Palestinian. Sorry, my mistake, won't happen again.

Not that I trust Pro-Palestinian sources to accurately summarize the thurst of UN Resolutions any more than Pro-Islamic, but it will do.

Notice anything different about the wording of these Resolutions compared with those imposed against Iraq?

"condemns Israel"

"recommends Israel"

"urges Israel to comply"

"censures Israel for"

"urges Israel"

"calls on Israel"

"deplores Israel's"

Every single one is a statement of "recommendation" or "condemnation". They carry no weight of law, no authority whatsoever. They are merely resolutions expressing some "opinion" of the United Nations.

There is a difference between a resolution which expresses some opinion and a resolution which imposes a mandate and carries the force of international law. The resolutions against Iraq imposed a mandate and carry the force of international law. The resolutions against Israel impose no mandate and amount to nothing more than a statement expressing some 'opinion' of the UN.

The United State Congress passes resolutions all the time, expressing an 'opinion' or 'sentiment' of the Congress, but have absolutely no authority or force of law.

Do you understand the difference between "we feel it would be a good idea for you to do this" and "you will do this or else"? Further, many of the UN resolutions Israel has already complied with, such as withdrawing from Lebanon.

What difference does it make? In the past the UN conducting things differently, they have evolved somewhat. But anyway these 'opinions of the UN' you describe are voted on by all the members of the security council. This is a 'world opinion'. Why don't you take a close look at some resolutions like 181, which was the original plan for Israel's borders. Now look at a map of Israel today after they occupied land which is, surprise, another series of resolutions by the UN for Israel to withdraw from but they ignore. How about resolution 194, saying Israel should let PAL refugees to go back home? Resolution 446 which says settlements are illegal. The list goes on... Why are you ignoring this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I already gave you some. My point is that more information is necessary to reach credible conclusions. The most likely option is one based on best available evidence and a minimum of speculation. My alternatives . . . which could easily go into the double letter alphabet . . .

Sorry, but you and all your double digit alphabet alternatives lost the argument. I can't help you in that the overwhelming majority of the American people didn't and don't agree with you. The U.S. invaded, Saddam is either dead or as good as dead, and your alternatives are moot. Game, set, match. I suppose you have the pride of knowing in your heart of hearts that "i was right!" though.

The overwhelming majority of another country were responsible for this

I suppose 200,000,000 Americans can't be wrong.

 

[glenn1]

The overwhelming majority of another country were responsible for this

I guess in 110 years we'll be able to make an impartial judgment.

I suppose 200,000,000 Americans can't be wrong.

I don't presume them to be wrong, whereas it seems you do. I think i'm on firmer footing presuming the collective judgement of 200,000,000 Americans is correct than you as a single American presuming they're wrong. But then, i guess for some people, democracy is a hard thing for them to accept, since they know so much better than everyone else what the "right" answers are (from A all the way up into the double letter alphabet).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The overwhelming majority of another country were responsible for this

I guess in 110 years we'll be able to make an impartial judgment.

I suppose 200,000,000 Americans can't be wrong.

I don't presume them to be wrong, whereas it seems you do. I think i'm on firmer footing presuming the collective judgement of 200,000,000 Americans is correct than you as a single American presuming they're wrong. But then, i guess for some people, democracy is a hard thing for them to accept, since they know so much better than everyone else what the "right" answers are (from A all the way up into the double letter alphabet).

Ok, well I suppose those 200,000,000 americans are enough to hide all the WMD's Bush claimed to know about. That explains it. NEWS FLASH. All those 200 mil people do not make a thing right, just popular.

 

[tcsenter]

What difference does it make?

Are you deef?

There is a difference between a resolution which expresses some opinion and a resolution which imposes a mandate and carries the force of international law. The resolutions against Iraq imposed a mandate and carry the force of international law. The resolutions against Israel impose no mandate and amount to nothing more than a statement expressing some 'opinion' of the UN.

The United State Congress passes resolutions all the time, expressing an 'opinion' or 'sentiment' of the Congress, but have absolutely no authority or force of law.

It really couldn't be any more clear.

But anyway these 'opinions of the UN' you describe are voted on by all the members of the security council. This is a 'world opinion'.

Wrong. Only a handful are UNSC resolutions, most were passed by the UN General Assembly, not Security Council members. In neither case does it matter because they are simply an expression of an opinion, nothing more.

Why don't you take a close look at some resolutions like 181, which was the original plan for Israel's borders. Now look at a map of Israel today after they occupied land which is, surprise, another series of resolutions by the UN for Israel to withdraw from but they ignore. How about resolution 194, saying Israel should let PAL refugees to go back home? Resolution 446 which says settlements are illegal. The list goes on... Why are you ignoring this?

I've looked at those. Israel was attacked by their neighboring Arab aggressors. There was a war, Isreal kicked major booty and took some land. Thems the breaks, kid.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Sorry, but you and all your double digit alphabet alternatives lost the argument. I can't help you in that the overwhelming majority of the American people didn't and don't agree with you. The U.S. invaded, Saddam is either dead or as good as dead, and your alternatives are moot. Game, set, match. I suppose you have the pride of knowing in your heart of hearts that "i was right!" though.

