Powell's speech

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Are you guys watching this? MSNBC is streaming the speech.



What do you think? Is this enough to sway the UN? Is war imminent?
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 149
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Sway the UN? No effing way. UN == Anti-Semitic Dictator Appeasement Emporium.





    War will happen with or without the UN. And soon.
  • Reply 2 of 149
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Sway the UN? No effing way. UN == Anti-Semitic Dictator Appeasement Emporium.





    War will happen with or without the UN. And soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If those are the circumstances then I could only hope for charges of treason, followed up by executions.
  • Reply 3 of 149
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    If those are the circumstances then I could only hope for charges of treason, followed up by executions.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    of whom and why?
  • Reply 4 of 149
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    If those are the circumstances then I could only hope for charges of treason, followed up by executions.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    On what basis?
  • Reply 5 of 149
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    The U.S. Constitution binds us to the U.N. Charter.



    Attacking Iraq unilaterally breaks the U.N. Charter (actually, a lot of the rhetoric coming out of the Bush Administration does as well.)



    You break one you're breaking the other.



    You break the Constitution, treason.



    You don't like the U.N. Charter? Withdraw and do whatever you like.
  • Reply 6 of 149
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>The U.S. Constitution binds us to the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uh, since when? Link to an official site would be good.



    Because I've found, from <a href="http://www.liberty-ca.org/united_nations.htm:"; target="_blank">http://www.liberty-ca.org/united_nations.htm:</a>;



    The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land



    The United Nations Charter cannot usurp the authority of the US Constitution without expressed agreement by the people of the United States.



    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." -United States constitution, Article VI, Clause 2



    (Okay, the CA state Liberty Party may not be the least-biased source, but it's a start. )



    And a quite nice site on the Constitution itself, <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html,"; target="_blank">http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html,</a>; shows that no Amendment has been made with regards to the United Nations. Checking for treaties...



    [ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 149
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    Exactly. "Violating" the UN Charter ( I won't even go into the defintion of that...which you are throwing around like fact) would do NOTHING to violate the Constitution. You just made that up.



    Anyway, Powell. He has presented taped excerpts, satellite photos, human intelligence. Please. The evidence is overwhelming against Iraq. Not only is it overwhelming, we don't even have the burden of proof...they do. WE ACTUALLY HAVE CONVERSATIONS ON TAPE....THEY ARE SAYING THINGS LIKE "MOVE THAT" AND "CELAR THAT OUT BEFORE TOMORROW".



    But I suppose the far left will just dismiss the evidence as fabricated. I swear, they could find a nuke ready to go off, set to explode at 5:00 and the Left would still say...."ummm,, maybe it won't really explode....and even if it does, maybe it won't be that bad...maybe we should wait until 4:59pm to make a decision".



    Based on what Powell demonstrated, no reasonable and responsible person could argue against disarming him by force.



    They are going to approve force because they'll be irrelavent if they don't. It is going to happen. Period.
  • Reply 8 of 149
    IF these WMD exist and all this intelligence is out there, some if it quite old, WHY haven't the inspectors received it? They have yet to find any of these weapons. The inspectors arrive up at suspect locations without notice...or are there Iraqi moles within the inspection teams warning them of visits first so the sites can be sanitized? Or does the US regard the inspections as redundant?



    Mr Bush has advocated a 'regime change'. I'm sure nobody has any problems with that, except Saddam Hussein, (although there have been suggestions from Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld about offering Hussein and his family asylum in exile).



    What's the deal with attacking the entire country and then simultaneously offering the rogue element exile and safety? The UN has estimated that a fullscale war would result in 500,000 to 1 million Iraqi boith dead and injured. And you can bet your backside that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen would not be amongst them.



    Here is an interesting exchange:

    <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/20030106-1.html&gt;"; target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/20030106-1.html&gt;</a>;



    Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer

    James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

    For Immediate Release

    Office of the Press Secretary

    January 6, 2003



    12:35 P.M. EST



    [quote]MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon and happy New Year to everybody. The President began his day with an intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. Then he had a series of policy briefings. And this afternoon, the President will look forward to a Cabinet meeting where the President will discuss with members of his Cabinet his agenda for the year. The President is going to focus on economic growth, making America a more compassionate country, and providing for the security of our nation abroad and on the

    homefront.



