[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Music

The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat]

Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary

Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good'

America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL'

Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance

Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years

AMeRiKaN GULaG...

'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns

Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave

Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low

ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE

Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030

Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor

IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023

Boeing to be criminally INDICTED for fraud

0:35 / 10:02 Nigel Farage Embarrasses Rishi Sunak & Keir Starmer AGAIN in New Speech!

Norway to stockpile 82,500 tons of grain to prepare for famine and war

Almost 200 Pages of Epstein Grand Jury Documents Released

UK To Install Defibrillators in EVERY School Due to Sudden Rise in Heart Problems

Pfizer purchased companies that produce drugs to treat the same conditions caused by covid vaccines

It Now Takes An Annual Income Of $186,000 A Year For Americans To Feel Financially Secure

Houthis Unleash 'Attacks' On Israeli, U.S. And UK Ships; 'Trio Of Evil Hit' | Full Detail

Gaza hospital chief says he was severely tortured in Israeli prisons

I'd like to thank Congress for using my Tax money to buy Zelenskys wife a Bugatti.

Cancer-causing radium detected in US city's groundwater due to landfill teeming with nuclear waste from WWII-era atomic bomb efforts

Tennessee Law Allowing Death Penalty For Pedophiles Goes Into Effect - Only Democrats Oppose It

Meet the NEW Joe Biden! 😂

Bovine Collagen Benefits


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source: Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24866
Comments: 394

British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-129) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#130. To: BeAChooser (#129)

you are spinning again, but that is to be expected.

there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one, but couldn't he lacked three votes. bush also cut the inspections short. 114 authorized enforcement of security councel resolutions or defence of national security. as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you. look at the silly articles you are forced to quote to keep your kooky propaganda here alive.

here is the resoluton:

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:03:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: BeAChooser (#129)

i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution as it contradicted what you claimed above. you could only cherry pick from the recitals. and you didn't quote them correctly.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: BeAChooser (#128)

also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq. bush didn't do this because he feared he would be TURNED DOWN as he was in the UN. instead, he used fox news to fool guys like you into thinking the resolution above was sufficient.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: BeAChooser (#129)

this sort of blatent dishonesty is the reason you are a laughing stock both here and on LP. it is also the reason that the republicans lost the last election and now stand in ruins with a 29% approval rate. it is why fox news is losing viewers and why 50% of the country identifies with the democrats and only 35% identify with the republicans. people are sick of the type of sleaze you, your party and your country push.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: BeAChooser (#129)

Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.

If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions. If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.

You might not be so pumped up about GWB's right to abuse Congressional permission to wage war if it were Israel rather than Iraq that was the unlucky victim of erroneous ( can you say manufactured?) WMD intel.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-03   22:13:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: BeAChooser (#113)

We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

No, NewsMax told you you and other gullible goobers that it had seen these sorts of things, and that "unnamed sources" reported such things, and it it all crap. That is why the Duelfer report and all respectable media outlets call this sort of shit "debunked".

If a shred of the NewsMax crap you spew were true, Bush would be on TV tonight repeating it and saving his Presidency. Instead, he slides down the tubes because of Iraq.

And if a shred of this crap were true, why does it only come out in the Republican goob fooler press targeted at easly led morons like yourself?

Surely there are some dark conspiracies at work here. Do you suppose Ron Brown is at the bottom of it all?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:23:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: BeAChooser (#120)

The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

If you sit around reading this nutter stuff all day, you start spewing nut ball conspiracies like you just did here.

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication? Or is it all NewsMax spew?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:26:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: BeAChooser (#121)

And please don't quote the National Enquirer or the UFO magazines at me.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: BeAChooser (#129)

Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew? And the that only people who seem to support you on it are kooks over on FR?

And don't you find it odd that you must constantly invent new and ever more looney conspiracy theories to explain this?

Either everyone in the world is a kook except you, or it is the other way around. Occums razor should tell you something here.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:30:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

BAC!!! you have not yet defended yourself from the 'treasonous queer' charge. This apparently means that you accept the charges. You are a TREASONOUS QUEER. You pay Jeff Gannon for a date just like George Bush does. and you are a traitor too.

