This is why I H A T E partisan politics...

[beth]

reef, the Gulf War was waged by a UN coalition of many countries, led by the US. The USA had no independent involvement in Desert Storm. That war was waged based on Iraq's violation of UN Resolution 678 which allowed for military action if I Iraq did not comply with the UN resolution.
The cease fire agreement you are referring to was not between the USA and Iraq, but between the UN Security Council and Iraq. The UN resolutions addressing the ceasefire terms included requiring Iraq to disarm its WMD program (which apparently it did do).
The decision of the UN in 2003 was to have inspectors go into Iraq to assess compliance with its resolutions. Iraq had agreed. That never happened, however, because, acting on its own, the USA and Britain invaded Iraq.
There was never justification for the USA to go to war in Iraq on its own. Did Iraq attack the USA? Did Iraq exercise terrorist attacks in the USA? Was Iraq involved in 911? Did Iraq even have WMD? Bush made it personal and we have paid dearly in lives and in the undoing of our economy. He also saw fit to eliminate the personal freedoms of all Americans with his fear-mongering.

 

[darthtang aw]

What exactly did we gain from the war in Iraq?  We certainly didn't get any oil out of it.  Oh, I know.  We gained a downward spiral on the course of insurmountable debt.  Conservatives gained Obama for 8 years.  Good stuff, huh?
We gained a bit more than that. But it will be years before we understand that, possibly decades.
We paid a far higher price in the Korean War (36,000 dead). Few would have thought in 1953 that this war, which ended with a deadlocked and ravaged peninsula, was a raging success. The outcome looks considerably better nearly six decades later, now that South Korea has become one of the most prosperous and freest countries in the world.
It is wildly premature to claim that Iraq could become another South Korea -- although the latter started off far poorer than the former and had just as little experience with democracy (which is to say none). Yet it is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502021
reef, the Gulf War was waged by a UN coalition of many countries, led by the US. The USA had no independent involvement in Desert Storm. That war was waged based on Iraq's violation of UN Resolution 678 which allowed for military action if I Iraq did not comply with the UN resolution.
The cease fire agreement you are referring to was not between the USA and Iraq, but between the UN Security Council and Iraq. The UN resolutions addressing the ceasefire terms included requiring Iraq to disarm its WMD program (which apparently it did do).
The decision of the UN in 2003 was to have inspectors go into Iraq to assess compliance with its resolutions. Iraq had agreed. That never happened, however, because, acting on its own, the USA and Britain invaded Iraq.
There was never justification for the USA to go to war in Iraq on its own. Did Iraq attack the USA? Did Iraq exercise terrorist attacks in the USA? Was Iraq involved in 911? Did Iraq even have WMD? Bush made it personal and we have paid dearly in lives and in the undoing of our economy. He also saw fit to eliminate the personal freedoms of all Americans with his fear-mongering.
If the US had no leadership role why was it that George HW was the one who signed the cease fire treaty. If we didn't have the right to resume fighting why didn't the UN charge the US? In fact if we didn't have the right how do you explain Bill Clinton's Missile attacks on Iraq in 1998?

 

[darthtang aw]

What constituted a stockpile of chemical weapons? How do you define that? Just curious...

 

[beth]

Never said that the USA doesn't have a leadership role in the UN or in Gulf War I, or in being a party in passing the terms of the ceasefire. The USA does not have the right, however, to act unilaterally, without the UN Security Council when it comes to deciding consequences for violations of UN resolutions.
Why not charge us? Really.....LOL I'm guessing they probably wanted to, but that's never going to happen. The USA went to war with Iraq, outside of the UN. The UN didn't have a reason to charge us, since the 2nd war had nothing to do with them. We went on our own, because that is what the Bush Adm. wanted to do.
The point is, all of the "violations" was under the auspice of the United Nations, not the United States. Gulf War I was not a war declared by the USA against Iraq. It was military consequences, set forth by the UN, as consequences to Iraq, for violation of UN resolutions. If Iraq violated additional resolutions, it should have been up to the UN to decide the consequences, not up to Bush.
Darth, I'm not sure I understand your question?