    And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions. Helen (Thomas).



    Q At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.



    MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of

    those people, innocents in Israel.



    Q My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?



    MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --



    Q They're not attacking you.



    MR. FLEISCHER: -- from a country --



    Q Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?



    MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.



    Q Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?



    MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President

    has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.



    Q Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?



    MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.



    Q And he thinks they are a threat to us?



    MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.



    Q The Iraqi people?



    MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --



    Q So they will be vulnerable?



    MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --



    Q That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.



    MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.



    Q I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.<hr></blockquote>



    This view from Thomas Friedman, (a hawk):



    <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/29/opinion/29FRIE.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/29/opinion/29FRIE.html</a>;



    [quote] SDW said:



    Exactly. "Violating" the UN Charter ( I won't even go into the defintion of that...which you are throwing around like fact) would

    do NOTHING to violate the Constitution. You just made that up.<hr></blockquote>



    The UN Charter is largely based on the US Constitution.



    [ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 149
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>"Violating" the UN Charter...would do NOTHING to violate the Constitution. You just made that up. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Go look it up.



    SJO, can you remember the Article I'm referring to? I've posted it so many times I've forgotten which one it is.
  • Reply 10 of 149
    jamiljamil Posts: 210member
    There has been all this conspiracy theory or speculations about how this war is motivated by oil and the zionist businessmen pushing the administration to destroy Iraq.



    Wouldn't it be interesting if Iraq retorted to the USA's evidence with their own smoking gun supporting the oil theory?



    Let's see a few memo's. taped conversations between congressmen and lobbyists would do the trick. If not Iraq, I'm sure the russians have something in their files.



    [ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Jamil ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 149
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    Go look it up.



    SJO, can you remember the Article I'm referring to? I've posted it so many times I've forgotten which one it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Umm, they are trying to look it up. You could be helpful and remember since you have posted it so many times.
  • Reply 11 of 149
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    Go look it up.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have been. All I've found so far is support *against* this view. Care to provide any support *for* it? Seriously, unless you can point to a UN document, US document, treaty, etc, then it's all just hand-waving.



    [quote]<strong>SJO, can you remember the Article I'm referring to? I've posted it so many times I've forgotten which one it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Article? *Article*? One that *certainly* has pointers to official documents, and not just speculation, opinion, and erroneous conclusions, right?
  • Reply 13 of 149
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>The UN Charter is largely based on the US Constitution.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    But does not supercede it. Go read the two documents in question. I just did.



    They're not long, for god's sake.



    In fact...



    Article 2, UN Charter:



    Article 2

    The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.



    1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.



    2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.



    3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.



    4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.



    5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.



    6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.



    7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.



    The UN Charter makes no mention of treason. Period. Sorry if you were confused about the relationship between the two documents.



    [ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 149
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:

    <strong>



    Umm, they are trying to look it up. You could be helpful and remember since you have posted it so many times. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">







    I ran to google, but I can't track it down right now....



    Anyway, the Constitution binds the country to International Treaties, one of which is the U.N. Charter. Obviously the U.N. Charter isn't mentioned in the Constitution because, well, the constitution was written before the U.N. Charter. But, the Constitution was also written with treaties in mind.



    We're bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.



    Now, let's accept that for a minute as truth (we'll quote the Constitution later.) If that is the truth, how can anyone here (aside from you foreigners) support subverting the U.N. Charter?
  • Reply 15 of 149
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>



    4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. </strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 16 of 149
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Article 2.4 could result in the UN sanctioning the US if the US attacks unilaterally, but would again require a resolution, a vote, etc. *Worst* case scenario is that US has their Security Council membership revoked.



    Right now Resolution 1441 has been broken... that much is obvious. The Resolution does call for 'serious consequences'... what the heck did the General Assembly thought that meant? No dessert before bedtime?



