See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 4971
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin, ALL (#0)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
http://supreme. lp.findlaw.com/documents/constitution.html War Powers While the President is the Commander in Chief, Congress holds the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Read more in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2. http: //supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/index.html#1.8 U.S. Constitution: Article I Section 8. The Congress...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. http: //supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article02/index.html#2.2 U.S. Constitution: Article II Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
But none of that defines the FORM the declaration must take.
WTF are you talking about? Okay, genius, I know you are dying to spit out cut and paste reichwing docterine from Nat'l Review or Frontpage or Newsmax that addresses "form." Fall all over yourself.
See the UN Charter, which is defined as an extension of the U.S. Constitution - asshole! Thereafter, go to the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Precedents. Next, note the Afghan and Iraq invasions as no-shit War Crimes! Say, BAC, did you have a question?
can you offer convincing proof that you are not a TREASONOUS QUEER? You sound like some kind of anti-American nut. All REAL AMERICANS learned that the constitution requires a declaration of war while they were in school. Except for TREASONOUS QUEERS. answer me this. when you have a date with Jeff Gannon - are you the boy or are you the girl. and how much do you pay.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Sure. It is in the penumbra. It should be a resolution written in language that is so clear that a 20 minute rant by a Fox News talking head isn't required to tell us the plain meaning expressed in the four corners of the document. Look at the bullshit Fox had to go through to paint 114 as a declaration of war. Hours and hours of spin to convince us that the bill didn't say what it appeared to say and did say what it didn't say. Look how you had to squirm and quote out of context on the other thread to put lipstick on this pig -- it was silly performance and you know it. Now compare 114 to simple and straight forward declarations of war in WWII.
.
No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert aht 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"
BINGO. In your OPINION. Apparently Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree with you.
"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others." That came from wikipedia, is that a satifactory working definition? And here I am stuck trying to figure out how your idiotic spin could possible help your position. There, now I'm unstuck, you're an idiot.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Written by you, perchance? ROTFLOL! Sorry, but I'm still waiting for you folks to point out a definition of the form a Declaration Of War must take that is in the Constitution or some binding US legislation. But you can't do it, can you, Dakmar. What you folks just can't accept is that the Congress spoke and authorized the use of force in Iraq.
No, you paranoid baboon raper.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Did the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the Iraq War?
A declaration of war is a legal matter, obviously beyond your comprehension. You don't even get t-shirt rights this time, fudgeboy.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
No sense of humor, either?
Apparently not. Too bad, a few of my fellow borg found you amusing.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
*************** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected[12], as all such suggestions since World War II have been. The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." The Court of Appeals decision goes on to cite Massachusetts v. Laird stating "The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war ... provided enough indication of congressional approval" [47]. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties of the United States, along with federal law and the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land (U.S. Constitution). The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and is therefore the law of the land in the United States on equal footing with acts of legislation. The Supreme Court stated in Whitney v. Robertson, "By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other".[13][14] The authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed in 2003, many years after the UN Charter.[15] **************** Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war?
Which is why Congress passed a law that was signed by the President authorizing the use of force.
since I am a patient man and you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! I will ask you again. In your date with Jeff Gannon, which you admitted to having, did you violate him, or did he violate you? and how much did you pay?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Did the US declare war on Iraq? Fill me in, I must have missed that. Yet we did invade with the intention of forcing "regime change"? Sounds like a war to me. Good point, a Republican Congress illegally abdicated authority and likely violated the Constitution, I'll make a note of it.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
First you need to tell us the exact form that a Declaration of War must take according to the Constitution and/or US law. Can you do it? No? Then I guess my answer would be YES, Congress declared war on Iraq when it passed a law authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq for a host of WHEREAS reasons.
SO, WE'RE AT WAR WITH IRAQ??? SHIT, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
ss . . ssanibsurdansinuoashin - Geo. W. Bush
So a state of war exists between the US and Iraq? I'll bet the UN will be surprised to learn that.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Transcript CQ Transcriptions I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails. BAC would be feeling pretty stupid right now if he were able to comprehend the error of his ways. Never happen, I'm just saying...
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." -- George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
Interesting. Now did Gonzales state what form a declaration must take and his source for said form? No? By the way, do you know that Gonzales is on the record calling illegal immigrants American CITIZENS? Talk about something affecting treaties and diplomatic relations. ROTFLOL! In case you haven't figured it out, Gonzales is far from qualified for his job.
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS?
Yawn. Everytime someone scores a point you try to change the subject. Get a new tactic.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Sean D. Murphy. "United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004", Cambridge University Press. Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war? a. You've quoted the judgement of a lower court and the opinion of lawyer. The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts - if truth be known, the Supreme Court has not considered the legality of the Iraq War. Isn't that correct? b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn. Besides this is not a case that needs a Supreme Court judgement. This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War. But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority. FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing. It must please you that the Israel lobby is calling the shots with our elected representatives regarding foreign policy in the ME because your beliefs are the same as AIPAC - by golly - quelle coincidence.
that and begging the question. where in the constitution does it define the form of a declaration of war? well then doesn't the iraqi war declaration say blah blah blah? (with no supporting quote). prove that i said that! why didn't you post the link? are you a communist?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I never suggested any such thing. I said that the Supreme Court hasn't declared it illegal. And they haven't. You folks claim more than half the country is adamantly against the war and you can't come up with a few million $$$ to take a case before the Supremes? Don't insult our intelligence. ROTFLOL! I agree. But they haven't, have they. Hence, you can't say the war is illegal. Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! Then they should put their money where their mouth is and go to the Supremes.
BAC: Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! It's what has been concluded by researchers who are far smarter and better qualified in research and scholarship than you or I are. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby. You might want to read their study, BAC. Then you wouldn't have to look like such an ill-informed cheap shot artist who makes ignorant remarks like "Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL!" Furthermore, BAC, so you don't go around presenting yourself as a red neck bigot ( though my advice is probably too late in that regard), you should not lump together Jews with IsraelFirster lobby groups or with Israelis themselves. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=891198 "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" March 2006
The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress. They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared." It is not a difficult concept once you get the hang of it. For Japan, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." For Germany, the precise language was, "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...." For Italy, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Italy which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." Below is how the declaration of war against Germany went through each house of congress. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/77-1-148/77-1-148.html [IN THE SENATE] DECLARATION OF STATE OF WAR WITH GERMANY Mr. Connally, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported an original joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) 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, which was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows: "Resolved, etc., 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 United States and the resources 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." I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to say to the Senate that after consideration of the text of the joint resolution which I have reported and after mature consideration of all aspects of this matter, the membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approve and agree to the course suggested. One member of the committee was absent, but I have authority to express his views. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) 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. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? Mr. CONNALLY. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. The result was announced yeas 88, nays 0. * * * * * * So the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) was passed. =========================== [IN THE HOUSE] DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 256, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. The Clerk read as follows. "Resolved, etc., 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 United States and the resources 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." Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. * * * * * * The question was taken; and there were yeas 393, answered "present" 1, not voting 36. So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the resolution was agreed to. ==========================
No. I am STILL not aware of that. LINK please.
BAC said that there was never a declaration of war against Germany. and you've taken the time to prove him wrong. thank-you. BAC is a TREASONOUS QUEER! by his own admission as well I think you should know. a man that is a TREASONOUS QUEER is not someone that can or should be trusted.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
i would trust a treasonous queer before i believed anything fish breath told me. and the whole internet seems to agree.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Yet the succubus claims that's exclusive to 4um'ers.
and the whole internet seems to agree. BAC is both a TREASONOUS QUEER and a FISH BREATH. and the whole internet DOES AGREE. following link proves it beyond any shadow of doubt. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=37#C37
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
would you want to cop to being a failure all across the interet?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
tagline test
Your picture is back.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
i moved it to your folder.
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS? Shalom Fish Breath. What does your response above have to do with the price of tea in China? Why didn't you try to address his point instead of trying to change the subject?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
While that is an interesting dictum, it is not part of the holding which is the only part of a court decision that sets any legal precedent. On the holding, the Court found that no justiciable issue had been presented and affirmed the DISMISSAL of the entire case by the lower court. The Court punted without deciding the issues presented. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 03-1266 JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I, SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT, DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEY, CAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, * * * LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are active-duty members of the military, parents of military personnel, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. (1) They filed a complaint in district court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from initiating a war against Iraq. They assert that such an action would violate the Constitution. The district court dismissed the suit, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the dismissal. In October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (the "October Resolution"), Pub L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11 (granting Congress the power "[t]o declare war"). They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war. In either case, plaintiffs argue, judicial intervention is necessary to preserve the principle of separation of powers which undergirds our constitutional structure. Only the judiciary, they argue, has the constitutionally assigned role and the institutional competence to police the boundaries of the constitutional mandates given to the other branches: Congress alone has the authority to declare war and the President alone has the authority to make war. The plaintiffs argue that important and increasingly vital interests are served by the requirement that it be Congress which decides whether to declare war. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, they argue that congressional involvement will slow the "dogs of war"; that Congress, the voice of the people, should make this momentous decision, one which will cost lives; and that congressional support is needed to ensure that the country is behind the war, a key element in any victory. They also argue that, absent an attack on this country or our allies, congressional involvement must come prior to war, because once war has started, Congress is in an uncomfortable default position where the use of its appropriations powers to cut short any war is an inadequate remedy. The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the "extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference." Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat. The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint. The theory of collision between the legislative and executive branches is not suitable for judicial review, because there is not a ripe dispute concerning the President's acts and the requirements of the October Resolution passed by Congress. By contrast, the theory of collusion, by its nature, assumes no conflict between the political branches, but rather a willing abdication of congressional power to an emboldened and enlarged presidency. That theory is not fit for judicial review for a different, but related, reason: Plaintiffs' claim that Congress and the President have transgressed the boundaries of their shared war powers, as demarcated by the Constitution, is presently insufficient to present a justiciable issue. Common to both is our assessment that, before courts adjudicate a case involving the war powers allocated to the two political branches, they must be presented with a case or controversy that clearly raises the specter of undermining the constitutional structure. * * * [Skipping to page 14 of my PDF file, the court's discussion ends with] Nor is there clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to declare war to the President. To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. It has enacted several relevant pieces of legislation expressing support for an aggressive posture toward Iraq, including authorization of the prior war against Iraq and of military assistance for groups that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also accepted continued American participation in military activities in and around Iraq, including flight patrols and missile strikes. Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war. It is true that "courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits" on constitutional power. Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238. Questions about the structure of congressional power can be justiciable under the proper circumstances. See, e.g., Clinton, 524 U.S. at 428-36; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 941-44. But courts are rightly hesitant to second-guess the form or means by which the coequal political branches choose to exercise their textually committed constitutional powers. See Orlando, 443 F.2d at 1043. As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches. Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
He's such an idiot! President Reiterates Goal on Homeownership I believe owning a home is an essential part of economic security. And I'm concerned about the security of America. That was 2002, now all those adjustable loans mean lots of foreclosures.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
