Dreadsox said:
I am still waiting for someone to show me a clear and present danger with Iraq.
Peace
curious what is the def. of clear and present danger?
Dreadsox said:
I am still waiting for someone to show me a clear and present danger with Iraq.
Peace
us3 said:
curious what is the def. of clear and present danger?
Dreadsox said:If the President is going to invade Iraq without the UN....to satisfy me as an American....I want him to get on TV....and make the case that we are in immediate danger of attack from Iraq.
[rhetorical question] Why would Pres. Bush bother making his case to the U.N. when he has already stated that the U.N. is irrelevant unless its members agree with him? [/rhetorical question]If they feel they cannot make the case to the public do to intelligence reasons.....They should make it to the UN.
If the UN backs the use of force I will be satisfied as well.
If they do not trust the information with the UN then they should supply the information to the Congress, so my elected representatives can do their job.
If the "evidence" is supplied to my Congressman and Senator and Congress issues a formal Declaration of War I will be satisfied as well.
I agree with you totally.As of today, I feel that the only person from the administration that has come close to making a case is Powell, and all he did was confirm what Blix has said, they are not fully cooperating. The autorization for use of force, does not cover an invasion for me. I see authorization for use of force as a tool for an immediate crisis not a contained Iraq.
who's the new cat?timoroni said:when push comes to shove, el presidente has never had a clue with international relations...it was the fear when he got elected 2 years ago
however, ironically, his plan with iraq is to push till it breaks which makes sense but his domestic policy is the laughing stock of a senile reagan administration
one only hopes that iraq does break, and it should somehow.
bush is your typical southern racist baptist who believes his horses are his family. his bro in florida is happily running that state into the ground. but thank god he 'stole' gov. ridge from pennsylvania so we could turn this place around.
i am glad a narrow-minded bullhead is running this country against terror and iraq. i'm am just sorry that he has to mend the farm too.
i wouldn't call him that.diamond said:our beloved Pres
sorry i happen to agree with timoroni.diamond said:
timoroni said:but thank god he 'stole' gov. ridge from pennsylvania so we could turn this place around.
STING2 said:Dreadsox,
" I am sorry, but when I was in the military, the UN was not in charge of me. My oath was to the COnstitution of the UNited States not the UN. Also, the cease fire is a UN agreement isn't it? It seems wrong that we should presume to enforce papers that the UN does not wish to."
Well then you seem to be saying that the UN is irrelevant which is puzzling since you say that if the UN approves it then you would go along with it period. My point is that the UN already approved the use of force in resolution 687. It reafirmed that resolution in 1441 last fall. Congress has already approved the Presidents use of force and there is not going to be another vote in Congress.
Dreadsox said:derailing a thread that was not intended to debate the UN resolutions.