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502038
Never said that the USA doesn't have a leadership role in the UN or in Gulf War I, or in being a party in passing the terms of the ceasefire. The USA does not have the right, however, to act unilaterally, without the UN Security Council when it comes to deciding consequences for violations of UN resolutions.
Then the US just gives up iis sovernty to other countries.
Thanks to the veto in the security council.
The US (and all other nations) has an absolute right to act unilaterally.
Whether of not that is in our best interests or you or I agree with that action is another question.
When we get attacked we dont have to run to the UN or any other agency to respond. We don't need premission from any other country or group.

 

[darthtang aw]

Darth, I'm not sure I understand your question?
My question is simple. What is determined to be a stockpile of chemical weapons or WMD? The already assembled weapon? The supplies needed to make them? Delivery systems?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502038
Never said that the USA doesn't have a leadership role in the UN or in Gulf War I, or in being a party in passing the terms of the ceasefire. The USA does not have the right, however, to act unilaterally, without the UN Security Council when it comes to deciding consequences for violations of UN resolutions.
Why not charge us? Really.....LOL I'm guessing they probably wanted to, but that's never going to happen. The USA went to war with Iraq, outside of the UN. The UN didn't have a reason to charge us, since the 2nd war had nothing to do with them. We went on our own, because that is what the Bush Adm. wanted to do.
The point is, all of the "violations" was under the auspice of the United Nations, not the United States. Gulf War I was not a war declared by the USA against Iraq. It was military consequences, set forth by the UN, as consequences to Iraq, for violation of UN resolutions. If Iraq violated additional resolutions, it should have been up to the UN to decide the consequences, not up to Bush.
Darth, I'm not sure I understand your question?
OUR AIRCRAFT WERE FIRED ON BY IRAQ. Under international law that's all we needed. And it wasn't just Bush, Clinton launched missile attacks against them as well.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502049
My question is simple. What is determined to be a stockpile of chemical weapons or WMD? The already assembled weapon? The supplies needed to make them? Delivery systems?
I'm guessing it means different things in different sources. Not even sure that our own laws have defined it conclusively.
To me, a weapon needs to be assembled, not bits and pieces. If its bits and pieces, then its the materials needed to potentially make a WMD.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502070
I'm guessing it means different things in different sources. Not even sure that our own laws have defined it conclusively.
To me, a weapon needs to be assembled, not bits and pieces. If its bits and pieces, then its the materials needed to potentially make a WMD.
Depends on what you mean by raw material. A cylinder of Sarin or VX gas is a remote fired solenoid away from being a WMD.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502049
My question is simple. What is determined to be a stockpile of chemical weapons or WMD? The already assembled weapon? The supplies needed to make them? Delivery systems?
Hasn't Iran and North Korea surpassed all these stages? I don't see using some armistice as an aexcuse to just ignore the fact that these two nations have had the same capabilities as Iraq to be a threat against the US, yet they still continue with only some sanctions put in place.
Everyone still wants to blow off the little conspiracy theory that Dubya had a vendetta against Sadaam when it showed he was very close to an assasination attempt on his Daddy. He was waiting for any possibel excuse to "pull the trigger".

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502061
OUR AIRCRAFT WERE FIRED ON BY IRAQ. Under international law that's all we needed. And it wasn't just Bush, Clinton launched missile attacks against them as well.
Where? Over the "No Fly Zones" which many would say is totally illegal to impose to begin with? There were never no-fly zones included in any UN mandate. The NFZs were imposed by USA, GB, France, not the UN.
Yea, Clinton fired on Iraq and he had his own agenda just like Bush did.

 

[darthtang aw]

To me, a weapon needs to be assembled, not bits and pieces.  If its bits and pieces, then its the materials needed to potentially make a WMD.
So then you have no issue with a known felon owning an upper receiver, a six position stock, lower receiver and 5000 rounds of ammunition as long as they are aren't assembled or just missing a few assembly pins?

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502070
To me, a weapon needs to be assembled, not bits and pieces. If its bits and pieces, then its the materials needed to potentially make a WMD.
So then you have no issue with a known felon owning an upper receiver, a six position stock, lower receiver and 5000 rounds of ammunition as long as they are aren't assembled or just missing a few assembly pins?
Darth, if owning those things are against the law, then oh yea, I have a problem with it. And yes, even if there weren't a specific law against it, I personally would have a problem,. But do I legally and ethically have the right to eliminate someone who has those things if there is no law prohibiting? If there is no law and the law enforcement can't really do anything about it, do I then take it upon myself to do something about it?