********** http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/letters.html From Philip Zelikow In their essay ‘The Israel Lobby’, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt invoke comments made by me as evidence for a controversial assertion of their own concerning the motives for the US invasion of Iraq (LRB, 23 March): Readers may find it interesting to know what I actually said and how Mearsheimer and Walt appear to have misused my comments. My talk was on 10 September 2002 at a 9/11 anniversary symposium. I argued that possession of nuclear (or biological) weapons by Saddam Hussein would be very dangerous. Reflecting on my White House work during the Gulf War in 1990-91, I did point out that I believed then, and later, that the most likely direct target of an Iraqi WMD attack would be Israel, but that policymakers had no wish to emphasise this. That said, any US or European government, in 1991 or later, would rightly have regarded an Iraqi nuclear attack on Israel – or on any other country – as a horrific prospect they would do much to prevent. Neither of these conclusions – that Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous, or that Israel might be most directly threatened by such weapons – was especially remarkable. These things were understood in 1991. Iraq tried very hard to pull Israel into that war and its politics, ultimately even bombarding Israel with ballistic missiles. The coalition laboured successfully to thwart Saddam and keep Israel out of that war. None of this, though, bore on the question of what to do about a possible Iraqi WMD programme in 2002. On that issue – whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq – I expressed no view in my September 2002 talk, or on any other public occasion during those years. Nor did I try to explain why the Bush administration went to war, either in 2002 or after the invasion in 2003 or 2004. And in those years I had little special knowledge of those motives. My work on the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (from which I resigned in February 2003) had not involved Iraq. So how did my views wind up in Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay as evidence that Bush went to war in part for Israel? In 2004, local reports of my September 2002 comments were discovered by the Inter Press Service. To put it mildly, that body has a strong political point of view. It circulated on the web an article headlined ‘War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser’. Without any evidence other than the old September 2002 quotes, the article’s lead was: ‘Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.’ The claim has bounced around the internet ever since. Mearsheimer and Walt cite this article, which they found in Asia Times Online, as their source for my comments. The original slur did not deserve a response, but the situation is different when it is repeated by two accredited scholars, and endorsed by publication in the LRB. The claim still has three holes. First, like most of the world, I did think that, if Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons, this would endanger the interests of America and the world in several ways, including the direct threat of a possible strike on Israel. Second, I did not state an opinion about whether this should be a cause for war in 2002-03. Third, I did not state an opinion – or even have any special knowledge – about the motives of the Bush administration in going to war in 2003. I hope that readers will contrast these points with what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in the passage quoted above. Readers will also notice that the passage leads with a reference to the ‘Lobby’, of which I am clearly presumed to be a part. There is no evidence for that either. Philip Zelikow *********** http://slate.msn.com/id/2138741/ Overstating Jewish Power Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, March 27, 2006, at 1:47 PM ET It's slightly hard to understand the fuss generated by the article on the Israeli lobby produced by the joint labors of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was published in the London Review of Books. My guess is that the Harvard logo has something to do with it, but then I don't understand why the doings of that campus get so much media attention, either. The essay itself, mostly a very average "realist" and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original. Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority. Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel's help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points. However, Mearsheimer and Walt present the situation as one where the Jewish tail wags the American dog, and where the United States has gone to war in Iraq to gratify Ariel Sharon, and where the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of Osama Bin Laden. This is partly misleading and partly creepy. If the Jewish stranglehold on policy has been so absolute since the days of Harry Truman, then what was Gen. Eisenhower thinking when, on the eve of an election 50 years ago, he peremptorily ordered Ben Gurion out of Sinai and Gaza on pain of canceling the sale of Israeli bonds? On the next occasion when Israel went to war with its neighbors, 11 years later, President Lyndon Johnson was much more lenient, but a strong motive of his policy (undetermined by Israel) was to win Jewish support for the war the "realists" were then waging in Vietnam. (He didn't get the support, except from Rabbi Meir Kahane.) If it is Israel that decides on the deployment of American force, it seems odd that the first President Bush had to order them to stay out of the coalition to free Kuwait, and it is even more odd that the first order of neocon business has not been an attack on Iran, as Israeli hawks have been urging. Mearsheimer and Walt are especially weak on this point: They speak darkly about neocon and Israeli maneuvers in respect to Tehran today, but they entirely fail to explain why the main initiative against the mullahs has come from the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Authority, two organizations where the voice of the Jewish lobby is, to say the least, distinctly muted. Their theory does nothing to explain why it was French President Jacques Chirac who took the lead in isolating the death-squad regime of Assad's Syria (a government that Mearsheimer and Walt regard, for reasons of their own, as a force for stability). As for the idea that Israel is the root cause of the emergence of al-Qaida: Where have these two gentlemen been? Bin Laden's gang emerged from a whole series of tough and reactionary battles in Central and Eastern Asia, from the war for a separate Muslim state in the Philippines to the fighting in Kashmir, the Uighur territories in China, and of course Afghanistan. There are hardly any Palestinians in its ranks, and its communiqués have been notable for how little they say about the Palestinian struggle. Bin Laden does not favor a Palestinian state; he simply regards the whole area of the former British Mandate as a part of the future caliphate. The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right, but anyone who imagines that its emergence would appease—or would have appeased—the forces of jihad is quite simply a fool. Is al-Qaida fomenting civil war in Nigeria or demanding the return of East Timor to Indonesia because its heart bleeds for the West Bank? For purposes of contrast, let us look at two other regional allies of the United States. Both Turkey and Pakistan have been joined to the Pentagon hip since approximately the time of the emergence of the state of Israel, which coincided with the Truman Doctrine. Pakistan was, like Israel, cleaved from a former British territory. Since that time, both states have carried out appalling internal repression and even more appalling external aggression. Pakistan attempted a genocide in Bangladesh, with the support of Nixon and Kissinger, in 1971. It imposed the Taliban as its client in a quasi-occupation of Afghanistan. It continues to arm and train Bin Ladenists to infiltrate Indian-held Kashmir, and its promiscuity with nuclear materials exceeds anything Israel has tried with its stockpile at Dimona. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues in illegal occupation of the northern third of the island, which has been forcibly cleansed of its Greek inhabitants. It continues to lie about its massacre of the Armenians. U.N. resolutions have had no impact on these instances of state terror and illegality in which the United States is also partially implicated. But here's the thing: There is no Turkish or Pakistani ethnic "lobby" in America. And here's the other thing: There is no call for "disinvestment" in Turkey or Pakistan. We are not incessantly told that with these two friends we are partners in crime. Perhaps the Greek Cypriots and Indians are in error in refusing to fly civilian aircraft into skyscrapers. That might get the attention of the "realists." Or perhaps the affairs of two states, one secular Muslim and one created specifically in the name of Islam, do not possess the eternal fascination that attaches to the Jewish question. There has been some disquiet expressed about Mearsheimer and Walt's over-fondness for Jewish name-dropping: their reiteration of the names Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., as the neocon inner circle. Well, it would be stupid not to notice that a group of high-energy Jews has been playing a role in our foreign-policy debate for some time. The first occasion on which it had any significant influence (because, despite its tentacular influence, it lost the argument over removing Saddam Hussein in 1991) was in pressing the Clinton administration to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo. These are the territories of Europe's oldest and largest Muslim minorities; they are oil-free and they do not in the least involve the state interest of Israel. Indeed, Sharon publicly opposed the intervention. One could not explain any of this from Mearsheimer and Walt's rhetoric about "the lobby." Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started. Their wish is father to the thought that there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly. *************** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801178.html Pronouncing Blame on the Israel Lobby By Dana Milbank Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A02 It was quite a boner. University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer was in town yesterday to elaborate on his view that American Jewish groups are responsible for the war in Iraq, the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and many other bad things. As evidence, he cited the influence pro-Israel groups have on "John Boner, the House majority leader." Actually, Professor, it's "BAY-ner." But Mearsheimer quickly dispensed with Boehner (R-Ohio) and moved on to Jewish groups' nefarious sway over Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who Mearsheimer called " Von Hollen." Such gaffes would be trivial -- if Mearsheimer weren't claiming to be an authority on Washington and how power is wielded here. But Mearsheimer, with co-author Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School, set off a furious debate this spring when they argued that "the Israel lobby" is exerting undue influence in Washington; opponents called them anti-Semitic. Yesterday, at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they held a forum at the National Press Club to expand on their allegations about the Israel lobby. Blurring the line between academics and activism, they accepted a button proclaiming "Fight the Israel Lobby" and won cheers from the Muslim group for their denunciation of Israel and its friends in the United States. Whatever motivated the performance, the result wasn't exactly scholarly. Walt singled out two Jews who worked at the Pentagon for their pro-Israel views. "People like Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith . . . advocate policies they think are good for Israel and the United States alike," he said. "We don't think there's anything wrong with that, but we also don't think there's anything wrong for others to point out that these individuals do have attachments that shape how they think about the Middle East." "Attachments" sounds much better than "dual loyalties." But why single out Wolfowitz and Feith and not their non-Jewish boss, Donald Rumsfeld? "I could have mentioned non-Jewish people like John Bolton," Walt allowed when the question was put to him. Picking up on the "attachments" lingo, Mearsheimer did mention Bolton but cited two Jews, Elliott Abrams and David Wurmser, as "the two most influential advisers on Middle East affairs in the White House. Both, he said, are " fervent supporters of Israel." Never mind that others in the White House, such as national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Vice President Cheney and President Bush, have been just as fervent despite the lack of "attachments." This line of argument could be considered a precarious one for two blue-eyed men with Germanic surnames. And, indeed, Walt seemed defensive about the charges of anti-Semitism. He cautioned that the Israel lobby "is not a cabal," that it is "not synonymous with American Jews" and that "there is nothing improper or illegitimate about its activities." But Mearsheimer made no such distinctions as he used "Jewish activists," "major Jewish organizations" and the "Israel lobby" interchangeably. Clenching the lectern so tightly his knuckles whitened, Mearsheimer accused Israel of using the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah as a convenient excuse to attack Lebanon. "Israel had been planning to strike at Hezbollah for months," he asserted. "Key Israelis had briefed the administration about their intentions." A questioner asked if he had any "hard evidence" for this accusation. Mearsheimer cited the "public record" and "Israeli civilian strategists," then repeated the allegation that Israel was seeking "a cover for launching this offensive." As evidence that the American public does not agree with the Israel lobby, the political scientist cited a USA Today-Gallup poll showing that 38 percent of Americans disapproved of Israel's military campaign. He neglected to mention that 50 percent approved, and that Americans blamed Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and Lebanon far more than Israel for the conflict. Walt kicked off the session with a warning that we face a "threat from terrorism because we have been so closely tied to Israel." This produced chuckles in the audience. Walt allowed that this was "not the only reason" for our problems, but he did blame Israel supporters for the hands-off position the Bush administration took during the Lebanon fighting. "The answer is the political influence of the Israel lobby," Walt said. He also hypothesized that if not for the Israel lobby, the Iraq war "would have been much less likely." Up next, Mearsheimer ridiculed U.S. leaders for "falling all over themselves to express support for Israel." And he drew groans from the crowd when he spoke about a lawmaker who, after questioning Israel's policy, "met with various representatives from major Jewish organizations, who explained to him the basic facts of life in American politics." When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, "it might have some economic consequences for your business." Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." "I like it," he said, beaming. *************** http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013507.php March 23, 2006 Professor Mearsheimer's first sip The English-language weeekly Forward catches up with the execrable "Israel lobby" paper by University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Kennedy School of Government Dean Stephen Walt: "Scholars' attack on pro-Israel lobby met with silence." Professor Mearsheimer spoke with the Forward, but he was not particularly forthcoming: I'd say Professor Mearsheimer revealed the full potential of saying the wrong thing here in the paper. It's too late to stop now. He continues with the Forward: In a separate Forward story, we gain a little more insight into the mind of Professor Mearsheimer: "Professor says American publisher turned him down." See if you can reconcile his many invitations to elaborate on his thesis in major newspapers, radio and television networks with this: I don't understand how the publisher who commissioned the paper -- could we have his name please? -- found it "virtually impossible" to get the piece published in the United States. Professor Mearsheimer is a notable member of the "realist" school of international relations; he appears to be the kind of realist who can't see the hand in front of his face. The Forward story continues: In yesterday's Best of the Web Today, James Taranto provided another glimpse into the mind of Professor Mearsheimer: ------------------ Blogger Ed Lasky notes a fascinating piece that appeared in the Jan. 10, 2003, issue of the Chicago Maroon, a student newspaper at the University of Chicago: Mearsheimer, of course, is a co-author, with Stephen Walt, of the infamous Harvard paper arguing that there is no moral or strategic basis for America's support of Israel and concluding that such support is explained by "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." As we noted Monday, their paper has drawn praise from David Duke. The claim that Israel would expel Palestinians from the disputed territories had a familiar ring to it, and after some digging through our archives, we figured out why. On March 14, 2003, less than a week before coalition troops crossed the Iraqi frontier, we quoted a reader e-mail responding to our mystification at the idea--then being propounded by figures as diverse as Edward Said, Pat Buchanan, David Duke and Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.)--"that the impending liberation of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy by a Zionist 'cabal,' as Buchanan calls it, that is 'colluding with Israel' to 'ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests.' " Our reader wrote: We are not cruel enough to reveal the identity of this silly missive's author, but we will say that the person is at the University of Chicago and is not Mearsheimer. Apparently this idea was very much in the air among Windy City savants in early 2003. Three years later, Israel not only has not expelled the Palestinian Arabs; it has withdrawn from Gaza. The prediction not only was not "obvious" but was flat wrong. We said so at the time: There is actually one more assumption implicit in the 2003 prediction of imminent "ethnic cleansing" in the disputed territories: that Israel would not observe any moral constraint against such an action. In other words, those who predicted mass expulsion of Palestinians assumed both (a) that Israel is wicked and (b) that carrying out the imagined plan would be practicable. We'd argue that both (a) and (b) are false, but clearly they cannot both be true. It may be that a conviction that Israel is evil blinded advocates of this theory to its practical shortcomings. --------------------- The Jerusalem Post tracked down Alan Dershowitz for additional comments on the paper: "AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda." Professor Dershowitz states: "There is no scholarship here what so ever." In their paper, Professor Mearsheimer and Dean Walt sound a little like alcholics who have taken a sip of a bad brew and can't stop. The 2003 letter to the Maroon suggests that Professor Mearsheimer took that first sip a few years back. Posted by Scott at 06:47 AM **************************
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
I said no such thing. You truly are the typical 4um poster, Red.
How about basic common sense? What does that require? Do you realize how silly you look pushing this very lame and very hypertechnical excuse for the lack of a declaration of war that is now giving you fits?
.
I'm not a big Constitutionalist. I mostly take the Spooner view of it.But I am going to correct your historical ignorance. By its very nature of being a declaration of war it must have certain properties just as a table requires legs or it is called a board or a basin in your bathroom has to spray water to be called a shower. One required property is to make a declaration (hence the name) that a state of war exists between the parties or that one party is declaring war on the other(s). Another property is that it is to be communicated to the other party. It is not just a directive between Congress and the President, but a diplomatic correspondence between Congress (or whomever) and the party that is subject to the declaration. And last, a declaration of war almost always (exception: Mexico's declaration against Italy - leave it to Mexicans to fuck it up)lists grievances leading to or causing the conflict. The US Constitution didn't invent the concept of a declaration of war. It has existed in a particular form in Western diplomatic custom and protocol for centuries. Here is Autria-Hungary's Declaration of War to Serbia: The Royal Serbian Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23, 1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms. Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in a state of war with Serbia. (signed) Count Berchtold Here is Germany's Declaration of War on France in 1914: M. Le President, The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators. Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg. I am instructed, and I have the honour to inform your Excellency, that in the presence of these acts of aggression the German Empire considers itself in a state of war with France in consequence of the acts of this latter Power. At the same time, I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of your Excellency that the German authorities will retain French mercantile vessels in German ports, but they will release them if, within forty-eight hours, they are assured of complete reciprocity. My diplomatic mission having thus come to an end, it only remains for me to request your Excellency to be good enough to furnish me with my passports, and to take the steps you consider suitable to assure my return to Germany, with the staff of the Embassy, as well as, with the Staff of the Bavarian Legation and of the German Consulate General in Paris. Be good enough, M. le President, to receive the assurances of my deepest respect. (Signed) [Baron Von] SCHOEN. Friday 19th October 1739. His Majesty's Declaration of War against the King of Spain. WHEREAS many unjust Seizures have been made, and Depredations carried on for several Years in the W. Indies by Spanish Guarda Costas, and other Ships acting under the Commission of the King of Spain, or his Governors, contrary to the Treaties subsisting between Us and the Crown of Spain, and to the Law of Nations, to the great Prejudice of the lawful Trade and Commerce of Our Subjects; and great Crueltues and Barbarities have been exercised on the Persons of divers of our Subjects, whose vessels have been seized, and the British Colours have been insulted in the most ignominious Manner; And whereas We have caused frequent Complaints to be made to the King of Spain, of these violent and unjust Proceedings, but no Satisfaction or Redress has been given for the same, notwithstanding the many Promises made and Cedulas issued, signed by the said King, or by his Order, for that Purpose; And whereas the evils abovementioned have been principally occasioned by an unwarrantable Claim and Pretension, set up on the Part of Spain, that the Guarda Costas, and other Ships, authorised by the King of Spain, may stop, detain and search the Ships and Vessels of our Subjects navigating in the American Seas, contrary to the Liberty of Navigation, to which Our Subjects have not only equal Right with those of the King of Spain, by the Law of Nations, but which is moreover expressly acknowledg'd and declared to belong to them by the most solemn Treaties, and particularly in the Year 1670; And wereas the said groundless Claim and Pretention, and that the unjust Practice of stopping, detaining and searching Ships and Vessels navigating in the Seas of America, is not only of the most dangerous and Destructive Consequence to the lawful Commerce of Our Subjects, but also tends to interupt and obstruct the free Intercourse and Correpondence between Our Dominions in Europe, and Our Colonies and Plantations in America, and by means thereof to deprive Us and Our Subjects of the benefit of those Colonies and Plantations; a consideration of the highest Importance to Us and Our Kingdoms; and a Practice which must affect, in its Consequence, all the other Princes and States of Europe, possessed of Settlements in the West Indies, or whose subjects carry on any Trade thither. And whereas besides the notorious Grounds of Complaint abovementioned, many other infractions have been made on the Part of Spain, of the several Treaties and Conventions subsisting between Us and that Crowm, and particularly of that concluded in the year 1657, as well by the exorbitant