if two people with similar jobs within the same regime left a few months apart, would you expect their stories as to what's going on to be similar or different.
if they're the same, wouldn't that be an indication of the veracity of the stories, not that they're lies?
if they were different, wouldn't that just indicate that the two people were just making it up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what is this about? Why is it that people on this board think they can just argue their way out of reality and into their fantasies? It's really sad.
So the story has gotten a life of its own and now rumor has turned it into a different creature. Thank god for now the first link on a google search of his name points out the silliness of the origin of this story.
Alky, let me spell it out for you. 1st, you should take a secons to actually look. Here's an example:
[quote]
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence experts who went over the transcript of the interview portrayed Jassem as a typical Middle East VIP bodyguard, essentially a simple man who, for the most part, told the truth. Content that our experts found to be inaccurate has been expunged. In brief, he claimed that Saddam had concealed his prohibited weapons in a tunnel complex under the main streets of Baghdad, the sand dunes in Ouja, near Tikrit – where they are stored in mobile bunkers that can be buried deeper by the flick of a remote control - and in the Hawala district of Tikrit. <hr></blockquote>
becomes:
[quote]"Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are also concealed in a tunnel complex deep beneath the sewers of Baghdad and in an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit. <hr></blockquote>
Even debka says that he BSed them, in case you can't see it for yourself. Uday was hit by 60 bullets? That's a new number. Remote controlled bunkers that'move from place to place' by 'remote control!' How did Saddam get technology better than ours?!?! It's a typical fanatasy of an uneducated man trying to add fuel to the fire.
This is a premiere example of a story that got started by one little interview and now has a life of its own. One site even said it was reported by the BBC weeks ago! Well, lets see it then! I can't find any record of the BBC reporting it, even though I have access to every news database in the world.
Think, alky! Research this stuff before you believe it. Jesus!
Exactly. They excluded authorizing war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> The issue isn't what the U.N. authorizes. It's whether or not the U.N. will go the way of the League of Nations. The U.N. has been given one last chance to take itself seriously. For 12 years it has supposedly been about the business of disarming the Iraqis. It has clearly failed. As the Washington Post observed yesterday "President Bush's move toward action on Iraq has not been a bolt from the blue or a departure from past U.S. policy... Rather, it is the completion of a vital mission of international security repeatedly confirmed by the U.N. Security Council, by a Democratic president and by bipartisan majorities of Congress."
Tell me this, when did our foreign policy become subject to the whims and caprices of the U.N.? The U.N. can't authorize anything if it doesn't have the authority in the first place. Our Constitution doesn't say anything about the U.N.
When President Bush says we "would welcome and support a new resolution that makes clear the Security Council stands behind its previous demands" that's not the same as saying we need their support before we proceed further. He's just giving the U.N. one last opportunity to avoid becoming completely irrelevant.
Tell me this, when did our foreign policy become subject to the whims and caprices of the U.N.? The U.N. can't authorize anything if it doesn't have the authority in the first place. Our Constitution doesn't say anything about the U.N.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, are we still arguing this?
We signed a treaty called the UN Charter where we agreed to uphold the principles of the UN, including non-aggression against other states. The Constitution states that the US is subject to treaties we sign, that's all. bunge made some bad leaps of logic earlier, but this part is correct.
[quote]<strong>When President Bush says we "would welcome and support a new resolution that makes clear the Security Council stands behind its previous demands" that's not the same as saying we need their support before we proceed further. He's just giving the U.N. one last opportunity to avoid becoming completely irrelevant.
No, we don't really need their support... but we can't move ahead without breaking the UN Charter treaty, which according to the Constitution we *should* be bound by. I think the point being made is that if we are going to break ranks with the UN on this, we should formally pull out of the treaty and the UN before doing so. Or, we should push like hell for that resolution if we wish to keep the UN intact and relevant.
I'd prefer the latter, obviously, but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, then it makes itself irrelevant by its own choice, which would be highly unfortunate.