    Personally, I think we should get a UN resolution for an explanation of any inconsistencies, that leads to military use if they can't/won't. No problems then... after all, it's the UN doing it, right?
  • Reply 17 of 149
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">







    I ran to google, but I can't track it down right now....<hr></blockquote>[qb]



    Keep looking, you will find it if you persevere, at least you will if it exists.



    [quote][qb]Anyway, the Constitution binds the country to International Treaties, one of which is the U.N. Charter. Obviously the U.N. Charter isn't mentioned in the Constitution because, well, the constitution was written before the U.N. Charter. But, the Constitution was also written with treaties in mind.<hr></blockquote></strong>



    Yes, but the constitution has the ability to be amended. If it has not then it still does not specifically speak to the UN Charter in the way you are claiming it does.



    [quote]<strong>We're bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.



    Now, let's accept that for a minute as truth (we'll quote the Constitution later.) If that is the truth, how can anyone here (aside from you foreigners) support subverting the U.N. Charter?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is really a backwards way of approaching it.



    "I want you all to assume for now that I am right even though I have given little or no evidence to support the fact that I am and you have given evidence to support your point that seems to say that I am wrong."



    I am going to need some hard documentation that says that the US cannot act ouside of the UN, effectively removing the soverignty of the US, or any other member nation. The UN does not rule supreme. Even if you think it does. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 17 of 149
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">







    I ran to google, but I can't track it down right now....

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Of course not.



    [quote]<strong>Anyway, the Constitution binds the country to International Treaties, one of which is the U.N. Charter. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    READ THE CHARTER! It says NOTHING about superceding the individual states' founding documents. Cripes, is that really so hard to go read it on your own?



    [quote]<strong>Obviously the U.N. Charter isn't mentioned in the Constitution because, well, the constitution was written before the U.N. Charter. But, the Constitution was also written with treaties in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Thank you Capt Obvious. Now show us the treaty that states that the US is bound to a UN concept of treason. The UN Charter doesn't say it. Sorry.



    [quote]<strong>We're bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, dinkus, we're bound by the UN Charter to the UN Charter. Criminy.



    [quote]<strong>Now, let's accept that for a minute as truth (we'll quote the Constitution later.) </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, of course, let's accept it for truth even though it's not. Makes things *much* simpler.



    [quote]<strong>If that is the truth, how can anyone here (aside from you foreigners) support subverting the U.N. Charter?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The UN is facing a crisis of relevancy... if the UN is unwilling to enforce its *own* resolutions, then it just shows itself to be the toothless mouthpiece that it fears it is.



    UN refuses to enforce its own resolutions -&gt; UN is irrelevant -&gt; UN is a nice showpiece but ultimately ineffective and needs to be scrapped.



    Personally I believe that the UN *is* the way to go, but it needs to grow a backbone. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take something many times larger than 9/11 before it decides to do so.
  • Reply 19 of 149
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    BTW, if you want to peruse the US Treaties currently in force, head to: <a href="http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifindex.html"; target="_blank">http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifindex.html</a>;



    Comprehensive. Have fun finding the proof you're looking for. If it exists, I want to see it... I prefer working with facts instead of speculation. Right now the facts support the hypothesis that Bush could not be executed for treason for directing an attack against Iraq, which was the original statement. The UN Charter makes no mention of treason, and does not ursurp sovreignity in any case. It lays down principles, (including Article 2.4, which I decided to go ahead and post in the interest of honesty and clarity, even though I knew it would be seized upon... try reading the rest of the Articles as well for context) and lays down sanctions for offending members. No where does it mention the execution of a head of state, okay?



    And for the last time, the UN Charter may have been based on the US Constitution in spirit, but the details are *VERY* different, if you'd care to read them and see.
  • Reply 20 of 149
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>

    Right now Resolution 1441 has been broken... that much is obvious. The Resolution does call for 'serious consequences'... what the heck did the General Assembly thought that meant? No dessert before bedtime? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Even if it has been broken, the 'serious consequences' do not mean war. Bush pushed for that and the other nations balked. So the wording they came up with was specifically designed to prevent war as a direct consequence of violating Resolution 1441.
Sign In or Register to comment.