Duties and Impositions laid upon the Trade and Commerce of Our Subjects, as by the Breach of ancient and established Privileges, stipulated for them by the said Treaties; for the Redress of which Grievences the strongest Instances have been, from time to time, made by Our several Ministers residing within Spain, without any Effect. And whereas a Convention for making Reparation to Our Subjects for the Losses sustained by them, on Account of the unjust Seizures and Depredations committed by the Spaniards in America, and in order to prevent for the future all the Grievences and Causes of Complaint therin taken Notice of, and to remove absolutely and for ever every thing which might give occasion thereto, was concluded between Us, and the King of Spain, on the Fourteenth Day of January last, N.S. by which Convention it was stipulated, that a certain Sum of Money should be paid at London, within a Term therin specified, as a Balance admitted to be due on the Part of Spain, to the Crown and Subjects of Great Britain; which term expired on the Twenty fifth Day of May last, and the Payment of the said Sum was not made according to the Stipulation for that Purpose; by which Means the Convention above mentioned was manifestly violated and broken by the King of Spain, and our Subjects remained without any Saisfaction, or Reparation for the many grievous Losses sustained by them; and thw Methods agreed upon by the said Convention in order to obtaining future Security for the Trade and Navigation of Our Subjects, are, contrary to good Faith, frustrated and defeated, in Consequence of which We found ourselves obliged, for vindicating the Honour of Our Crown, and for procuring Reparation, and Satisfaction for Our injured Subjects, to order, that general Reprisals should be granted against the said King of Spain, his Vassels and Subjects, and their Ships, Goods and Effects. And whereas the Court of Spain has been induced to colour the open Violation of the Convention aforesaid, by Reasons and Pretence which are void of all Foundation; and, at the same Time, has not only published an Order, signed by the said King, for seizing the Ships, Goods and Effects belonging to Us, and Our Subjects, wherever they shall be met with, but has caused Seizures to be actually made of the Goods and Effects of Our Subjects, residing in his Dominions, and has also ordered Our said subjects to depart out of the Spanish Dominions, within a short limited Time, contrary to the express Stipulations of the Treaties between the Two Crowns, even in the case of a War actually declared. We have taken into our Royal and most seriour Consideration these Injuries, which have been offered to Us, and Our Subjects, and the manifest Violation of the in many Particulars eluded, or ecaded by the Unwarrantable Behaviour of the Court of Spain, and their Officers, notwithstanding the repeated Instances We have given of Our Desire to cultivate a good Understanding with the King of Spain, and the essential Proofs of Our Friendship and Regard for him and his Family, which We have demonstrated to all the World; and being fully satisfied that the Honour of our Crown, the Interest of Our Subjects, and the Regard which ought to be had to the most solemn Treaties, call upon Us to make use of this Power which God has given Us, for vindicating Our Undoubted Rights, and securing to Our loving Subjects the Privileges of Navigation and Commerce to which they are justly intitled. We therefore, relying on the Help of Almighty God, who knows the Uprightness of our Intensions, have thought fit to declare, and do hereby declare War against the said King of Spain; and We will, in pursuance of such Declaration, vigorously prosecute the said War, being afforded the ready Concurrence and Assistance of all Our loving Subjects in so just a Cause. Given at Our Court at Kensington the Nineteenth Day of October 1739, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign. GOD SAVE THE KING Thursday 29th March 1744. His Majesty's Declaration of War against the French King. THE Troubles which broke out in Germany, on account of the Succession of the late Emperor Charles the Sixth, having been begun and carried on by the Instigation, Assistance, and Support of the French King, with a view to overturn the Balance of Power in Europe, and to extend the dangerous Influence of that Crown, in direct Violation of the solemn Guaranty of the Pragmatic Sanction, given by him in the Year 1738, In Consideration of the Cession of Lorraine; and we having on our part executed our Engagements for maintaining the Pragmatic Sanction, with that good Faith which is inserarable from us; and having opposed the Attempts made against the Dominions of the Queen of Hungary, we are not surprised that our Conduct in this Respect, should have drawn upon us the Resentment of the French King, who has found his ambitious Views, in a great Measure, disappointed by the Assistance we have furnished to our Ally, unjustly attacked by him; or that he should alledge it as a principal Reason for declaring War against us. From the Time that we found ourselves obliged, for the maintenance of the just Rights of our Subjects, to enter into a War with Spain, instead of observing a strict Neutrality, which we might have promised ourselves on the Part of the French King, from whom we were even founded by Treaty to have demanded Assistance; he has given Encouragement and Support to our Enemies, by conniving at his Subjects, Acting as Privateers under Spanish Commissions, both in Europe and America; and by sending in the Year 1740, a strong Squadron into the the American Seas, in order to prevent us from prosecuting the just War which we were carrying on against Spain in those Parts; and we have most authentick Proof that an order was given to the Commander of the French Squadron, not only to act in a hostile manner against our Ships, either jointly with the Spaniards, or separately; but even to concert Measures with our Enemies, for attacking one of our principal Dominions in America; a duplicate of that order dated the 7th October, 1740, having fallen into the Hands of the Commander in Chief of our Squadron in the West Indies. This injurious Proceeding was greatly aggravated by the French Minister at our Court, having declared on Occasion of sending the said Squadron. that the French King was very far from having any Design or Intention of breaking with us. The Same effective conduct was continued on the Part of the French King, towards us, by his Squadron in the Mediterranea, in the Year 1741, joining with and protecting the Ships of our Enemies, in Sight of our Fleet, which was peparing to attack them. These unwarrantable Proceedings; the notorious Breach of Treaties by repairing the Fortifications, and erecting New Works at Dunkirk, the open Hostilities lately against our Fleet in the Mediterranean; the Affront and Indignity offered to us, by the reception of the Son of the Pretender to our Crown, in the French Dominions; the Embarkation actually made at Dunkirk, of a considerable Body of Troops, notoriously designed for an Invasion of this Kingdom, in Favour of the Pretender to our Crown; and the sending of a Squadron of French Ships of War into the Channel, to support the said Embarkation and Invasion, will be lasting Monuments of the little Regard had by the French Court for the most solemn Engagements, when the Observance of them is inconsistent with Interest, Ambition, or Resentment. We cannot omit taking Notice of the unjust Insinuations contained in the French King's Declaration of War against us, with respect to the Convention made at Hanover, in October 1741; that Convention, regarding our Electorate only, had no Relation to our Conduct as King of Great Britain. The Allegations concerning it, are groundless and injurious; our Proceedings in that Respect, having been perfectly consistent with that Good Faith, which we have always made the Rule of our Actions. The Charge of Piracy, Cruelty and Barbarity against our Ships of War is equally unjust and unbecoming; and we have all such proceedings so much in Abborrence, that, if any Practices of that Nature had been made appear to us, we would have taken effectual Care to put a Stop to them, and to have punished the Offenders in the severest Manner. We being therefore indispensably obliged to take up Arms, and entirely relying on the Help of Almighty God, who knows the Uprightness of our Intensions, have thought fit to declare, and do hereby declare War against the French King; and we will, in Pursuance of such Declaration, vigorously prosecute the same by Sea and Land; being assured of the ready Concurrence and Assistance of all our loving Subjects, in so just a Cause. And we do hereby will and require our Generals and Commanders of our Forces, our Commissioners for executing the Office of High Admiral of Great Britain, our Lieutenants of our several Counties, Governors of our Forts and Garrisons, and all other Officers under them, by Sea and Land, to do and execute all Acts of Hostility in the Prosecution of this War against the said French King, his Vassals, and Subjects and to oppose their Attempts, willing and requiring all our subjects to take Notice of the same, whom we henceforth strictly forbid not to hold any Correspondence or Communication with the Subjects of the French; and advertise all other Persons of what Nation soever, not to transport or carry any Soldiers, Arms, Powder, Ammunition, or other contraband Goods, to any of the Territories, Lands, Plantations, or Countries of the said French King; declaring that whatsoever Sip or Vessel shall be met withal, transporting or carrying any Soldiers, Ams, Powder, Ammunition, or other contraband Goods, to any of the Territories, Lands, Plantations, or Countries of the said French King, the same being taken, shall be condemned as good and lawful Prize. And where there are in remaining in our Kingdom divers of the Subjects of the French King, we do hereby declare our Royal Intention to be, that all the French Subjects, who shall demean themselves dutifully towards us, shall be safe in their Persons and Estates. Given at our Court at St. James's, the Twenty ninth Day of March 1744. In the Seventeenth Year of our Reign. GOD SAVE THE KING. Got the picture yet? Good.
Look we've been down this road before, BAC. a. For every smear on Mearsheimer and Walt by known IsraelFirsters, the 2 esteemed professors have rebuttals in the London Review of Books, which you pointedly omit. For example - take their response to Philip Zelikow: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/le tters.html From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct. Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned. Below are excerpts from Zelikow’s remarks about Iraq on 10 September 2002 (we have the full text). It shows that 1. he was focusing on the possibility of war with Iraq in 2002-03, not the 1990-91 Gulf War; 2. he supported a new war with Iraq; and 3. he believed Iraq was an imminent threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Finally. . . I wanted to offer some comments on Iraq. . . . I beg your patience, but I think there are some points that are worth making that aren’t being made by either side in the current debate. The Iraq situation this administration inherited is and has been unsustainable. Ever since 1996 the Iraqi situation has basically unravelled. . . . So then the real question is, OK, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to end up fixing it? And if you don’t like the administration’s approach, what’s the recommended alternative? Another thing Americans absorb, and this administration especially, is the lesson of Afghanistan. Because remember we knew that international terrorist groups were plotting to kill Americans in a sanctuary called Afghanistan. . . [I]n retrospect, it is perfectly clear that only . . . an [American] invasion could reliably have pre-empted the 9/11 attacks, which relied on people who were being trained in that sanctuary . . . So what lesson does one take from that with respect to Iraq? Well you can see the lesson this administration has taken from that example. And so contemplate what lesson you take. Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell. Now . . . if the danger is a biological weapon handed to Hamas, then what’s the American alternative then? Especially if those weapons have developed to the point where they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us, by then. Play out those scenarios . . . Don’t look at the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, but then ask yourself the question: ‘Gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?’ Easy question to answer, and the evidence is abundant. Yes, there are a lot of other problems in the world . . . My view, by the way, is the more you examine these other problems and try to put together a comprehensive strategy for America and the Middle East, the more I’m driven to the conclusion that it’s better for us to deal with Iraq sooner rather than later. Because those other problems don’t get easier . . . And the Iraq problem is a peculiar combination at the moment, of being exceptionally dangerous at a time when Iraq is exceptionally weak militarily. Now that’s an appealing combination for immediate action . . . But . . . if we wait two years, and then there’s another major terrorist attack against the United States, does it then become easier to act against Iraq, even though the terrorist attack didn’t come from Iraq? No. . . . [A]t this moment, because of the time we bought in the war against terror, it actually makes it easier to go about Iraq now, than waiting a year or two until the war against terror gets harder again. In sum, it is Zelikow, not us, who is attempting to rewrite history. He was admirably candid in 2002, but not in 2006. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt b. As for the likes of Alan Dershowitz - HAHAHA - don't insult our intelligence at 4um by using quotes from that alleged plagiarist. Perhaps you should read what Dr. Finkelstein has shown to be the MO of Dershowitz - please, Dershowitz doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath or to be listed in the same thread as esteemed scholars, Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1 c. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt were listed in the top 25 ranking of American political science research and scholarship. They didn't get there by lying or by bigotry. d. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt have recently signed a book contract with the prestigious publishing house, Farrar and Strauss,to expand on their thesis of the Israel Lobby and its influence on US foreign policy. Farrar and Straus do not publish trash. e. If you were such a true pro-American patriot as you claim to be, you would be incensed at the evidence produced by Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt regarding the duplicity and anti- American negative influence of the Israel Lobby on our foreign policy. That this lobby group has been identified as the main cause of our invasion of Iraq and that this same lobby group is now trying to propel us into a war with Iran, causing our US military to fight and die for the benefit of another nation is shameful, if not treasonous. Instead you defend this foreign agent lobby group which makes me surmise that you are at one with the Israel Lobby's goals. You are as anti-America, IsraelFirst as that lobby group is.
Did you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War "in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." Guess the Framers of the Constitution never read your definition.
You wrote that yourself didn't you. Recall that a few weeks ago you told us that wiki wasn't an acceptable source because this was possible.
.
Oh my goodness, pirates didn't issue a recognized formal declaration of war. You mean they acted as...pirates? I'm shocked. Did you know that "Aaaar matey" is the official structure of a pirate's diplomatic correspondance? Bet you didn't. If you can't tell the difference between protecting shipping interests on the High Seas from Mohammedan pirates and a land war between what the Founders would consider legitimate Sovereigns, then there's no point going on. FYI: the founders were a bit Eurocentric. This was a little before the PC era. I think you know the difference and are being purposely obtuse. Does the term "grasping at straws" mean anything to you? It should.
The Constitution gives to the CONGRESS the power to declare war. They may do with any wording of their choosing as long as the chosen wording declares war. ---------- U.S. Supreme Court "The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed." ---------- U.S. Supreme Court DOUGLAS J., joined by BLACK J, concurring: "But the war power stems from a declaration of war. The Constitution by Art. I, 8, gives Congress, not the President, power '[t]o declare War.' Nowhere are presidential wars authorized. We need not decide therefore what leveling effect the war power of Congress might have." ---------- Federalist #69 - Hamilton "The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union." "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." ---------- Federalist #41 - Madison "That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers. "The powers falling within the first class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money. "Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils. "Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form." ---------- Cornell Law School In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered "to make war." [1412] Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone, [1413] in the Senate[p.308]alone, [1414] or in the President and the Senate, [1415] the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress. [1416] In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual; [1417] in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions. [1418] The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to "declare war." [1419] Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks [1420] without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President. [1421] An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. [1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. [1423] Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify..." [1424] But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view. [1425] Footnotes 1412 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 313.
It would appear that the Framers adopted the view of Hamilton which was opposed to the view of Jefferson. Cornell Law School * * * An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. [1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. [1423] Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify..." [1424] But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view. [1425] 1422 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, J. Richardson ed. (Washington: 1896), 326, 327.
i've come to see this as an expression of praise. yes, the typical 4um poster is one who is wise to your lying and your wickedness.
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law. You realize of course that this is an absolutely asinine statement on your part. I am sure you realize it, but as you appear to have neither pride nor integrity you are willing to risk ridicule in order to push your cheap and silly propaganda. Congress as a body of lawmakers are required to adhere to the same standards as the rest of the legal profession in the documents they draft. This means that the meaning should be clear from the language within the four corners of the document - as the other poster just indicated. You are trying to distract from this simple point as the language of the Iraqi war resolution doesn't support the propaganda you wish to push. You want to introduce parole evidence to change the meaning of the document - and that isn't allowed in this case, and you know that. If your position is correct, why do you need to resort to these dishonest and absolutely scummy tactics to fool people into accepting it? The fact that you must resort to this style of very transparent propaganda should tell you something about the merit of your position.
.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1972)13%3A2%3C261%3ATATWWT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D "But on 14 May 1801, the flagstaff in front of the American Consulate was cut down on the order of the Pasha, who thereby announced his breach of diplomatic relations with America and declared war against her. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3325/Chapter11 "in 1801, the pasha of Tripoli indirectly declared war when he cut down the flagstaff of the American consulate." http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/grizzard/johnson/johnson03.html "It was Yusuf, the Pasha with this bloody record, who declared war on the United States, May 10, 1801, by cutting down the flagstaff of the American consulate." I said you needed to VERIFY what wikipedia claimed. I did. You didn't.
Oh my goodness, I guess you missed the part about the US government signing a TREATY with those "pirates". In fact, it was one you 4um folks who pointed that out.
Oh my goodness, looks like you also missed the fact that US "marines" marched across LAND and deposed the leader of a legitimate sovereign nation as part of that NON-DECLARED WAR.
NOWHERE does it say the wording must say "declare war". And it looks like Congress and the Supreme Court agree. By the way, did you know that the law passed by Congress authorizing the use of military force in Iraq even mentioned the word WAR?
I have no problem with Hamilton's view. In Iraq, a state of war existed with the US in 1991 and the fact that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement stopping the 91 conflict means a state of war still existed between the US and Iraq in 2003. Furthermore, tapes captured during the invasion show that Saddam's regime still considered themselves to be at war with the US.