No, we don't really need their support... but we can't move ahead without breaking the UN Charter treaty, which according to the Constitution we *should* be bound by. </strong><hr></blockquote>
... The Constitution states that the US is subject to treaties we sign, that's all... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that's not all. The power to declare war is specifically delegated to the U.S. Congress and the power to conduct war to the president. (Article 1, Section 8)
No, that's not all. The power to declare war is specifically delegated to the U.S. Congress and the power to conduct war to the president. (Article 1, Section 8)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and our (former) Congress and President limited our options to justify going to way by signing the U.N. Charter. Our (present & future) Congress and President are limited by this decision.
Yes, and our (former) Congress and President limited our options to justify going to way by signing the U.N. Charter. Our (present & future) Congress and President are limited by this decision.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede the Constitution. Our options are limted only to the extent we choose to limit them.
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede the Constitution. Our options are limted only to the extent we choose to limit them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but the Constitution DOES supercede Bush. Bush wants war. The ability to conduct war on a whim was rescinded when the United States signed the U.N. Charter.
It's really very simple. I realize admitting this point is true undermines the entire conservative viewpoint, but if it's true you should just admit it.
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede the Constitution. Our options are limted only to the extent we choose to limit them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can do anything at zombo.com...anything at all. The only limit is yourself.
Anything is possible at zombo.com. You can do anything at zombo.com. The infinite is possible at zombo.com. The unattainable is unknown at zombo.com.
We chose to limit ourselves when we signed the charter. Although anything is possible at zombo.com, it isn't possible for us to start a war with Iraq without the UN's approval without breaking the treaty in which we chose to be bound.
<strong>No, but the Constitution DOES supercede Bush. Bush wants war. The ability to conduct war on a whim was rescinded when the United States signed the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sigh* Here we go again...
The Constitution states that the President needs Congress to approve war.
The Constitution states that we are bound by treaties.
The Constitution also states that said treaties cannot supercede the Constitution. (Article VI again.)
So, as I see it...
We should absolutely get the UN resolution if we are determined to disarm Hussein. (Which I think is an *excellent* idea.) This would be the UN enforcing its own Resolution 1441.
If the UN decides "Naw, we don't want to go the trouble", then they effectively have rendered themselves impotent and irrelevant. Which would be a tremendous tragedy. If that happens, however, the US should seriously consider going it alone or at least extra-UN. The most straightforward way would be to formally withdraw from the UN before doing so (thereby nullifying the treaty of the UN Charter), but that would essentially sign the UN's death sentence, which would *really* be a loss.
The US going on its own would require Congress to approve an official declaration of war against Iraq.
You can do anything at zombo.com...anything at all. The only limit is yourself.
Anything is possible at zombo.com. You can do anything at zombo.com. The infinite is possible at zombo.com. The unattainable is unknown at zombo.com.
We chose to limit ourselves when we signed the charter. Although anything is possible at zombo.com, it isn't possible for us to start a war with Iraq without the UN's approval without breaking the treaty in which we chose to be bound.</strong><hr></blockquote>
QED
by the way, do you ever listen to the Zombo's Record Party?!?!? local Pittsburgh radio, but I think it might travel . . . its great wacky music . . . check out iTunes Radio... CMU in the public or alternative on Wednesdays at 4
No, but the Constitution DOES supercede Bush. Bush wants war. The ability to conduct war on a whim was rescinded when the United States signed the U.N. Charter.
It's really very simple...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It IS simple. Who the hell is conducting war on a whim?
We chose to limit ourselves when we signed the charter. Although anything is possible at zombo.com, it isn't possible for us to start a war with Iraq without the UN's approval without breaking the treaty in which we chose to be bound.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Hmmm. So, uh, what about that war in Kosovo? We didn't seek U.N. approval then.
Comments
<strong>
if two people with similar jobs within the same regime left a few months apart, would you expect their stories as to what's going on to be similar or different.
if they're the same, wouldn't that be an indication of the veracity of the stories, not that they're lies?
if they were different, wouldn't that just indicate that the two people were just making it up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what is this about? Why is it that people on this board think they can just argue their way out of reality and into their fantasies? It's really sad.
So the story has gotten a life of its own and now rumor has turned it into a different creature. Thank god for now the first link on a google search of his name points out the silliness of the origin of this story.
