US one vote away from majority vote on Resolution 2.

[reitz]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
maybe the tide of evidence like this has finally turned a few heads. Of course there will still be those that read that article and dismiss the al Qaeda presence in Iraq, actively carrying out terrorist activities with help and support from Iran as well. France's business interests, especially recent illegal arm sales to Iraq, make their opinion worthless in my opinion. They should shut their pie holes and have a seat and thank god they are not a TARGET for this reason. They can veto all they want, the fact remains the majority of the nations in the UN support our position. I personally feel the veto power should be rescinded, make it a majority vote. I agree the US has used it's veto far too often to save Israel from being "condemend" for it's policies and practices, don't think this hasn't played a role in how we are viewed by the rest of the middle east. Why do we go to such lengths to protect Israel? why not hold them to the same standard? Is there ANYTHING significant they offer us in return?

Read the article carefully, and then do a little research.

The Halabja Valley, where the al-Qaeda is supposed to be, is in northern Iraq, in the Kurdish controlled area. Because of the no-fly-zones set up by the US, UK, and France, Saddam could not retaliate against the Kurds, and they've declared a seperate Kurdish autonomous region. Moreso than the Palestinians prior to the most recent uprising, the Kurds in Iraq have their own psuedo-independent state with their own elections and government.

It is Islamists in the Kurdish region that are sheltering and cooperating with al-Qaeda, NOT Saddam Hussein. His government in Bagdad has no control over the northern region of Iraq, and only nominal control in the southern no-fly-zone. No one has ever produced any remotely credible (or verfiable) evidence of al-Qaeda working with Iraqi intelligence or operating in Bagdad-controlled areas of Iraq. The CIA has admitted that it has found no credible link between Hussein and al-Qaeda, and the UK's foreign intelligence service has agreed.

There are a number of good reasons to confront Iraq, but the "connection" to terrorism isn't one of them. We are justifying in part the invasion of a country because it "might someday" give weapons it "could have" to terrorists who "might use them" to attack us "sometime" in the future. In other words, a possible future threat--however plausible--without any current supporting evidence is being used as a reason to wage war...am I the only one who sees a real problem in this?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Alistar7it all started with the balanced budget agreement that spurned the largest amount of INVESTMENT capital this country has seen in over 60 years coupled with 401k contributions. Funny how people will give you more money when you stop spending outside your limit and actually start paying back what you owe, what a concept. It was nice while it lasted, but now that Dubya is in office we have deficit spending again.....

What happened to the SURPLUS Clinton left??????? Spent on tax cuts for the wealthy, great choice....

Clinton submitted his first two budgets while his party controlled Congress. Both were $300b in deficit. The budget wasn't balanced until after the GOP took control. Whether this is due to sheer luck, constrained spending, a rising economy, or perhaps a combination of all three depends solely on which camp you're in.

BTW, Clinton first budget wasn't even considered for a vote even when his own party controlled the Congress...just like every president before him. The Executive branch's submission of a proposed budget is nothing more than a formality that only still exists because it is required by law. The budget is sent to Congress and promptly tossed out the window. The House then writes each of the spending bills...they are debated and passed by both houses of Congress and sent to the Executive branch for a yes or no signature.