The 1991 conflict was between Iraq and coalition forces. The United Nations authorized the use of force in order to free Kuwait. It was for the UN to decide whether or how to act on an alleged breach of a UN resolution. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1654697,00.html Text of the Iraq: Legal Background-March 8, 2002 memo from UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (office of Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary) to Tony Blair advising him on the legality of the use of force against Iraq. CONFIDENTIAL IRAQ: LEGAL BACKGROUND * * * 2. In the UK’s view a violation of Iraq’s obligations which undermines the basis of the cease-fire in resolution 687 (1991) can revive the authorisation to use force in resolutions 678 (1990). As the cease-fire was proclaimed by the Council in resolution 687 (1991), it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment if breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view. * * * 9. The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consisent [sic] with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and does not contain any provision for enforcement. Nor (as it is sometimes claimed) were the current NFZs provided for in the Safwan agreement, a provisional agreement between coalition and Iraqi commanders of 3 March 1991, laying down military conditions for the cease fire which did not contain any reference to the NFZs.
It says Congress has the authority "To declare war." They could declare that BAC deposits a lot of poop on the internet but it would not have the same legal effect. Even should all members of the United Nations recognize such declaration as a universal truth, it is unlikely any would recognize it as a Declaration of War. A Declaration of War creates a state of war upon its issuance. The named enemy would have every right, under the laws of war, to kill our uniformed military personnel, and to sink our ships, and to wage war against the United States generally. An Authorization to Use Military Force does -NOT- create a state of war upon its issuance. The state of war is created by the use of military force, not the authorization to use it.
Hahahaha! Dig yourself deeper, BAC. Why don't you go and and tell us poor 4UMers the REAL meaning of "reasonable search and seizure".
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
lol. it would be factual though!
************** Excerpts from UN resolution 1441: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," "Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area," "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material," "Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, ... snip ... "Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq," Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, ... snip ... "Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," "Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance," ... snip ... "1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" "2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;" ... snip ... "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; " ... snip ... "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" ***********
But it doesn't define what form that declaration must take. But we were already in a state of war. Had been since 1991. Even the tapes captured in Iraq show that Saddam and his staff considered themselves still at war with us.
How do you know? Where in the Iraqi Constitution or Iraqi law does it say that form an Iraqi declaration or war must take?
.
Saddam never defined whar form an Iraqi Declaration of War must take.
.
You forgot to include the excerpt that authorized GWB to take military action at his discretion.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that a Joint Resolution of Congress made pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, and which cites said War Powers Resolution four (4) times by name, contains the word war. It also contains the specific authorization involved: SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) 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 resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Did Iraq:
********* "resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," "Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions ********** I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
Yes. Al-Zarqawi, who was closely tied with al-Qaeda, was in Iraq long before we invaded, and in fact met with al-Qaeda members in Baghdad to fund and plan an attack on the US embassy in Amman using a chemically laced bomb. Furthermore, Iraq was asked multiple times by the Jordan and the US to apprehend al-Zarqawi and Iraq made no real attempt. But Iraq was aware that al-Zarqawi was in the country. That we know. When Iraq did manage to pick up a member of al-Zarqawi's group, they released him (on Saddam's orders, according to the CIA). And you forgot to quote the rest of that sentence: "or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." A good case can be made that one reason the chemical bomb plot failed was that al-Zarqawi was put on the run by the invasion and therefore couldn't monitor it as closely as he might have. Or perhaps the invasion even led to intelligence that allowed Jordan to intercept the terrorists before they could complete their mission. No, because unlike Iraq, Saudi Arabia's government condemned the attack, was not on speaking terms with bin Laden (in fact, bin Laden's people were trying to topple the Saudi leadership) and Saudi Arabia after 9/11 made significant efforts to destroy al-Qaeda's operations in their country. Contrast that with Iraq's government which applauded the actions of the terrorists on 9/11, was still in communication with al-Qaeda after 9/11, and instead of rounding up al-Qaeda was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely in their country. And don't forget, preventing al-Qaeda from getting access to WMD was a major concern following an attack on 9/11 that certainly showed a willingness to cross the WMD threshold and following discovery in Afghanistan of an interest in WMD by al-Qaeda. Iraq had WMD technology ... the Saudi's did not.
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorize the use of military force against Israel? 100 SERIES: 1955 - 1962 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 106 (March 29, 1955) 2. Calls again upon Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent such actions; 3. Condemns the attack of 11 December 1955 as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire provisions of its resolution 54 (1948), of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria, and of Israel's obligations under the Charter of the United Nations; 4. Expresses its grave concern at the failure of the Government of Israel to comply with its obligations; 5. Calls upon the Government of Israel to do so in the future, in default of which the Council will have to consider what further measures under the Charter are required to maintain or restore the peace; 2. Urges Israel to comply with this decision; 3. Determines that the Israel attack of 16-17 March 1962 constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution, and calls upon Israel scrupulously to refrain from such action in the future;
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of military force against Israel? EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 200 SERIES: 1966-1971 ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 228 (November 25, 1966) 1. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966; 2. Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan; 3. Emphasizes to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts; 1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities ; 2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter. 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; Observing that the military action by the armed forces of Israel on the territory of Jordan was of a large-scale and carefully planned nature, Considering that all violent incidents and other violations of the cease-fire should be prevented and not overlooking past incidents of this nature, Recalling further resolution 237 (1967) which called upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place, 1. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property; 2. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions; 3. Deplores all violent incidents in violation of the cease-fire and declares that such actions of military reprisal and other grave violations of the cease-fire cannot be tolerated and that the Security Council would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition of such acts; 4. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967); Considering that the holding of a military parade in Jerusalem will aggravate tensions in the area and have an adverse effect on a peaceful settlement of the problems in the area, 1. Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968; Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968. Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan on the situation in Jerusalem (S/8560)1/ and the report of the Secretary-General (S/8146),2/ Having heard the statements made before the Council, Noting that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures and actions in contravention of those resolutions, Bearing in mind the need to work for a just and lasting peace, Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, 1. Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly resolutions mentioned above; 2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; 3. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem; Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting therefrom, 1. Reaffirms its resolution 248 (1968) which, inter alia, declares that grave violations of the cease-fire cannot be tolerated and that the Council would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition of such acts; 2. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property; 3. Considers that premeditated and repeated military attacks endanger the maintenance of the peace; 4. Condemns the further military attacks launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and resolution 248 (1968) and warns that if such attacks were to be repeated the Council would duly take account of the failure to comply with the present resolution. 1. Requests the Secretary-General urgently to dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967, and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967); 2. Requests the Government of Israel to receive the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, to co-operate with him and to facilitate his work; Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting from this violation of the Security Council resolutions, Deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting from this violation of the Security Council resolutions, Deeply concerned about the need to assure free uninterrupted international civil air traffic, 1. Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter and the cease-fire resolutions; 2. Considers that such premeditated acts of violence endanger the maintenance of the peace; 3. Issues a solemn warning to Israel that if such acts were to be repeated, the Council would have to consider further steps to give effect to its decisions; 4. Considers that Lebanon is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel. Viewing with deep concern that the recent air attacks on Jordanian villages and other populated areas were of a pre-planned nature, in violation of resolutions 248 (1968) of 24 March 1968 and 256 (1968) of 16 August 1968, Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation which endangers peace and security in the area, 1. Reaffirms resolutions 248 (1968) and 256 (1968); 2. Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to property; 3. Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by Israel on Jordanian villages and populated area in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions, and warns once again that if such attacks were to be repeated the Security Council would have to meet to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition of such attacks. 2. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council mentioned above; 3. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem; 4. Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status; 5. Urgently calls once more upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, and in future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect; 6. Requests Israel to inform the Security Council without any further delay of its intentions with regard to the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution; 7. Determines that, in the event of a negative response or no response from Israel, the Security Council shall reconvene without delay to consider what further action should be taken in this matter; Mindful of its responsibility under the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Condemns the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in southern Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Security Council resolutions; 2. Deplores all violent incidents in violation of the cease-fire; 3. Deplores the extension of the area of fighting; 4. Declares that such actions of military reprisal and other grave violations of the cease-fire cannot be tolerated and that the Security Council would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition of such acts. 4. Calls upon Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions 1/ and international law governing military occupation and to refrain from causing any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Moslem Council of Jerusalem, including any co-operation that Council may desire from countries with predominantly Moslem population and from Moslem communities in relation to its plans for the maintenance and repair of the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem; 5. Condemns the failure of Israel to comply with the aforementioned resolutions and calls upon it to implement forthwith the provisions of these resolutions; 6. Reiterates the determination in paragraph 7 of resolution 267 (1969) that, in the event of a negative response or no response, the Security Council shall convene without delay to consider what further action should be taken in this matter; Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory. Convinced that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature, Recalling its resolution 279 (1970) of 12 May 1970 demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory, 1. Deplores the failure of Israel to abide by resolutions 262 (1968) and 270 (1969); 2. Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations; 3. Declares that such armed attacks can no longer be tolerated and repeats its solemn warning to Israel that if they were to be repeated the Security Council would, in accordance with resolution 262 (1968) and the present resolution, consider taking adequate and effective steps or measures in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter to implement its resolutions; Demands the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory. 2. Deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the City of Jerusalem; 3. Confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status; 4. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all previous measures and actions and to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem which may purport to change the status of the City or which would prejudice the rights of the inhabitants and the interests of the international community, or a just and lasting peace;
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of military force against Israel? 300 SERIES: 1972-1974 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 313 (February 28, 1972) Demands that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon and forthwith withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory. Gravely concerned at Israel's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968, 270 (1969) of 26 August 1969, 280 (1970) of 19 May 1970, 285 (1970) of 5 September 1970 and 313 (1972) of 28 February 1972 calling on Israel to desist forthwith from any violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, 1. Calls upon Israel to strictly abide by the aforementioned resolutions and to refrain from all military acts against Lebanon; 2. Condemns, while profoundly deploring all acts of violence, the repeated attacks of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory and population in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and Israel's obligations thereunder; 3. Expresses the strong desire that appropriate steps will lead, as an immediate consequence, to the release in the shortest possible time of all Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces on 21 June 1972 on Lebanese territory; 4. Declares that if the above-mentioned steps do not result in the release of the abducted personnel or if Israel fails to comply with the present resolution, the Council will reconvene at the earliest to consider further action. 2. Deplores the fact that despite these efforts, effect has not yet been given to the Security Council's strong desire that all Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory on 21 June 1972 should be released in the shortest possible time; 3. Calls upon Israel for the return of the above-mentioned personnel without delay; Gravely concerned at the deteriorating situation resulting from the violation of Security Council resolutions, Deeply deploring all recent acts of violence resulting in the loss of life of innocent individuals and the endangering of international civil aviation, Recalling the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon of 23 March 1949 and the cease-fire established pursuant to resolutions 233 (1967) of 6 June 1967 and 234 (1967) of 7 June 1967, Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968, 270 (1969) of 26 August 1969, 280 (1970) of 19 May 1970 and 316 (1972) of 26 June 1972, 1. Expresses deep concern over and condemns all acts of violence which endanger or take innocent human lives; 2. Condemns the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations, of the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon and of the Council's cease-fire resolutions; 3. Calls upon Israel to desist forthwith from all military attacks on Lebanon. Gravely concerned that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, Recognizing that such an act could jeopardize the lives and safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation, Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968 and 286 (1970) of 9 September 1970, 1. Condemns the Government of Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space; 2. Considers that these actions by Israel constitute a violation of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council of 1967, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality; 3. Calls on the International Civil Aviation Organization to take due account of this resolution when considering adequate measures to safeguard international civil aviation against these actions; 4. Calls on Israel to desist from any and all acts that violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and endanger the safety of international civil aviation and solemnly warns Israel that, if such acts are repeated, the Council will consider taking adequate steps or measures to enforce its resolutions. 1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy; 2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the ceasefire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts; 3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the ceasefire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East. Referring to its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1. Confirms its decision on an immediate cessation of all kinds of firing and of all military action, and urges that the forces be returned to the positions they occupied at the moment the cease-fire became effective; 2. Requests the Secretary General to take measures for immediate dispatch of United Nations observers to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between the forces of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt, using for this purpose the personnel of the United Nations now in the Middle East and first of all the personnel now in Cairo. Deeply disturbed at the continuation of acts of violence, Gravely concerned that such acts might endanger efforts now taking place to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, 1. Condemns Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon; 2. Condemns all acts of violence, especially those which result in the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, and urges all concerned to refrain from any further acts of violence; 3. Calls upon all Governments concerned to respect their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law; 4. Calls upon Israel forthwith to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians;
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of military force against Israel? 400 SERIES: 1978-1981 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 425 (March 19, 1978) Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from States Members of the United Nations. 1. Approves the increase in the strength of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon requested by the SecretaryGeneral from 4,000 to approximately 6,000 troops; 2. Takes note of the withdrawal of Israeli forces that has taken place so far; 3. Calls upon Israel to complete its withdrawal from all Lebanese territory without any further delay; 4. Deplores the attacks on the United Nations Force that have occurred and demands full respect for the United Nations Force from all parties in Lebanon. Reiterating its conviction that the continuation of the situation constitutes a challenge to its authority and a defiance of its resolutions, Noting with regret that UNIFIL has reached the end of its second mandate without being enabled to complete all of the tasks assigned to it, Stressing that free and unhampered movement for UNIFIL is essential for the fulfilment of its mandate within its entire area of operation, Reaffirming the necessity for the strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries, Re-emphasizing the temporary nature of UNIFIL as set out in its terms of reference, Acting in response to the request of the Government of Lebanon taking into account the Secretary-General's report, 1. Deplores the lack of co-operation particularly on Israel's part with UNIFIL's efforts to fully implement its mandate including Israel's assistance to irregular armed groups in southern Lebanon; 1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978; 3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories; Expressing its anxiety about the continued existence of obstacles against the full deployment of the Force and the threats to its very security, its freedom of movement and the safety of its headquarters which prevented the completion of the phased programme of activities, Convinced that the present situation has serious consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and impedes the achievement of a just, comprehensive and durable peace in the area, 1. Strongly deplores acts of violence against Lebanon that have led to the displacement of civilians, including Palestinians, and brought about destruction and loss of innocent lives; 2. Calls upon Israel to cease forthwith its acts against the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon, in particular its incursions into Lebanon and the assistance it continues to lend to irresponsible armed groups; Taking note of the report and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in document S/13450, Strongly deploring the lack of cooperation of Israel with the Commission, Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population, Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property seized, Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming pertinent Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the need to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in that city, Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East, 1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; 2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the abovementioned report of the Commission; 3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population, Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources, Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city, Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976, Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure, 1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679; 2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission; 3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission; 4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations Headquarters for that purpose; 5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; 7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories; 2. Condemns all actions contrary to the provisions of the above-mentioned resolutions and, in particular, strongly deplores: (a) Any violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity; (b) Israel's military intervention into Lebanon; (c) All acts of violence in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon; (d) Provision of military assistance to the so-called "de facto forces"; (e) All acts of interference with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization; (f) All acts of hostility against UNIFIL and in or through the UNIFIL area of operation as inconsistent with Security Council resolutions; (g) All obstructions of UNIFIL's ability to confirm the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, to supervise the cessation of hostilities, to ensure the peaceful character of the area of operation, to control movement and to take measures deemed necessary to ensure the effective restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty; Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949, Deeply concerned at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, Calls upon the Government of Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed, 1. Strongly deplores the failure of the Government of Israel to implement Security Council resolution 468 (1980) of 8 May 1980; 2. Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron, and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders, so that they can resume their functions for which they were elected and appointed; Recalling also its resolutions 468 (1980) and 469 (1980) of 8 and 20 May 1980, Reaffirming its resolution 465 (1980), by which the Council determined "that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or in any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive just and lasting peace in the Middle East" and strongly deplored the "continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices", Shocked by the assassination attempts on the lives of the mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh, Deeply concerned that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian Arab population, 1. Condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the mayors of Nablus, Ranallah and Al Bireh and calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes; 2. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949); 3. Calls upon the Government of Israel to provide the victims with adequate compensation for the damages suffered as a result of these crimes; 4. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and to comply with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, as well as with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council; 5. Calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories; 6. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city, Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; 2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; 3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council; 5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem; 6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution. Recalling its resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security, Noting that Israel has not complied with Security Council resolution 476 (1980), Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel, 1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions; 2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; 3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and, in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith; 4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 5. Decides not to recognise the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon all Members of the United Nations: (a) to accept this decision; (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City; Recalling its resolutions 468 (1980) and 469 (1980), Taking note of General Assembly resolution 35/122 F, Expresses its grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, 1. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967; 2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Convention; 3. Declares it imperative that the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul be enabled to return to their home and resume their responsibilities; Further taking note of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532), Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the nonproliferation Treaty, Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "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," 1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; 2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; 3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the nonproliferation Treaty; 4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclearweapons proliferation; 5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; 6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; 1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect; 2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision; 3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967; (i) Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognised boundaries; (ii) Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory; (iii) Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States; 2. Reaffirms its past resolutions and particularly its repeated calls upon all concerned for the strict respect of Lebanon's political independence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of military force against Israel? 500 SERIES: 1982-1986 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 501 (February 25, 1982) The Security Council, Taking note of the letters of the Permanent Representatives (S/12600 and S/12606) and the Permanent Representative of Israel (S/12607), Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel, Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace, Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East, 1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries; 2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory; 1. Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon; Recalling its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), 1. Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blocade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); Deeply shocked and alarmed by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982, 1. Reconfirms its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 512 (1982), 513 (1982), 515 (1982) and 516 (1982); 2. Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon; 3. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions; 4. Calls for the prompt return of Israeli troops which have moved forward subsequent to 1325 hours EDT on 1 August 1982; Recalling its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982), 511 (1982), 512 (1982), 513 (1982), 515 (1982), 516 (1982), and 517 (1982), Expressing its most serious concern about continued military activities in Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut, 1. Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut; 2. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut in order to permit the free entry of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population in Beirut; 3. Requests the United Nations observers in and in the vicinity of Beirut to report on the situation; 4. Demands that Israel co-operate fully in the effort to secure the effective deployment of the United Nations observers, as requested by the Government of Lebanon, and in such a manner as to ensure their safety; Having listened to the statement by the Permanent Representative of Lebanon, Taking note of Lebanon's determination to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon, 1. Reaffirms its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 516 (1982) in all their components; 2. Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions; 3. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolution; 4. Calls again for the strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese Government through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon; 5. Reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982) which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations; Having noted with concern that the Israeli attack has caused heavy loss of human life and extensive material damage, Considering that, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, 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, Gravely concerned at the threat to peace and security in the Mediterranean region posed by the air raid perpetrated on 1 October 1985 by Israel in the area of Hamman-Plage, situated in the southern suburb of Tunis, Drawing attention to the serious effect which the aggression carried out by Israel and all acts contrary to the Charter cannot but have on any initiative designed to establish an overall, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Considering that the Israeli Government claimed responsibility for the attack as soon as it had been carried out, 1. Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct; 2. Demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from the threat to do so; 3. Urgently requests the States Members of the United Nations to take measures to dissuade Israel from resorting to such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States; 4. Considers that Tunisia has the right to appropriate reparations as a result of the loss of human life and material damage which it has suffered and for which Israel has claimed responsibility; Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), as well as resolutions 511 (1982), 519 (1982) and 523 (1982) and all the resolutions relating to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Recalling the mandate entrusted to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon by resolution 425 (1978) and the guidelines of the Force set forth in the report of the Secretary-General dated 19 March 1978 (S/12611) and approved in resolution 426 (1978), Further recalling its resolutions 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 520 (1982), as well as all its other resolutions relating to the situation in Lebanon, Solemnly reaffirming that it firmly supports the unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries, Deeply grieved over the tragic loss of human life and indignant at the harassment and attacks to which the soldiers of the Force are being subjected, Recalling in this connection the statement made on 5 September by the President of the Council on its behalf (S/18320), Expressing its concern at the new obstacles to the freedom of movement of the Force and at the threats to its security, Noting with regret that the Force, whose mandate has been renewed for the twenty-first time, has so far been prevented from fulfilling the task entrustsed to it, Recalling its resolutions 444 (1979), 450 (1979), 459 (1979), 474 (1980), 483 (1980) and 488 (1981), in which it expressed its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of the mandate of the Force, to examine practical ways and means to secure full and unconditional implementation of resolution 425 (1978), Emphasizing its conviction that this deterioration of the situation constitutes a challenge to its authority and its resolutions, 1. Condemns in the strongest terms the attacks committed against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon; 2. Expresses indignation at the support which such criminal action may receive; Seriously concerned about the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, 1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; 2. Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenceless students; 3. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949; 4. Further calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University in violation of the above-mentioned Geneva Convention;
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of military force against Israel? 600 SERIES: 1987-1991 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 605 (December 22, 1987) 1. Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, and in particular the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians; 2. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; 3. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violation of the provisions of the Convention; Expressing grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, Having been apprised of the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to "continue the deportation" of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories, Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, of 12 August 1949, and in particular articles 47 and 49 of same, 1. Reaffirms once again that the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to Palestinian and other Arab territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, 2. Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; 3. Strongly requests Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by its obligation arising from the Convention; 4. Decides to keep the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, under review. Expressing its deep regret that Israel, the occupying Power, has, in defiance of that resolution, deported Palestinian civilians, 1. Calls upon Israel to rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians and to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those already deported; 2. Requests that Israel desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; Having been apprised that Israel, the occupying Power, has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported eight Palestinian civilians on 29 June 1989, Expressing grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and in particular articles 47 and 49 thereof, 1. Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians; 2. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians; 3. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories; Having been apprised that Israel, the occupying Power, has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported five Palestinian civilians on 27 August 1989, Expressing grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories; Recalling the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and in particular articles 47 and 49 thereof, 1. Deplores the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians; 2. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians; 3. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories; Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990, 1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram Al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers; 2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life; 3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967; Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990, Gravely concerned at the continued deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories, 1. Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region; 2. Urges the Israeli Government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) and to permit the mission of the Secretary-General to proceed in keeping with its purpose; Reaffirming also the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war set forth in Security Council resolution 242 (1967), Having received the report of the Secretary-General submitted in accordance with Security Council resolution 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990 on ways and means for ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation and in particular taking note of paragraphs 20 to 26 thereof (S/21919), Taking note of the interest of the Secretary-General to visit and send his envoy to pursue his initiative with the Israeli authorities, as indicated in paragraph 22 of the report of the Secretary-General (S/21919), and of their recent invitation extended to him, Gravely concerned at the dangerous deterioration of the situation in all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and at the violence and rising tension in Israel, Taking into consideration the statement by the President of the Security Council on 20 December 1990 concerning the method and approach for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict; Recalling its resolutions 607 (1988), of 5 January 1988, 608 (1988), of 14 January 1988, 636 (1989) of July 1989 and 641 (1989) of 30 August 1989, and alarmed by the decision of the Government of Israel to deport four Palestinians from the occupied territories in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, 1. Expresses its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report; 2. Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of Security Council resolutions 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990 and 673 (1990) of 24 October 1990; 3. Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories; 4. Urges the Government of Israel to accept de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the said Convention; 5. Calls on the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to ensure respect by Israel, the occupying Power, for its obligations under the Convention in accordance with article 1 thereof; Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991, 1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; 2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorizes the use of military force against Israel? 700 SERIES: 1992 EXCERPTS FROM UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ALL LINKS GO TO THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY. Resolution 726 (January 6, 1992) Recalling its resolutions 607 (1988), 608 (1988), 636 (1989), 641 (1989) and 694 (1991), Having been apprised of the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to deport twelve Palestinian civilians from the occupied Palestinian territories, 1. Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians; 2. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; 3. Requests Israel, the occupying Power, to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories; 4 Also requests Israel, the occupying Power, the ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported; Reaffirming its resolutions 607 (1988), 608 (1988), 636 (1989), 641 (1989), 681 (1990), 694 (1991) and 726 (1992), Having learned with deep concern that Israel, the occupying Power, in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, deported to Lebanon on 17 December 1992, hundreds of Palestinian civilians from the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, 1. Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and expresses its firm opposition to any such deportation by Israel; 2. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention; 3. Reaffirms also the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon; 4. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported;
Israel???
Al-Zarqawi, who was closely tied with al-Qaeda, was in Iraq long before we invaded, and in fact met with al-Qaeda members in Baghdad to fund and plan an attack on the US embassy in Amman using a chemically laced bomb. Al Qaeda members were in the United States plotting. Do you propose we should have bombed the cities they were in? Saddam was Sunni. Al Qaeda is Shiite. They were not allies and they were not friends. A good case can be made that one reason the chemical bomb plot failed was that al-Zarqawi was put on the run by the invasion and therefore couldn't monitor it as closely as he might have. Or perhaps the invasion even led to intelligence that allowed Jordan to intercept the terrorists before they could complete their mission. An even better case can be made that you just make crap up. If the act was "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons," shouldn't we have attacked Saudi Arabia, or at somebody who had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001? No, because unlike Iraq, Saudi Arabia's government condemned the attack, was not on speaking terms with bin Laden (in fact, bin Laden's people were trying to topple the Saudi leadership) and Saudi Arabia after 9/11 made significant efforts to destroy al-Qaeda's operations in their country. Contrast that with Iraq's government which applauded the actions of the terrorists on 9/11, was still in communication with al-Qaeda after 9/11, and instead of rounding up al-Qaeda was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely in their country. And don't forget, preventing al-Qaeda from getting access to WMD was a major concern following an attack on 9/11 that certainly showed a willingness to cross the WMD threshold and following discovery in Afghanistan of an interest in WMD by al-Qaeda. Iraq had WMD technology ... the Saudi's did not. Like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. It was Saudi Arabians who planned the 9/11 operation, funded the 9/11 operation, and executed the 9/11 operation. It was not Iraqis. It is alright for Saudis to attack the twin towers as long as some Saudi government official says "My bad" afterwards. Retaliate against someone who had nothing to do with it because someone on television applauded. As for Al Qaeda being allowed to operate freely in Iraq, that did not occur until the Bush administration assumed responsibility for running the place. Saddam Hussein did a far better job of keeping them out than George Bush. And don't forget, preventing al-Qaeda from getting access to WMD was a major concern As Al Qaeda had no WMD and Iraq had no WMD to give them, and as Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies and not friends, the only WMD in question were the imaginary ones that Bush and his administration lied about in order to gain public support for a war. Even GWB has given up on that pantsload. Iraq had WMD technology Israel had WMD technology, and WMD, including nuclear weapons. Resolution 487 (June 19, 1981) Further taking note of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532), Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the nonproliferation Treaty, Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "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," 1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; 2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; 3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the nonproliferation Treaty; 4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation; 5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; 6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;
Yes, ALL those UN Security Council resolutions pertain to Israel. Using your standards, it would seem that anyone in the world who chooses to do so can assert the right to drop bombs on Israel and effect regime change. Do UN resolutions only apply to Iraq and only authorize GWB to drop bombs on people?
After 9/11? Any specific proof of this? No? But it was not the Saudi Arabian government. And the planning of the operation didn't apparently take place in Saudi Arabia. Indeed the person funding the effort was not welcome in the country at the time and was calling for the toppling of the Saudi government. You have provided no proof that the Saudi government or anyone in the Saudi Government was involved in 9/11. FALSE. The dozen al-Qaeda put on trial and convicted in Jordan said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad BEFORE the invasion. There is no indication at all that al-Qaeda's movements in Iraq were restricted under Saddam. Indeed, it appears that al-Qaeda freely moved about and even used Iraqi hospitals. And one time, one was detained and then released on orders (according to the CIA and a captured Iraqi document) of Saddam. Good thing but they were definitely trying to acquire WMD. Still are, I imagine. FALSE. That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves you wrong. And there were hundreds of other shells of various types found containing materials we wouldn't want terrorists to get their hands on. Plus, you really don't know if Iraq had WMD. The ISG said they have a credible source saying WMD related items (possibly WMD) were moved to Iraq. And Saddam's regime went to a lot of trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities of something you claim they didn't have. Plus, Iraq definitely had information and seed stock that al-Qaeda might find useful in creating WMD themselves (in a place like that camp in Northern Iraq, for instance). Odd that al-Zarqawi would pick Baghdad (seat of government of his enemy and a city filled with security types from Saddam's regime) to meet with the terrorists he was dispatching to kill tens of thousands in Jordan. Odd that al-Zarqawi would go to a Baghdad hospital to get treatment. Odd that Iraq openly applauded the actions of their enemy. Odd that Iraq had friendly contacts with the Taliban after 9/11 to warn them about a possible US attack to get bin Laden. And what is it with you and Israel?
But you can't give him any dates here because that would blow your bullshit out of the water. As you recall, this alleged incident took place in April of 2004. Also recall that these people were torured at a time when the Bush bullshit was just starting to fall apart. And surprise! Under torture these guys provided the Bush admin with the ammo it needed to keep the Defense Department report buried until last week.
.
Recall that you are quoting NewsMax here. All the repectable publications noted that your single rusty shell was left over from a time before the first Gulf war. The time when Rumsfeld was supplying Saddam with the precursor chemicals Saddam needed for his WMD.
.
That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves you wrong. And there were hundreds of other shells of various types found containing materials we wouldn't want terrorists to get their hands on. Hey kook bunny, if any of this SHIT is true, why doesn't Bush go on national TV tonight and save his Presidency with it? Why didn't Cheney rattle it off when he was on Rush last Thursday trying to fool you and the other mindless goobers about the Defense Depeartment report that contradicts you on the Saddam / Al Qaeda link? Surly you have some nutty conspiracy theory to explain this. A person like you, who can concoct the sort of nuttery you concoct about Ron Brown, should have no trouble coming up with a wild conspiracy theory to explain this. Let's hear it kook.
.
YOU have invoked UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS to justify GWB bombing Iraq and effecting regime change. I have showed you dozens and dozens of UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS and asked you if they would authorize an attack on Israel. Do UN resolutions apply equally to all, and grant the right to bomb anyone declared a transgressor, or is this discovery of yours unique to GWB and Iraq? If you prefer to use another country as an example, if you would identify such nation that has been condemned by the UN as many times as Israel, I will be happy to post those resolutions. WHY are you unable to answer the question?