Alky, let me spell it out for you. 1st, you should take a secons to actually look. Here's an example:
[quote]
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence experts who went over the transcript of the interview portrayed Jassem as a typical Middle East VIP bodyguard, essentially a simple man who, for the most part, told the truth. Content that our experts found to be inaccurate has been expunged. In brief, he claimed that Saddam had concealed his prohibited weapons in a tunnel complex under the main streets of Baghdad, the sand dunes in Ouja, near Tikrit – where they are stored in mobile bunkers that can be buried deeper by the flick of a remote control - and in the Hawala district of Tikrit. <hr></blockquote>
becomes:
[quote]"Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are also concealed in a tunnel complex deep beneath the sewers of Baghdad and in an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit. <hr></blockquote>
Even debka says that he BSed them, in case you can't see it for yourself. Uday was hit by 60 bullets? That's a new number. Remote controlled bunkers that'move from place to place' by 'remote control!' How did Saddam get technology better than ours?!?! It's a typical fanatasy of an uneducated man trying to add fuel to the fire.
This is a premiere example of a story that got started by one little interview and now has a life of its own. One site even said it was reported by the BBC weeks ago! Well, lets see it then! I can't find any record of the BBC reporting it, even though I have access to every news database in the world.
Think, alky! Research this stuff before you believe it. Jesus!
<strong>
Exactly. They excluded authorizing war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> The issue isn't what the U.N. authorizes. It's whether or not the U.N. will go the way of the League of Nations. The U.N. has been given one last chance to take itself seriously. For 12 years it has supposedly been about the business of disarming the Iraqis. It has clearly failed. As the Washington Post observed yesterday "President Bush's move toward action on Iraq has not been a bolt from the blue or a departure from past U.S. policy... Rather, it is the completion of a vital mission of international security repeatedly confirmed by the U.N. Security Council, by a Democratic president and by bipartisan majorities of Congress."
<strong>-------------
Pae Paoe</strong><hr></blockquote>
^^^
| | |
Is that you?
<strong>
^^^
| | |
Is that you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I wish. The band's name is <a href="http://www.echolocation.fm/echoshop/info/skald007cd.html"; target="_blank">Bola</a>. The name of the CD is Fyuti.
<strong>The issue isn't what the U.N. authorizes. It's whether or not the U.N. will go the way of the League of Nations. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. The U.N. excluded authorizing war.
<strong>Tell me this, if Resolution 1441 authorized war, <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030206/ts_nm/iraq_usa_resolution_dc"; target="_blank">why</a> bother asking the U.N. to authorize it again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me this, when did our foreign policy become subject to the whims and caprices of the U.N.? The U.N. can't authorize anything if it doesn't have the authority in the first place. Our Constitution doesn't say anything about the U.N.
When President Bush says we "would welcome and support a new resolution that makes clear the Security Council stands behind its previous demands" that's not the same as saying we need their support before we proceed further. He's just giving the U.N. one last opportunity to avoid becoming completely irrelevant.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
Tell me this, when did our foreign policy become subject to the whims and caprices of the U.N.? The U.N. can't authorize anything if it doesn't have the authority in the first place. Our Constitution doesn't say anything about the U.N.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, are we still arguing this?
We signed a treaty called the UN Charter where we agreed to uphold the principles of the UN, including non-aggression against other states. The Constitution states that the US is subject to treaties we sign, that's all. bunge made some bad leaps of logic earlier, but this part is correct.
[quote]<strong>When President Bush says we "would welcome and support a new resolution that makes clear the Security Council stands behind its previous demands" that's not the same as saying we need their support before we proceed further. He's just giving the U.N. one last opportunity to avoid becoming completely irrelevant.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, we don't really need their support... but we can't move ahead without breaking the UN Charter treaty, which according to the Constitution we *should* be bound by. I think the point being made is that if we are going to break ranks with the UN on this, we should formally pull out of the treaty and the UN before doing so. Or, we should push like hell for that resolution if we wish to keep the UN intact and relevant.
I'd prefer the latter, obviously, but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, then it makes itself irrelevant by its own choice, which would be highly unfortunate.