It is very hard on your fans that you do not defend yourself from these charges.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03   23:45:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:46:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#125) (Edited)

An interim report on the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

"How" Congress is to declare war?

ROTFLOL!!

This is the most lame spin you've come out with yet.

You know you can't honestly quote 114 as it doesn't support your argument. You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution but didn't bother after the UN slapped him down. You know that Bush had to then stretch and misinterpret 114 to find the authority to go in.

To avoid these inconvenient fact, you are now claiming that there are many, many ways for Congress to authorize war. Holding up two fingers when Bush walks past, crossing their legs in the chamber, coughing three times, etc.

You are a real piece of work.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   23:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)

The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:

All of them Bullshit.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: BeAChooser (#128) (Edited)

I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down.

I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash.

I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.

By the way I refreshed my memory on the subject. I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot. If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: ..., BeAChooser (#142)

How" Congress is to declare war?

Yea, it's not like Congress ever declared war before.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)

It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq posed no threat.

The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:08:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: All, BeAChooser (#113)

To All: Watch Choose shuck and Jive and refuse to answer the question.

If a shred of chooser's WMD spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp.

If a shred of chooser's Al Qaeda in Iraq spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp.

If a shred of choosers Ron Brown kookery was true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp. In addition, Star, who was somewhat hard up for a charge, could have put Clinton in jail with it.

Chooser simply has no answer to these questions that he can give us. He does have an answer, but the answer is a completely nutty and and utterly silly conspiracy theory and chooser knows that he would be held up to ridicule for years to come if he told it to us.

Hence, chooser ignores questions like the ones above.

Chooser, if your spew has any merit at all, why doesn't Bush get up on national TV and save himself with it? Why is it only pushed by NewsMax and internet kooks such as yourself?

Tell us your nutty conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself.

(I know you will ignore this, but I enjoy poking you with this subject.)

.

...  posted on  2007-04-04   0:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

I find your non-answer to be unsatisfying.

I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer.

and this taints everything you've ever written. My whole world-view is in crisis now. if you're not even going to defend yourself on this point.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   9:44:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: BeAChooser (#113) (Edited)

Say chooser .... why don't you tell us your nutter conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself.

If there is any merit to the garbage you regurgitate here, then one would expect to hear Bush using it to save himself from the coming < 20% approval rating.

But Bush doesn't use it. From this, one would assume that your spew was just bullshit that NewsMax has fed to gullible goobers like yourself.

Surely there is a nutter conspiracy theory that you run through your mind to avoid confronting this awful realization.

Let's hear it.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-04   10:21:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: BeAChooser (#110)

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: BeAChooser (#113) (Edited)

Zal-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana?

You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:19:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#120)

Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain.

It was that Hazel O'Leary who did it!

I knew there was something bad about that woman!! /k

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#130)

there was no un security council resolution.

The Congressional bill did not require one. It just required that Bush do his best to get international cooperation and work to enforce UN resolutions. After first making sure the security of the US was preserved.

bush also cut the inspections short.

No he didn't. He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.

as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you.

At the time they didn't know there were no WMD. Everyone seemed to think they might still exist. And to this day, we really don't know if they did or not. The ISG said the possibility still existed because something was moved to syria (and they had a source they deemed credible which said it had to do with WMD). Also, Iraq went to a lot of trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities of something they didn't have. Plus we have that binary sarin warhead that Iraq simply wasn't supposed to have. And finally, this never was just about WMD. Just look at all the concerns in that law the Congress passed authorizing the use of military force.

defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

That about covers it.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   15:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#153)

He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.

Bush is not the boss of the UN nor was he the decider when the UN mission would end, nor was the UN mission working for the USA. Bush had NO AUTHORITY to dictate anything to the UN.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   15:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser, Diana, SkyDrifter (#130)

there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one

Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's.