No, it just shows that you are still pimping a discredited issue. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Key Findings Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable: * Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already-during the Iran-Iraq war-and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered. * * * Disposition of CW Munitions Post-1991 ISG expended considerable time and effort investigating longstanding Iraqi assertions about the fate of CW munitions known to have been in Baghdad’s possession during the Gulf war. We believe the vast majority of these munitions were destroyed, but questions remain concerning hundreds of CW munitions. Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile (see Figure 5). In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. (See Annex F.) * The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device. * ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks.
Odd that Jonathan Pollard spied for Saddam Hussein. Or was it Al Qaeda? Oh darn, which of our enemies was he spying for again?
What is it with you and those prototype shells from the 1980's. They were so old and degraded they were about as potent as camel dung or BAC manure. 16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals.
BAC, tell me about the rabbits... then tell me about the magic vintage sarin. "The Gulf War Air Campaign - Possible Chemical Warfare Agent Release at Al Muthanna, February 8, 1991", 19 March 2001; at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/al_muth/al_muth_s02.htm The taskforce of the Department of Defense attributed the high level of Iraqi cooperation in revealing the scale of its earlier chemical programme to the fact that the Iraqi government realised that the nerve agents it had produced were no longer viable: "We believe Iraq was largely cooperative on its latest declarations because many of its residual munitions were of little use - other than bolstering the credibility of Iraq's declaration - because of chemical agent degradation and leakage problems." "Chemical Warfare Agent Issues During the Persian Gulf War", Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force, April 2002; at: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/gulfwar/cwagents/cwpaper1.htm A similar assessment was made by the CIA in a memorandum from January 1991: "Iraq is not able to make good-quality chemical agents. Technical failures have reduced their purity and caused problems in storage and handling. This is a particular problem for the sarin- type nerve agents (GB and GF). These both contain hydrofluoricacid (HF), an impurity that attacks metal surfaces and catalyzes nerve agent decomposition. This leads to metal failure and leaks in the ammunition, increasing handling hazards. [...] Lower purity significantly limits shelf life and reduces toxic effects when the munition is employed. [...] The nerve agent should have already begun to deteriorate, and decomposition should make most of the nerve agent weapons unserviceable by the end of March 1991." "Iraq: Potential for Chemical Weapon Use", 25 January 1991; at: http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970825/970613_dim37_91d_txt_0001.html This assessment is repeated in the IISS strategic dossier of 9 September 2002: "As a practical matter, any nerve agent from this period [pre-1991] would have deteriorated by now.." (p.51) UNMOVIC have also acknowledged this conclusion with regard to specific substances: Tabun: "documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68). Sarin / Cyclosarin: "According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, pp.72-73).
Considering your neutral viewpoint, do you condemn Jonathan Pollard as a traitor to the United States? As that nation he spied for refused to return the documents and refused to allow U.S. intelligence to debrief the agents who ran Pollard, should we continue to give them $Billions annually? Where does a neutral person, such as yourself, stand on the issue? "It is difficult for me... to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by the defendant in view of the breadth, the critical importance of the United States and the high sensitivity of the information he sold to Israel... I respectfully submit that any U.S. citizen, and in particular a trusted government official, who sells U.S. secrets to any foreign nation should not be punished merely as a common criminal. Rather the punishment imposed should reflect the perfidy of the individual actions, the magnitude of the trason committed, and the needs of national security." "I feel my husband and I did what we were expected to do, what our moral obligation was as Jews, what our moral obligation was as human beings. I have no regrets about that." "With remarkable chutzpah, Israel, which receives up to $5 billion in U.S. aid annually, refuses to return documents stolen by Pollard, or allow U.S. intelligence to debrief Mossad agents who ran Pollard in order to learn the full extent of the disaster."
I suggest folks visit the following thread to see ... and his argument blown out of the water. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49616&Disp=37#C37
Got your ass kicked on the other thread and ran over there to hide?
.
What is it with you and Newsmax, ...? You didn't like the way they treated Clinton? ROTFLOL! And for the record, you are once again wrong. This didn't come from Newsmax. It came from the ISG report. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." I haven't seen anyone around here more interested than you in discrediting themselves.
I am really amazed at your scumball tactics. You lose the argument on one thread and you come over here and try to restart the argument in exactly the same way. Are you assuming that people might not read the first thread? You are a real piece of work.
.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." I haven't seen anyone around here more interested than you in discrediting themselves. Chooser, you are a really pathetic bald faced liar. For the second time tonight you posted a dead link when you got backed into a corner by the facts. THE LINK YOU POSTED ABOVE IS A DEAD LINK! THAT IS TWICE IN TWO HOURS YOU POSTED A FAKE DEAD LINK TO ALLEGEDLY BACK UP YOUR DISHONEST SHIT. IT ISN'T AN ACCIDENT CHOOSER.
.
Feith and Ledeens gay campers?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Let me remind everyone that Chooser used his fake link tactic on another thread about an hour ago. He made grandiose claims, got called on it and then posted a dead link to "prove" his point. I suggest everyone check his links prior to accepting any of his shit at face value. This makes the third time that I know of where he has been busted for this. Seems to be part of his bag of tricks along with insults, changing the subject and ignoring questions.
.
I suggest everyone check his links prior to accepting any of his shit at face value. This makes the third time that I know of where he has been busted for this. Seems to be part of his bag of tricks along with insults, changing the subject and ignoring questions. ...and spamming threads with repetitious long posts containing lies that have already been refuted numerous times on other threads.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49616&Disp=37#C37 I suggest folks visit the following LP thread to see ... BAC having his ass handed to him. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All LP THREAD: April Glaspie Transcript http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C473 nolu chan posted on 2006-12-08 01:25:45 ET [EXCERPT FROM nolu_chan #473 to BAC] Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf [the report excerpted below] The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"[95] and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress".[96] The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."[97] The "Postwar Findings" volume of the study concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, or Ansar al-Islam. The "Iraqi National Congress" volume concluded that "false information" from INC-affiliated sources was used to justify key claims in the prewar intelligence debate and that this information was "widely distributed in intelligence products" prior to the war. It also concluded that the INC "attempted to influence US policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." The Senate report noted that in October 2002, "the DIA cautioned that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its own agenda." Senator John Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, noted that "Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks."[98] But the head Republican on the Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, charged, "The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years." The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda: Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war." Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations." Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group." Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike..... Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that 'the most reliable reporting casts doubt' on one of the leads, an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred. Prewar intelligence reporting cast doubt on the other lead as well." Conclusion 8: "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Conclusion 9: "additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee's findings or conclusions. The Committee believes that the results of detainee debriefs largely comport with documentary evidence, but the Committee cannot definitively judge the accuracy of statements made by individuals in custody and cannot, in every case, confirm that the detainee statements are truthful and accurate."
Being old doesn't mean the munitions aren't still deadly and of great interest to would be terrorists. That binary sarin shell was still viable. That's according to the ISG. It contained as much sarin as used in the Tokyo attack, an attack that experts said afterwords could have killed thousands had the cult properly dispersed the agent rather than simply poke holes in bags of it (and *pray*). The many mustard gas shells are also still highly deadly. The UN inspectors confirmed this. The fact that these munitions were part of pre-1991 stocks doesn't make them less potent or deadly. Furthermore, you are simply ignoring the part of the ISG report where they said they have a credible source who told them WMD related materials were moved to Syria before the war. And you are ignoring the question of why Iraq would go to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities related to WMD if they had no WMD, no WMD programs and no plan to fully reconstitute their WMD arsenal once sanctions were removed.
Bookmark the instance above. If Chooser tries the same thing next week, and he will, he will simply lie if you call him on it. He will ask you for the link to the last instance or otherwise imply that you are simply making the story up and have no proof. Hit him in the face with the link above.
.
That is completely false. The ISG said the binary sarin shell had 4 to 5 liters of 40 percent Sarin. That's the same quantity and potency as the sarin used in the Tokyo sarin attack which killed about a dozen and injured thousands. And experts after the fact said Japan was lucky. Had the cultists properly dispersed that sarin rather than just poke holes in baggies full of it, they might have killed THOUSANDS. Even as many as died on 9/11.
Doesn't it pretty much destroy your case that Saddam was actively developing WMDs? Don't bother to answer, you moronic truthiopath.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
And you can prove it as long as nobody clicks your bullshit dead link. Huh?
.
So what's the deal with you posting the bullshit dead links and then pretending that it simply didn't happen? Do you think we won't notice what a dishonest and manipulative sack of shit you are?
.
Do you realize that nothing you posted pertains to BINARY sarin? You do know what that is, don't you? Or perhaps you don't. You see, binary sarin has an INDEFINITE shelf life.
Chooser, you dishonest sack of shit. You DELIBERATELY posted a bullshit dead link with the specific intent of fooling people on this forum. You are now acting like it didn't happen. What gives?
.
Actually, I came to this thread when I'd gotten to the point on the other thread where mine was the last post. Check the time of the posts if you don't believe me. And sometime I'll get around to returning to the other thread to blow you out of the water again. But I'm curious. Did you ever get your browser to work? ROTFLOL!
Chooser, you proven - PROVEN - dishonest sack of shit. You are insane if you think I am going to let this go. You are insane if you think I am going to let you change the subject. You are insane if you think I am going to fall for your silly personal insutls. You are a proven liar. You deliberately posted a dead link with the specific intent of fooling people on this forum. You did this because the facts failed you and you could not admit that you were wrong.
.
You are insane if you think I am going to fall for your silly personal insults on this. You DELIBERATELY posted a dead link to fool this forum when you got called on your bullshit. What do you have to say for yourself? You appear to be a very shameless and very cowardly liar. The facts to prove this up are on the thread above.
.
You didn't do it once chooser, you did it twice in the course of about an hour. Both time you did it when you were repeatedly asked for facts you apparently couldn't provide. In deperation, you TWICE posted a dead link with a silly quote that miraculously supported your argument. It wasn't an accident. Not twice.
.
We DO have a BozoFilter here now on our setup options. Join the many, the proud, the bac-free.
Chooser, you silence tells me that you are guilty as fucking sin. I expected three things from your sorry lying ass here: 1. Change the subject. 2. Ignore the question. 3. Go personal. You've now tried one and two. Try three now. I will respond by telling you to go to hell and then get back on subject ... shit ball.
.
BAC, you worthless piece of shit! I illustrated to you at ElPee that the US forces admitted that this one piece was a unique an freak find, representing nothing more than an overlooked round!
Can I help it if the CIA changed their URL to this document? Fine. If you weren't so lazy you could use the link Nola provided to Annex F: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." Or you could use your browser and find out where the CIA moved the report: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." But you are too lazy to do either and besides ... what it says is still the same.
I had no trouble obtaining the document at the link I provided on that thread. Face it ... you just don't know how to use your browser or are too lazy to try.
You are a sorry lying piece of scum arn't you. That is the official CIA page and you can't get on without an ID. And you know that. It's a nice convenient dead link form which you can attribute your quote. And remember, you didn't just do it once. You did it twice in one hour. It wasn't an accident.
.
You twice provided dead links within the course of an hour. It wasn't an accident. I can understand your desire to spin it. It really does make you look like a lying sack of shit.
.
As an aside, these articles are not on point. You are now posting other articles, on other subjects to hide the fact that you tried to flim flam the forum with a dead link. The articles we were talking about dealt with Zarqawi. The ones you are trying to fob off here do not. You are lying to us again.
.
Lies like pointing out that the WTC towers took 15 seconds, not 10, to collapse? Lies like pointing out the hole in the Pentagon was more than 90 feet across, not less than 20 feet? Lies like pointing out that Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and David Griffin are not experts ... in fact not one real expert in structures, demolition, structural materials, fire, seismology or macro-world physics believes that bombs brought down the WTC towers? Which lies would you be talking about, robin? The ones you promote? ROTFLOL!
Lies like pointing out the hole in the Pentagon was more than 90 feet across, not less than 20 feet? How about lies such as putting up a bullshit quote and then posting a bogus link to support it? How about then posting two unrelated articles and then implying to the forum that these were what you intended to post. That is some sorry scumbag shit you're into bac.
.
I know of a third instance where you posted a link to a magazine subscription site when you lacked support for a quote you made up. Do you pull this kind of shit often?
.
The purported "hole" at the pentagon was less than 20 feet. The "damage" was more broad, but didn't suggest anything on the order of an aircraft - rather, the contrary. You're a persistent lying piece of shit, BAC.
The ones you promote? Have you ever met Chalabi in person?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Whatever it the Pentagon, it was no 757. And WTC-7 was brought down by placed explosives.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: ----------------------------- http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49362&Disp On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
you evil liar. you know damn well that your own government reported 10 seconds on one of the towers and the truthers said 14. you've been caught in so many lies yet you persist. who the fuck do you think you're fooling? no one but yourself. i despise you. you enemy of truth.
By all means, folks, visit that thread. It's quite entertaining. Pay particular attention to posts number 60, 89, 133, 150, 162, 164, 165, 167, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 300, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 404, 405, 406, 407, 412, 413, 414, 415, 426, 427, 432, 433, 434, 440, 441, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 470, 478, 479, 480, 481. I'm sure you'll see who gets his "ass handed to him". As I summarized in post 481 about Nolu_Chan's posts, "Fog fog fog ... " ROTFLOL!
Is that my case?
Do you have fake quotes supported by bullshit dead links in all of those? Recall that you did deliberately try to mislead the people on this forum by posting an apparently made up quote supported by a bullshit dead link. You did that at least twice this evening in fact.
.
Why do you think the US invaded Iraq?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Going by what has been posted tonight, your case is whatever you can fool honest posters into believing. You don't seem to be particularly concerned with facts. At least not when you can manufacture them with fake links.
.
ROTFLOL! You really are paranoid. ROTFLOL!
I'm beginning to think you have a real problem. And I'm trying to figure out who you remind me of over at LP. ROTFLOL!
ROTFLOL! You really are paranoid. ROTFLOL! No, I read the page you posted as support for the bullshit quote you made up. That's what it said and you know it. You deliberately used this page because you could tap dance about the page change if you got busted for your dishonest shit - as you did get busted. But you know that. And so does everyone else incidently.
.
And I'm trying to figure out who you remind me of over at LP. Hurling insults? Tactic number two? And you are a proven liar. You deliberately fabricated a quote and then posted a bullshit link to support it. You did this twice this evening and you got caught for it. That is why you are now doing your pathetic tap dance here. You are a proven liar and that doesn't seem to bother you.
.
It doesn't matter how you dance, the ISG report still said "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." ROTFLOL!
I don't think you are going to spin out of this. I bookmarked the page. You think you are going to be able to wait a few days and then deny the indcident, but I am not going to let you do this. You are a proven liar and I am going to see you live with that.
.
You have absolutely no credibility. How do I know you are not making that up like you did that last quote you posted to me? What's next? A 4th bogus link to back up your doctored quotes?
.
If you are going to tell bald faced lies, as you have just done on this forum, it is best not to be caught at it, as you were just caught at it on this forum. When you get caught telling bald faced lies, repeatedly, as you were just caught, your credibility goes out the window. But you somehow don't realize that. Odd culture you come from.
.