<strong>
No, we don't really need their support... but we can't move ahead without breaking the UN Charter treaty, which according to the Constitution we *should* be bound by.
Which means we would be breaking the law
<strong>
... The Constitution states that the US is subject to treaties we sign, that's all... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that's not all. The power to declare war is specifically delegated to the U.S. Congress and the power to conduct war to the president. (Article 1, Section 8)
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
No, that's not all. The power to declare war is specifically delegated to the U.S. Congress and the power to conduct war to the president. (Article 1, Section 8)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and our (former) Congress and President limited our options to justify going to way by signing the U.N. Charter. Our (present & future) Congress and President are limited by this decision.
Thanks to the U.S. Constitution.
<strong>
Yes, and our (former) Congress and President limited our options to justify going to way by signing the U.N. Charter. Our (present & future) Congress and President are limited by this decision.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede the Constitution. Our options are limted only to the extent we choose to limit them.
<strong>
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede the Constitution. Our options are limted only to the extent we choose to limit them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but the Constitution DOES supercede Bush. Bush wants war. The ability to conduct war on a whim was rescinded when the United States signed the U.N. Charter.
It's really very simple. I realize admitting this point is true undermines the entire conservative viewpoint, but if it's true you should just admit it.
<strong>
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede the Constitution. Our options are limted only to the extent we choose to limit them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can do anything at zombo.com...anything at all. The only limit is yourself.
Anything is possible at zombo.com. You can do anything at zombo.com. The infinite is possible at zombo.com. The unattainable is unknown at zombo.com.
We chose to limit ourselves when we signed the charter. Although anything is possible at zombo.com, it isn't possible for us to start a war with Iraq without the UN's approval without breaking the treaty in which we chose to be bound.
<strong>No, but the Constitution DOES supercede Bush. Bush wants war. The ability to conduct war on a whim was rescinded when the United States signed the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sigh* Here we go again...
The Constitution states that the President needs Congress to approve war.
The Constitution states that we are bound by treaties.
The Constitution also states that said treaties cannot supercede the Constitution. (Article VI again.)
So, as I see it...
We should absolutely get the UN resolution if we are determined to disarm Hussein. (Which I think is an *excellent* idea.) This would be the UN enforcing its own Resolution 1441.
If the UN decides "Naw, we don't want to go the trouble", then they effectively have rendered themselves impotent and irrelevant. Which would be a tremendous tragedy. If that happens, however, the US should seriously consider going it alone or at least extra-UN. The most straightforward way would be to formally withdraw from the UN before doing so (thereby nullifying the treaty of the UN Charter), but that would essentially sign the UN's death sentence, which would *really* be a loss.
The US going on its own would require Congress to approve an official declaration of war against Iraq.
<strong>
You can do anything at zombo.com...anything at all. The only limit is yourself.
Anything is possible at zombo.com. You can do anything at zombo.com. The infinite is possible at zombo.com. The unattainable is unknown at zombo.com.
We chose to limit ourselves when we signed the charter. Although anything is possible at zombo.com, it isn't possible for us to start a war with Iraq without the UN's approval without breaking the treaty in which we chose to be bound.</strong><hr></blockquote>
QED
by the way, do you ever listen to the Zombo's Record Party?!?!? local Pittsburgh radio, but I think it might travel . . . its great wacky music . . . check out iTunes Radio... CMU in the public or alternative on Wednesdays at 4
<strong>
No, but the Constitution DOES supercede Bush. Bush wants war. The ability to conduct war on a whim was rescinded when the United States signed the U.N. Charter.
It's really very simple...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It IS simple. Who the hell is conducting war on a whim?
<strong>
We chose to limit ourselves when we signed the charter. Although anything is possible at zombo.com, it isn't possible for us to start a war with Iraq without the UN's approval without breaking the treaty in which we chose to be bound.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Hmmm. So, uh, what about that war in Kosovo? We didn't seek U.N. approval then.
UN Sec Council Resolutions dealing with Kosovo...
1199 (1998)
1203 (1998)
1244 (1999)
I can't seem to get the texts of them, however... I'm getting "Not Authorized, check your firewall settings". Humhph. I'll try again from work.