Because I used to believe BAC's posts. But I have recently learned that he is a treasonous queer. and he has admitted that this is true even. He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon. I can no longer put any confidence in anything that BAC says.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:01:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#131)

here is the resoluton

... snip ...

i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution

ROTFLOL! I notice that so did you.

You forgot the twenty or so WHEREAS's that are most certainly part of the resolution.

Plus you forgot this:

*******

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection

(a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either

(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

***********

Gee ... did I see the word WAR in that?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:05:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#132)

also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq.

There was nothing in writing requiring that he go back for another resolution. The first law said it all.

Bush was duly authorized to do whatever necessary to ensure the safety of the US against terrorists.

And Congress did not act to repeal that law.

Nor did they cut off funding for the invasion.

Nor have they cut off funding for the occupations since that invasion.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: scrapper2, ALL (#134)

Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.

Well that's stretching the truth a bit ...

And isn't hindsight wonderful ...

If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions.

And put Pelosi into the Presidency? ROTFLOL!

If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.

Unlike Pelosi, Hillary and so many other top democRATS, they actually have worked in private industry during their lives.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: All (#157)

I remind everyone that a TREASONOUS QUEER is not a good source for information.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:14:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: ..., ALL (#135)

"We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands."

No, NewsMax told you you

Newsmax is not the source for any of this. If you'd paid the slightest attention to any thread where these things were discussed, you know that.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-18-jordan-terror_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/26/world/main613825.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/%20

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135670,00.html

http://middle-east.news.designerz.com/zarqawi-chemical-bomb-plot-trial-postponed-after-lawyers-fail-to-show.html

http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726%2D58b2%2D447b%2Dae27%2D7669bf04a708.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp

It's clear enough who is in the dark here.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: ..., ALL (#136)

The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

... snip ...

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication?

See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:21:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: ..., ALL (#138)

Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew?

Isn't it odd how wrong you turned out to be. Or are you just generally uninformed, ...?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:22:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: BeAChooser (#160)

11 links that would take 5 hours to read and says who knows what. not one quotation snipped out even to demonstrate your point. and not one word about the details of your date with Jeff Gannon. Were you the boy or the girl? We're more interested in that.

But a TREASONOUS QUEER won't answer. and that is YET MORE PROOF that you ARE a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!!!!!!!

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Destro, ALL (#140)

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: ... (#142)

You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution

Please link us to the written material requiring this. Bet you don't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: Destro, ALL (#143)

"The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:"

All of them Bullshit.

That is YOUR opinion. The opinion of CONGRESS, however, was expressed in those twenty or so WHEREAS's in the law they passed authorizing the President to use force.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: BeAChooser (#164)

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Only in Tel Aviv (where it appears such matters for the United States are decided).

Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.

wbales  posted on  2007-04-04   16:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: Destro, ALL (#144)

I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.

But the crash doesn't explain the head wound, which according to the pathologists looked more like something caused by a bullet.

I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot.

What you provided was a STORY that someone made up and that doesn't account for the verifiable statements of the pathologists and photographer about what the wound, photos and x-rays told them.

If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.

Why would the pathologists and photographer, who you can actually listen to talking about this matter if you desire, be part of a disinfo attempt? Because prior to their coming forward to blow the whistle in a variety of forums, there were no allegations of foul play in the Ron Brown matter. So why did they come forward?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:47:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: BeAChooser (#168)

But the crash doesn't explain the head wound,

Occam's Razor explains it well enough.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   16:49:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: BeAChooser, Destro, leveller, All (#164)

Destro: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

BAC: Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Here's your answer from leveller on another thread which you have conveniently forgotten to read - furthermore, I believe leveller is better acquainted with the law ( hint, hint) than you are, BAC.

leveller states "No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

So your ergo conclusion is worth squat, BAC. So what else is new?

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=8#C8

#8. To: BeAChooser (#3)

BAC: the FORM the declaration must take.

leveller: No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war.

An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941:

"The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"

leveller posted on 2007-04-04 11:11:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   16:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (171 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]