Who sold Saddam the Sarin, you suppose?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Does this look like a hole that is no larger than 20 feet in diameter, folks? The 9/11 report got it wrong ... like they got many things wrong. It's amazing that someone who claims we must trust our eyes about the towers being demolitions doesn't trust her eyes when she looks at real time video clips that clearly show the towers collapsed in about 15 seconds. It's amazing that she doesn't trust her eyes when she reads NIST saying that the FIRST PANELS of the perimeter reached the ground in about 10 seconds and various conspiracy sites confirm that.
And I note that you didn't just post dead links to support quotes you fabricated, you later came back on this forum and posted quotes on unrelated subjects and claimed that these were the quotes you were trying to reference. In other words, you lied through your teeth to hide the fact that you had been busted in a bald faced lie -- twice.
.
No christine, the 9/11 commission reported this. They made a mistake. One of many. NIST (which is the OFFICIAL government report on the collapse) said the FIRST PANELS reached the ground in 10 seconds. And video clips confirm this. So tell me again why I am evil. I'm not the one trying to deceive people here.
He's still dropping the same sentence you caught him dropping before. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Did you fabricate the photos? That would be my first guess given that you are willing to fabricate quotes and use fake links to support them.
.
hahahah-fu...hahahaha!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
How do we know? You are a proven serial liar. Why should we take your word on anything?
.
So are you denying ever posting at LP or are you saying that posting at LP would have been beneath you?
Maybe we should compile a list of the times we've caught Chooser using deliberately dishonest tactics. That would be interesting.
.
Bravo, that's the way to hound someone.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Ahhhh. Chooser tactic number one. Changing the subject. But back to the point. You are a proven serial liar. Why should we take your word for anything? You have been shown to use fake references. Why should we believe any of your cites?
.
Are you incapable of visiting the link Nolu provided for Annex F? Are you incapable of visiting the revised link I provided to Annex F?
Well the UN said he made it. Did you know that?
Ahhh. Chooser tactic number one, hurling insults. But back to the point, you have been proven to be a serial liar this evening. You have fabricated evidence for your bullshit and you have posted fake quotes. Why should we now take your word for anything?
.
Why should we believe anythihg you say? You are a proven serial liar.
.
Just keep digging your hole deeper, ...
Then why was Rumsfeld selling him missiles?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Is that some sort of threat? Does it bother you to be exposed for what you are? A proven serial liar who makes up quotes and then posts bogus links to support them?
.
Apparently robin doesn't realize that all the photos I posted where taken BEFORE the roof collapsed. They either show a hole that is much larger than 20 feet or those firemen are mighty small. ROTFLOL!
He's trying to say the 9/11 Commission is not the govt. The seismic data and the 9/11 Commission say 10 seconds, but the 9/11 truth movement says 14 seconds, per video evidence. The 9/11 truth websites explain very carefully how the falling building met with no resistance from the floors beneath them, which is why they fell so fast, not quite freefall, which 9.2 seconds. The energy released pulverized cement and threw large steel beams like arrows into neighboring buildings. The steel core disappeared. The buildings fell with symmetry. They were demolished with preset explosives. Opportunities to set the explosions have also been explained in eyewitness testimony about odd work done in the weeks before 9/11.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Figures......after all his hero is dickhead!
Keep digging your hole deeper, ... You are only making a complete mockery of this forum.
Why don't you make up a fake quote to support that and then post a link to a defunct government site to support the quote? Maybe some fool won't click the link and will buy your bullshit.
.
That really does explain everything.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If you don't like being exposed for the type of slimebag that posts fake quotes and bogus links, then act like a normal human being and stop doing it. Don't threaten other people for exposing your slime.
.
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um? ROTFLOL!
A facade is not a roof, so as usual his comments have no meaning. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/damage/compare.html
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Maybe if there is a change of government in Israel, some action will happen. Nethanhyu may be the man who could strike Iran. Otherwise, unless some disaster happen in US, they will keep talking. Same situation as the one we have seen before in Korea and in nazi Germany. Posted by: Rémi Houle | 4-Apr-07 7:07:51 AM Friends of yours, oozer?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I am just exposing you for the liar that you are. You posted a fake quote and a bogus link to support it. You did it twice within an hour. Both times you needed that particular quote to save your ass. I am doing a public service. If you don't like people knowing what you are, then change.
.
Is truth realy that horrible to you? Creepy.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I thought your position was explained to you. We know what a lying scumbag you are. We let you on so we could kick you around. You were told that from the start. It's on the public board.
.
Frankly, I don't understand why chrissie and zip feel the need to let this dickwad continue to spread this bullshit on their forum. Just about the time you think its done, back it comes with the original bullshit. Big waste of time to continually explain to lurkers and readers all the bullshit that is being flung at the fan by this government shill. Personally, I believe when shills act like this they should be forced to have a tag line, in bold red, explaining they are a shill and/or troll. EDIT: Any more comments, robin, I would prefer be private mail--I don't want to add to the bumping of this drivel.
Like the health warning on cigarettes ;)
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
No, I'm saying that the 9/11 Commission got it wrong and
they are NOT the official report on what happened to the WTC towers. That was
published by NIST. FALSE. The seismic data does
not say 10 seconds. Lerner-Lam (a well known seismologist) said "There is
no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the
towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in
context." http://911review.com/errors/w
tc/seismic.html "In fact the seismic evidence from the Palisades station
comports well with the sequence of destruction evident in photographs and
videos: each tower was consumed by a wave of destruction that started near the
crash zone and moved downward as it generated an expanding cloud of rubble. It
took about ten seconds for the bottom of this cloud to reach the ground and
another eight seconds for its top to reach the ground. Likewise the seismic
records show small disturbances lasting for about ten seconds, followed by
large spikes lasting for about eight seconds." What? Don't believe
your own eyes, robin, when you look at a video?
{Anybody remember Ike & Tina Truner?} Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Truth a-gettin' stronger I gotta say “LIAR!” Boom-Baka-Baka-Baka Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! His lies are so nitty-gritty Don't ya know ‘bout that LIAR Boom-Baka-Baka-Baka Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Come on BAC, you LIAR! Boom-Baka-Baka-Baka Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Mood is here to make BAC mo-ove Truth makes BAC a LIAR! LIAR!
ROTFLOL! As usual robin just demonstrates that she doesn't know what she is talking about. It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed. In fact, robin proves she doesn't even know the definition of facade to use the term in this case.
Chooser, you are a proven serial liar. PROVEN. SERIAL. You did it in public, you got caught and you did it more than once. You posted fabrricated quotes backed up by bogus links. You did it twice. You got busted for it. You did it before this too, but peope gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Why in the name of God should we believe or even care what you say from this point forward?
.
hehehehehehe
Did you photoshop that picture chooser? That is the sort of thing I would expect from a guy who makes up quotes and posts fake links to support them.
.
She believes her eyes. I don't think she believes the dishonest shit that you are known to fabricate.
.
Does this look like a hole that is no larger than 20 feet in diameter, folks? Facade Fa`[,c]ade" (f[.a]`s[.a]d" or f[.a]`s[=a]d"), n. [F., Robin was quoting and the quote was accurate - whether BAC approves or not. BAC is a "LIAR!"
Thanks SKY. I would bozo this thread, but I have a theory that BAC only tries to destroy threads that have the most dangerous truth in them.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Tom, I think I made it very clear I was referring to a hole seen in several photos. The one you repeated is simply the wing shaped hole to the left of the central circular hole where the fuselage hit. And yes, the portion behind the white car is over 20 feet wide (more like 35 feet). But now add in the hole where the fuselage hit (another 15 feet or more) and the wing shaped hole to the right of the fuselage hole (another 30 feet or so). The photo identified as a collage of what the impact site looked like before the collapse gives you a better idea of what I'm talking about: Now I ask you ... does that match Kwiatkowski's description? Clearly not.
Thanks .
Where do you get all those wonderful toys?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
In the first picture in this (#148) post, there are arrows indicating "left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole" showing, well, very little damage. Where is the wing in that picture? Oh, it completely vaporized upon impact. Where's the fuel burns on the facade of the Pentagon from the wing tanks-- towards the bottom there? Oh,... Where's the engine (yes the one that is 7 foot in diameter and weighs about 9800 pounds--about 5 TONS). Oh, it completely vaporized upon impact, too. Only when these massive Rolls Royce engines hit a wall of the Pentagon do they completely vaporize. Like the photo of the woman hanging out of the WTC while molten steel is allegedly dripping all over the place proved that building wasn't melting down, this photo indicates NO DAMN 757 HIT THE PENTAGON.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
robin's "facade"
Yeah, it does! So you have 90 feet of damaged "facade" - but no hole big enough to account for more than a two-seat Cessna 150 - at best. Or, should we not look into that "smoke" (less the mirrors) on the left side?
In this first photo, no airplane wing or engine attached thereto hit to the right of the impact center. Didn't hit to the left of the impact area, either.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Are you still refusing to discuss your ethnic background? I'm German-Irish, does that help if I go first?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
You don't have a shred of honor or shame do you? Just a scumbag weasel who will do anything to push his lies onto others. You get caught in a dead bang sleazy lie and it doesn't even phase you. Your resposne is to lie to avoid the consequences of your disgusting act. Why should anyone believe a word you say after the way you were busted this evening? You are a real piece of work.
.
shalom fish breath. is it ok for you guys to lie as long as you are lying to goys?
What would you expect the tip of the wing, containing little or no fuel, to do to a highly reinforced, blast hardened exterior wall? The portion that is penetrated to the right of that lines up nicely with where the bulk of the fuel mass (and mass is what's important in impact/penetration problems) was in the wing. The portion of the wing extending some 30 or so out from the fuselage that had the bulk of the fuel penetrated into the structure where the hole is seen. The portion of the wing to left of that ... mostly light weight aluminum ... shattered and bounced off the building. That debris can be seen in photos taken from a distance on that side of the building. Like this one: Inside the building. Check the dimensions and you'll see the engines were in the portion with holes. They even found parts of an engine inside the structure. Here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml And those parts match the type of engine Flight 77 should have had. Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
BAC, you're obviously doing "speed" again. Per your argumnent, where did the woman come from? From the center of all that burning fuel - NOT! Ever figure out what a "facade" was, BAC?
Your link show a purported turbo fan out on the grass -- that part of the engine bounced off the wall while the rest of the engine plowed on through. What bs.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! (have i told you lately how much i despise you?)
More recycled sewage. 469. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, FormerLurker, halfwitt, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#467) * * * [BAC #453] We know the shell contained enough materials to make 4-5 liters of 40% pure sarin. That just happens to be about the same quantity and purity as was used in the Tokyo subway attack. Such is neither known, nor is it knowable. 16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals. ------------- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell Wednesday, May 19, 2004 By Liza Porteus NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday. The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent. * * * A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters is likely the right number, intelligence officials said. No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue. * * * [BAC #441] Thus it's a red herring since the shell in question contained binary sarin, which has an indefinite shell life according to experts. "According to experts" fails to meet the level of "rumor has it"and descends to the level of having heard it on Jeff Rense between segments on bigfoot and George W. Bush being a shapeshifting reptile. Claims and evaluations of Iraq's proscribed weapons In some cases, it is quite clear that any stocks that were retained no longer exist in usable form. Most chemical and biological agents are subject to processes of deterioration. A working paper by UNSCOM from January 1998 noted that: "Taking into consideration the conditions and the quality of CW-agents and munitions produced by Iraq at that time, there is no possibility of weapons remaining from the mid-1980's" (quoted in Arms Control Today, June 2000). As discussed below, mustard constitutes an exception to this general pattern. This point was acknowledged by UNMOVIC in its 6 March 2003 working document, specifically about remaining warheads which had been filled with chemical agents, but seemingly applicable to any storage of chemical weapons: "While 155-mm projectiles filled with Mustard could be stored for decades, it is less likely that any remaining warheads filled with nerve agents would still be viable combat munitions." http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html Sarin / Cyclosarin: "According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, pp.72-73). http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970825/970613_dim37_91d_txt_0001.html SERIAL: DIM 37-91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ SUBJECT: IRAQ: POTENTIAL FOR CHEMICAL WEAPON USE. DOI: 25 JAN 91 )) Key Judgments * * * 25. Binary weapons have disadvantages that would reduce their value to the Iraqis. A large part of the binary's interior is filled with nonlethal components that help mix the chemicals when the weapon is delivered. These components also help keep the chemicals separated prior to use. Because the reaction must take place while the weapon is en route to the target, the reaction does not convert all the DF to a chemical agent when the round hits its target. The round contains a mixture of agent, unreacted DF, unreacted alcohol, HF, and other impurities when it reaches the target. 26. An additional problem for the Iraqis may be the poor quality of the DF they produce. The same chemical engineering problems that have limited the purity of currently produced agents also could limit their DF quality. DF is made from an organophosphorus chemical and DF. Removing the HF is difficult: it is likely that Iraqi DF contains HF, which could catalyze decomposition. Neither the volume nor purity was known or knowable. No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue. It is facts such as these which make your pronouncements so entertaining. * * * nolu chan posted on 2006-11-21 06:20:39 ET
you're good ;)
Looks like nolu has you here. Why don't you make up some phoney quotes that directly contradict him and then pust links to some defunct government sites to support them? I note that you have already done this at least twice tonight already. Maybe the third time is a charm.
.
Yes, I agree with Christine, its a good analysis. Chooser was giving me his binary shell crap earlier and it's nice to see the info layed out. Looks like chooser is either going to have to change the subject or insult you.
.
catch that ^^
ROTFLOL! You don't even understand what you read.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C469 nolu chan to BAC, 2006-11-21 06:20:39 ET on LP SERIAL: DIM 37-91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ SUBJECT: IRAQ: POTENTIAL FOR CHEMICAL WEAPON USE. DOI: 25 JAN 91 )) Key Judgments * * * 25. Binary weapons have disadvantages that would reduce their value to the Iraqis. A large part of the binary's interior is filled with nonlethal components that help mix the chemicals when the weapon is delivered. These components also help keep the chemicals separated prior to use. Because the reaction must take place while the weapon is en route to the target, the reaction does not convert all the DF to a chemical agent when the round hits its target. The round contains a mixture of agent, unreacted DF, unreacted alcohol, HF, and other impurities when it reaches the target. 26. An additional problem for the Iraqis may be the poor quality of the DF they produce. The same chemical engineering problems that have limited the purity of currently produced agents also could limit their DF quality. DF is made from an organophosphorus chemical and DF. Removing the HF is difficult: it is likely that Iraqi DF contains HF, which could catalyze decomposition.
Oh boy. Now that's rich. Some mysterious vortex sucked the steel-melting blast- furnace-hot fire into the inner core, leaving the perimeter of the building flame-free, habitable and cool? You can't be serious. Got any spam handy citing "experts" who support your most unusual theory? (If you really believe what you post, you need help. Psychological help. If you don't believe it, then you still need help, because that makes you a pathological liar.)