 

[mantisman51]

So then you have no issue with a known felon owning an upper receiver, a six position stock, lower receiver and 5000 rounds of ammunition as long as they are aren't assembled or just missing a few assembly pins?
I have a problem with the 1968 Gun Control Act that banned felons from having the right to own a firearm. I don't care if the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, it is wrong. Before that law, that was the single biggest power grab by the Federal government over the 2nd Amendment, a judge could and usually did rule that a person who used a weapon in a felonious assault(robbery, rape, murder, etc) could no longer possess a firearm or any other weapon as part of their sentence. What the Feds and states have done now is expand what a felony is to the point pretty much every one of us have been guilty of committing a felony at some point in our lives, whether we mean to or not. Why should a guy who picks the wrong flower in a park not be able to protect himself the rest of his life? In Arizona, if I am caught doing 20 mph over the speed limit, I forfeit the right to own a firearm. We have let the Federal government build up such a sense of paranoia about firearms that those, like Bionic, can't wait to see them banned-still trying to figure out how an AR15 holding gun owner is calling for a gun ban, but... The 1968 Gun Control Act (thanks Ted Kennedy-like herpes you're the gift that keeps on giving) started all this Federal anti-gun legislation and turned the ATF from a true investigative department to an anti-2nd Amendment crusader organization that sees law-abiding gun owners the same as a criminal for simply owning a Constitutionally protected firearm.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502141
I have a problem with the 1968 Gun Control Act that banned felons from having the right to own a firearm. I don't care if the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, it is wrong. Before that law, that was the single biggest power grab by the Federal government over the 2nd Amendment, a judge could and usually did rule that a person who used a weapon in a felonious assault(robbery, rape, murder, etc) could no longer possess a firearm or any other weapon as part of their sentence. What the Feds and states have done now is expand what a felony is to the point pretty much every one of us have been guilty of committing a felony at some point in our lives, whether we mean to or not. Why should a guy who picks the wrong flower in a park not be able to protect himself the rest of his life? In Arizona, if I am caught doing 20 mph over the speed limit, I forfeit the right to own a firearm. We have let the Federal government build up such a sense of paranoia about firearms that those, like Bionic, can't wait to see them banned-still trying to figure out how an AR15 holding gun owner is calling for a gun ban, but... The 1968 Gun Control Act (thanks Ted Kennedy-like herpes you're the gift that keeps on giving) started all this Federal anti-gun legislation and turned the ATF from a true investigative department to an anti-2nd Amendment crusader organization that sees law-abiding gun owners the same as a criminal for simply owning a Constitutionally protected firearm.
Always the extremist. When did I ever support a gun ban? I've stated it's illogical for someone to own a weapon that's capable of firing multiple rounds in a matter of seconds, and trying to justify it as a way to protect oneself. Believe me, I don't need an AR-15 to take down an intruder. If someone were to break into my home, I have a 12 gauge shotgun that is more than capable of disarming or injuring an intruder. I have a much better chance of hitting them with a wide spray of BB's traveling at 1300FPS than I would spraying a bunch of .223 shells into the same area. I'm also less likely to damage more property, or possible hit an innocent victim. Then again, I can hit the bullseye of a target 95% of the time within a 25 foot range with my 9mm. Easier to do with a laser sight, and the fact that I've had tactical arms training under the guidance of several decorated military personnel.
As far as not being allowed gun ownership after a felonious act - There were justifications for those actions back in '68. Don't remember. Did Oswald have a felony conviction before he purchased a firearm to shoot and kill Kennedy? I can agree that it's disengenious to not allow someone who has a felony that didn't involve armed assault or some sort of intent to harm an individual. Someone committing bank fraud shouldn't lose his right to own a weapon. So do you feel the same way about a person charged with a felony is no longer capable of being allowed to vote?
You're saying that getting convicted of driving 20MPH over the speed limit in Arizona is classified as a felony? I find that REAL hard to believe. If that's true, then it just confirms how whacked the idiots in that state really are.