There's no argument . . . you say you have the answer and I say you have a plausible answer NOT the answer. In truth, what we have are a lot more questions. The overwelming majority of Americans changed their position "necessity of war with Iraq" from November 2002 to March 2003 despite NO additional evidence. We received more propaganda but nothing credible to sustain the basic argument.

Saddam no like US.
9/11
Saddam bad man.
9/11
Saddam use bad weapons in the past.
9/11
Saddam tried to kill my daddy.
9/11
Saddam must be stopped.
If only we could have stopped the 9/11 turrurists . . .
. . . but we can stop Saddam before a mushroom cloud engulfs a US city.

Saddam was an undeniable threat to long term regional stability, a threat to the future US supply of Gulf oil, a beacon for Gulf animosity directed at the US (trailing only to Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, and UBL himself), a true POS dictator, and otherwise unsavory person. But we did not invade based on facts . . . we invaded based on fear of a future catastrophic attack on the US being launched by terrorists associated with Saddam's regime. No proof . . . just fear.

I have no pride b/c my country suffers from poor leadership. I have no pride as US soldiers toil under unnecessarily hostile conditions. I have no pride as Bush destroys our well-deserved reputation as a moral leader in the world. I have no pride as we pay billions to low rent regimes (Musharraf) while schools at home go underfunded. I have no pride as we write a constitution for Iraq guaranteeing universal healthcare and education as basic rights but Americans get no such consideration at home. What you don't understand is I grudgingly want Bush to be right (not b/c I like Bush or his politics but b/c it's in my country's best interest that he's right) . . . but best evidence (to date) intimates he's horribly wrong.

 

[glenn1]

All those 200 mil people do not make a thing right, just popular.

That would presume you believe in objective truths. Are you sure you really want to go down that path? Because if you do, my next question to you is what standard you're using to define those objective truths you base your claim that the decision the American people reached is wrong. I highly doubt that line of argument is going to help your cause very much, but you're welcome to try.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

All those 200 mil people do not make a thing right, just popular.

That would presume you believe in objective truths. Are you sure you really want to go down that path? Because if you do, my next question to you is what standard you're using to define those objective truths you base your claim that the decision the American people reached is wrong. I highly doubt that line of argument is going to help your cause very much, but you're welcome to try.

Where are the weapons of mass distructions Bush knew about BEFORE the war? Where is that evidence now? Americans were sold that bill of goods. They were stirred up not about liberation, but by the carefully manipulative spin of this Administration. Of course you could deny that. You can deny the earth is basically round. 2 billion people could deny it. But where is it? Have those 200,000,000 million present the evidence in hand before the war. I'll wait a bit while you go and get it.

Do you need me to go into objective reality in the Dreyfus case? How he was railroaded with the consent of most of the people in a democracy? How do the millions upon millions of people applauding what happened make the truth of the matter different? How many would it take to undo a single day of prison time for him? How many?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

What difference does it make?

Are you deef?

There is a difference between a resolution which expresses some opinion and a resolution which imposes a mandate and carries the force of international law. The resolutions against Iraq imposed a mandate and carry the force of international law. The resolutions against Israel impose no mandate and amount to nothing more than a statement expressing some 'opinion' of the UN.

The United State Congress passes resolutions all the time, expressing an 'opinion' or 'sentiment' of the Congress, but have absolutely no authority or force of law.

It really couldn't be any more clear.

But anyway these 'opinions of the UN' you describe are voted on by all the members of the security council. This is a 'world opinion'.

Wrong. Only a handful are UNSC resolutions, most were passed by the UN General Assembly, not Security Council members. In neither case does it matter because they are simply an expression of an opinion, nothing more.

Why don't you take a close look at some resolutions like 181, which was the original plan for Israel's borders. Now look at a map of Israel today after they occupied land which is, surprise, another series of resolutions by the UN for Israel to withdraw from but they ignore. How about resolution 194, saying Israel should let PAL refugees to go back home? Resolution 446 which says settlements are illegal. The list goes on... Why are you ignoring this?

I've looked at those. Israel was attacked by their neighboring Arab aggressors. There was a war, Isreal kicked major booty and took some land. Thems the breaks, kid.

Look, apparently you have a bias towards the UN. You can't pick and choose what UN resolutions you wish to honor or ignore. If a statement is expressely written under a UN resolution it is official. Don't give me the "oh it's only an opinion" BS. By saying that you are pretty much saying the whole organization is illegitemate. And as for one of your wars where Israel took land... did you happen to notice that Israel was the one who launched a pre-emptive strike on Egypt to start that war? In any event, the UN opposes the grabbing of land during those wars and to this day their demand holds to remove themselves from it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The problem is that the UN is becoming less of a power in the world today. Saddam effectively ignored them, yet the United Nations is supposed to be a world authority... hmmm something seems wrong with that.
Also, the United States has in its possession satellite photographs of terrorist training camps in Iraq. That certainly connects Saddam to aiding terrorism (and everyone knows he funnels $$ to them too).


edit: good point cpu

 

[cpumaster]

UN has never been a real power in world in anyway, most of it so called power are virtual and paper based, it doesn't have any soldiers or military equipments per se, unless contributed voluntarily by member countries, even then, their loyalty don't lie with UN, but with their own country. Its existence and its purpose has always been dictated by the big 5 security council members, ie 5 most powerful nations in the world, so your claim that UN is becoming powerless is false, the UN is and always is powerless except when needed to confer legitimacy to US propose invasion...