 

[darthtang aw]

Darth, if owning those things are against the law, then oh yea, I have a problem with it.  And yes, even if there weren't a specific law against it, I personally would have a problem,.  But do I legally and ethically have the right  to eliminate someone who has those things if there is no law prohibiting?  If there is no law and the law enforcement can't really do anything about it, do I then take it upon myself to do something about it?
My point is being missed here. I will explain when I have more time.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502141
I have a problem with the 1968 Gun Control Act that banned felons from having the right to own a firearm. I don't care if the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, it is wrong. Before that law, that was the single biggest power grab by the Federal government over the 2nd Amendment, a judge could and usually did rule that a person who used a weapon in a felonious assault(robbery, rape, murder, etc) could no longer possess a firearm or any other weapon as part of their sentence. What the Feds and states have done now is expand what a felony is to the point pretty much every one of us have been guilty of committing a felony at some point in our lives, whether we mean to or not. Why should a guy who picks the wrong flower in a park not be able to protect himself the rest of his life? In Arizona, if I am caught doing 20 mph over the speed limit, I forfeit the right to own a firearm. We have let the Federal government build up such a sense of paranoia about firearms that those, like Bionic, can't wait to see them banned-still trying to figure out how an AR15 holding gun owner is calling for a gun ban, but... The 1968 Gun Control Act (thanks Ted Kennedy-like herpes you're the gift that keeps on giving) started all this Federal anti-gun legislation and turned the ATF from a true investigative department to an anti-2nd Amendment crusader organization that sees law-abiding gun owners the same as a criminal for simply owning a Constitutionally protected firearm.
Scalia his own bad self wrote the government does have the authority to regulate guns under the 2nd. The one travesty is that nobody has yet challenged the law that anyone who has ever been convicted of domestic violence can no longer own a gun. Despite any other concerns it's a blatant violation of the prohibition of ex post facto law.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok, my point is this. The U.N. resolution does not address what constitutes a wmd or chemical weapon. We founded and shipped out 500 metric tons of yellowcake quietly through Canada. We found 55 gallon barrels in munition dumps that contained "pesticides". basically the beginning component of chemical weapons just not mixed up yet. Two IEDs used in iraq where chemical weapons leftover from the Hussein regime. Insurgents found them and used them. Since the container was not in a missle it was unable to mix due to there not being any centrifigul force and lack of high speed. The explosion occurred...but the chemicals did not mix.
Now, the parts were there. Not in ridiculous quantities, but still there. My point is, since they weren't in locked and loaded missles like the average citizen thought...it has been publicly deemed a failure.
The police do a routine check on a parole, and he has 5000 rounds of ammunition, the parts to build a gun...etc....is he in violation? If he does not allow the police to thorough check his premises what happens? if he puts up a fight and claims he is just defending his home...do we care?
The two situation are very similar. The problem is, we were looking for a smoking gun....not a disassembled illegally posed gun...........

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/80#post_3502205
Ok, my point is this. The U.N. resolution does not address what constitutes a wmd or chemical weapon. We founded and shipped out 500 metric tons of yellowcake quietly through Canada. We found 55 gallon barrels in munition dumps that contained "pesticides". basically the beginning component of chemical weapons just not mixed up yet. Two IEDs used in iraq where chemical weapons leftover from the Hussein regime. Insurgents found them and used them. Since the container was not in a missle it was unable to mix due to there not being any centrifigul force and lack of high speed. The explosion occurred...but the chemicals did not mix.
Now, the parts were there. Not in ridiculous quantities, but still there. My point is, since they weren't in locked and loaded missles like the average citizen thought...it has been publicly deemed a failure.
The police do a routine check on a parole, and he has 5000 rounds of ammunition, the parts to build a gun...etc....is he in violation? If he does not allow the police to thorough check his premises what happens? if he puts up a fight and claims he is just defending his home...do we care?
The two situation are very similar. The problem is, we were looking for a smoking gun....not a disassembled illegally posed gun...........
We still don't know what's buried in the desert either. They had VX gas which is pretty time consuming to safely dispose of. I wouldn't be shocked if some of that turns up some day. It would have been impossible to do it right without the UN inspectors knowing about it.