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
And here's my response to you ... from the same thread: *********** From http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C470 470. To: nolu chan, ALL (#469) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." NC, are you claiming the ISG report ... the Duefler report ... that you have been selectively regurgitating quotes from over and over in this thread ... is not correct in it's presentation of the facts, NC? Your desperation is palpable. And say ... how did insurgents acquire this round, NC? Hmmmmmmmmm? ROTFLOL! And thanks for posting this: True, but they know the size of the round. And just for you information, the quantity of nerve gas in a 152 mm round is about the same as in a 155 mm round. So you are worrying about the nits (I call it desperation) and missing the big picture. Priceless. So now you are claiming that Resolution 687 came from the UN in 1952? How odd, then, that you wrote in post #430 that: ROTFLOL! I can't help it if your liberal biases have blinded you to the facts, NC, or you are just too lazy to actually use your browser at something other than anti-semitic sites. They know the size of a 152mm shell. And science apparently allowed the ISG to confidently state what the purity of the sarin was, NC. Now at one point in this debate you claimed that the shell was DESIGNED to have a purity of 40%. I'm still waiting to hear your source for making this claim. Or should we just conclude you made it up in your palpable desperation on this topic? And if we accept your statement as fact, then obviously the ISG measured a purity that was the same as designed ... over a decade after the shell was produced. That, at least to a rational person, would strongly suggest a binary sarin shell has an indefinite shelf life. One doesn't even have to be an expert to see that. ROTFLOL! Speaking of pronouncements ... show us your source for claiming that the shell was DESIGNED to produce 40 percent sarin. You claimed it. Now prove it. Frankly, I think you've just been basted, Nolu. BeAChooser posted on 2006-11-21 20:22:27 ET ************ Say, nolu_chan, did you ever find the source on which you based your claim that the shell was DESIGNED to produce 40 percent sarin? No?
Yes moron, its all a conspiracy. Just like your Ron Brown kookery and the dark forces that keep Bush from using your spew to save his Presidency. Why don't you fabricate a few quotes to blow this sort of stuff away and then post a few fake links to support them? Didn't that work for you earlier this evening?
.
By the way, you are hiding behind spam again. For the lurkers: I skimmed that pile of turgid shit above and it really didn't say anything. Just convoluted nit picking in Chooser's attempt to hide the fact that he has been had.
.
Yet the ISG said the shell contained 40 percent sarin,
the same as you yourself claimed the shell was DESIGNED to produce in that LP
thread. So which is false? Your claim that the binary agent in the shell was
DESIGNED to produce 40% sarin or the claim that there was HF in the shell
which caused decomposition? One or the other must be false. It appears to me
that in that thread you yourself proved the shell had an indefinite shelf
life ... if your claim that the shell was DESIGNED to produce 40 percent sarin
wasn't false.
Probably the bullshit info that you pulled out of your ass and then supported with a fake link. But I am just guessing here.
.
As an aside, can you give us one reason why we should believe a single word you say? You've been caught fabricating info twice tonight. Not once, but twice you were caught in a scummy bald faced lie. You now expect us to believe your lying ass. May I ask why?
.
Fer godsakes, chooser, give us something more than these forlorn sarin shells and Zarquawi on the loose. For this you got: - half a trillion spent which we don't have. - a whole buncha dead guys. - even more maimed, blinded, crazed and generally damaged. - an army that is scrounging for recruits in Nigeria. - the incarnation of Nancy Armani-Pelosi in the Speaker's seat. - a whole pile of other shit that I'm too lazy to list but which our learned fellow posters may append. Don't you ever get tired chiseling around the edges? You may remonstrate endlessly about facts and events of dubious significance, but the fact remains that this little war is a sham and all the hot and cold you blow here or anywhere else doesn't change the verdict. It's all over but the shouting.
Alles Scheisse.
And here is why you were full of crap then as you are now. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html Detailed of Chemical Weapons Findings Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Detailed PreliminaryAssessment of Chemical Weapons Findings Note what BAC is doing by way of dishonesty THIS time. He is using the PRELIMINARY Assessment to rebut the final report. After the completed investigation, the final report did NOT support the PRELIMINARY assessment. All are welcome to take their choice - the final report or something in an annex to the preliminary assessment.
Sort of like the way he used the recitals in the Iraqi war resolution to support his silly opinions. The guy never ceases to amaze me. In real life I've found that only sociopaths can get busted in lie after lie without humiliation. Makes me wonder about chooser.
.
So it this the final report or the preliminary report? You provided that source. It says the same thing. "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."
Evil is as evil does.
I think the point is that if "larger number" of these things actually did exist, but would be up on national TV right now crowing about it. The Duelfer report would have an entirely different conclusion, Bush's approval would be up about 20 points and you wouldn't be regraded as a fool by millions of people on the internet. So if your spew has merit, why doesn't Bush use it to save himself? I keep asking you this and you can't answer. That should tell you something about the crap you spew.
.
No, sarin at less than 40% purity fails to meet the minimum standard for weapons grade. The shell is designed to work with 40% pure sarin. They could, of course, try to design a shell to produce 60% pure sarin. That they were unable to produce 60% pure sarin in a lab setting might be a minor sticking point. They could design a shell to work with 20% sarin if their goal was to make wet sand. The shell was a prototype which was tested. It was never designed to have a 10- or 20-year shelf life. Iraq was unable to produce pure enough DF that it did not degrade. http://www.albionmonitor.com/0405a/sarinshell.html MONITOR Wire Services Speaking May 17 in Baghdad, General Mark Kimmitt, the coalition's senior military spokesman in Iraq, took reporters by surprise. "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Kimmitt said. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before that IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent." After more than a year's search, it appeared that the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) -- the U.S. team searching for evidence of weapons of mass destruction -- had finally found something, although the amount was small, and the significance was not immediately apparent. Sarin is a clear, odorless liquid that can cause lethal convulsions in those who breathe it or get it on their skin. It was the poison used by the Aum Shinrikyo cult to kill 12 people in an attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995. The government of Iraq told United Nations inspectors that it had manufactured hundreds of tons of sarin, and that it used the nerve gas during its war with Iran in the 1980s. It also is believed to have been the agent used against Kurds in northern Iraq 10 years ago. The Pentagon confirmed on May 25 that the shell did contain sarin. Kimmitt said no one was seriously injured in the explosion of the shell, but that two people were treated for what he called "minor exposure" to nerve agents. The general said there were no serious injuries apparently because detonating the shell was much less effective in dispersing the nerve gas than had the shell been fired from a cannon. Nor was there any immediate evidence that more artillery shells containing nerve agents exist in Iraq, or if the discovery indicates the presence of a significant stockpile of sarin and other unconventional weapons. As for the strategic significance of the discovery, Rumsfeld said he believes the United States had good reason to conclude that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But whether he had them just as the war began, he said, remains a mystery: "The intelligence information in our country and in other countries that have excellent intelligence-gathering capabilities was that they existed, that the government of Iraq was systematically deceiving the world about what it was doing. There was a great deal of evidence to that effect. We don't now know what actually happened [to make the weapons disappear]," Rumsfeld said. In January, Danish troops in southern Iraq discovered mortar shells they believed to contain a blister agent. But subsequent tests proved the shells, which apparently dated to the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, had no chemical warfare agent. Some U.S. officials have told The Associated Press that they are concerned that there may be more weaponized sarin in Iraq, and that insurgents who use whatever weapons they can find may not be able to distinguish between ordinary explosives and shells containing deadly poisons. The agent used in the shell found on May 15 is believed to be old, and therefore lacking much of its original potency. Still, the AP quotes U.S. officials as saying insurgents may be putting themselves and others in danger simply by handling the explosives, let alone detonating them.
You guys are way off topic.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It is the Preliminary Assessment as included as Annex F of the final report. It does not represent the finding of the ISG. Of course, they did not define Preliminary Assessment so perhaps it is a BAC Ultimate Finding Officially. Click the link and see what it says: Detailed Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Weapons Findings Try READING the INDEX for the final report: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/index.html Annexes
The ISG Final Report on Weaponization is here. Weaponization Iraq’s capability to produce CW munitions on a large scale ended with Desert Storm. However, Iraq retained the ability to retool existing factories to produce new munitions, and would have relied on basic fabrication techniques to weaponize agent if it had chosen to do so. * * * Disposition of CW Munitions Post-1991 ISG expended considerable time and effort investigating longstanding Iraqi assertions about the fate of CW munitions known to have been in Baghdad’s possession during the Gulf war. We believe the vast majority of these munitions were destroyed, but questions remain concerning hundreds of CW munitions. Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile (see Figure 5). In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. (See Annex F.) * The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device. * * * Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991 Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time. * ISG has obtained no evidence that contradicts our assessment that the Iraqis destroyed most of their hidden stockpile, although we recovered a small number of pre-1991 chemical munitions in early to mid 2004. * * *
You are citing, as your expert on this particular shell, a military spokesman who was unable to accurately identify the shell he was talking about. That is desperation. [BAC] I quoted Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt saying the 155mm shell was filled with sarin (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040517-0761.html). What General Kimmitt, military spokesman, really said at the link. http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/67286.php WHO IS GEN. MARK KIMMITT: PR Man for Iraq War; Dad Is DC Lobbyist for Defense Industry Current Brig. Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, US Army, is the spokesman for the US military in Iraq. He is also the deputy operations commander. He currently is the main apologist for US misdeeds in Falluja and southern Iraq. In this article we put a face on the faceless voice of the invaders, the Mouth of the Euphrates. As part of his PR efforts, he frequently employs email. His email address is kimmitt.m (at) skynet.be . He used the private Belgian ISP during his service at NATO's SHAPE headquarters in Belgium Kimmitt's father, Joseph Stanley (Stan) Kimmitt, a former Col. in Army (an artilleryman like Mark), has parlayed his military service into a Washington, DC, public relations, or lobbyist, firm -- Kimmitt, Senter, Coates, & Weinferter. As Gen. Kimmitt promotes the war in Iraq, his father represents defense contractors such as Textron Defense Systems, Talley Defense Systems, and Boeing (maker of the Army's Apache attack helicopter). The Kimmitts are a classic example of the revolving-door syndrome of U.S. military officers and defense contractors. Such double-dipping is commonplace. It is one of the things President Eisenhower meant when he referred to the dangers of the "military-industrial complex." It is a self-replicating monster that feeds on war, death, and destruction Ironically, S. Joseph Kimmitt was the secretary and close friend of Sen. Mike Mansfield of Montana, after Kimmitt's military service. Sen. Mansfield came to see the Vietnam war as unnecessary and would doubtless be opposed to the Iraq war if he were still alive. Gen. Kimmitt's brother, Joseph "Jay" Kimmitt, is a Washington, DC, lobbyist employed by Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Truck Corp. the No. 1 maker of concrete mixers, trash haulers and military trucks. Now it wants a bigger slice of the homeland-security pie, too. And Jay Kimmitt hired a Washington-based PR firm (not his father's) to get it. Another example of the revolving door, Jay Kimmitt served 27 years in the Army he is now selling to. ---------- http://www.iiss.org/conferences/military-leaders-forum/brigadier-general-mark-t-kimmitt The International Institute for Strategic Studies has launched the Military Leaders’ Forum, a new series of meetings with leading military practitioners from the UK and around the world. The Forum is co-hosted by the Director of Studies and the Defence Analysis Programme. The inaugural meeting took place on 6 February 2006, and featured Brigadier General Mark T. Kimmitt, U.S. Army. Brigadier General Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) for the United States Central Command, spoke on the topic, “Iraq and Beyond: The Future of Military Operations in the Middle East.” * * * The IISS Military Leaders’ Forum is made possible through the generous support of KBR ----------
Why is anyone bothering with "IT". I think everyone is losing their focus and energy. "IT" is a LIAR. End of story.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Are the what and how (did a 757 hit the pentagon; where the WTCs brought down by the planes with WTC7 colapsing from collateral damage or from pre-placed explosives; was flight 93 shot down) distracting from the much more important Why and Who?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
lol. way to dodge chooser's idiotic and wholly ridiculous assertion.
"IT" is not the topic I'm refering to. You are wasting your time by repsonding to a complete LIAR.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
"IT" is not the topic I'm refering to. You are wasting your time by repsonding to a complete LIAR. I'll take that as a "yes" with which I agree. It steers the conversation in the direction of what and how.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Really? Yet you first introduced that link on this thread (post #94) and quoted from it. Why'd you do that? Why didn't you post your material from the final report if you think the preliminary assessment is wrong? And what does the ISG final report say about Annex F? It refers to it over and over. Why would it do that if the contents of the Annex are not the ISG's current view ... if they don't represent the finding of the ISG? When it comes to talking about that binary shell in the main report, what does it do? Tell the reader to "See Annex F". So I'm curious why you think Annex F is invalid in this instance?
The ISG Annex doesn't say they discovered a 152mm binary sarin artillery projectile *of the type designed to produce 40 percent sarin*. No, it say they discovered "a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile - CONTAINING a 40 percent concentration of Sarin". It also said "The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long—lasting chemical weapons still exist.'" Evidently the ISG thought this shell was viable and a long-lasting chemical weapon. Why would insurgents use a shell that had been tested? Where'd they find it, lying on the ground somewhere? Was it buried and they had to dig it up? Why use that type of shell when (as you folks claim) there were millions of rounds of perfectly good artillery shells in unguarded bunkers around the country? It doesn't make any sense.
Chooser, why don't you just make up a quote that saves your butt and then post a fake link to support it. Recall that's what you did yesterday -- on at least two occasions. And I'm surprised how you can be busted like you were yesterday and not bat an eye. In most circles what you are doing here is called pathological lying.
.
shalom fish breath. it's obvious that it is ok for you to lie as long as you are lying to a goy, but how can you be sure that the peopel you are lying to on this forum are not jewish?
This is the Iraq Survey Group FINAL REPORT findings on Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program. Annex F is a copy of the Preliminary Assessment. The Introduction to the Preliminary Assessment stated, "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile-containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin...." The Final Report contains no representation about the purity of sarin produced by Iraq, either in this shell or any other shell. "The Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force of the US Department of Defense gave the following assessment in March 2001: "Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent." (Link) Excerpts are presented below. The Final Report on Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program, the Intro and six sections indentified and linked below, make no mention of claim made in the Preliminary Assessment. There is no reference to Annex F about such a claim. The Preliminary Assessment, included as an Annex to the Final Report, does not represent the findings of those who issued the Final Report. The Preliminary Assessment stated the single 152mm Binary chemical IED was remotely detonated. They blew it up before testing. They found "partially detonated" IED and they remotely detonated the round to render it safe. They were only able to test “the remaining liquid” after the round was remotely detonated. There was no way to know, and there is no statement made, regarding the quantity of liquid that was in the shell prior to detonation. A key sarin degradation product was found. Just like BAC poop, and other shit, degradation happens. The "40% concentration" is in the introduction to the Preliminary Assessment, but not in the main body comments of the Final Report. There is no indication of where that information derived from. There is no explanation of how you create 40% concentration sarin by exploding a binary shell in the desert. While the 152mm and 155mm shells may have a similar payload area as unitary rounds, modification to utilize a binary payload entails using a significant portion of the payload area for the apparatus which separately stores the components and which, upon firing, releases the components and mixes them in flight. Iraq Survey Group Final Report Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program By God, spare us your evil. Pick up your goods and leave. We do not need an atomic bomb. We have the dual chemical. Let them take note of this. We have the dual chemical. It exists in Iraq. [1] [1] Saddam speaking about the Israeli, US, and UK intelligence services and Iraq's development of binary CW munitions in a speech on 2 april 1990. (Foreign Broadcast Information Service 021329 April 1990). Iraq Survey Group Final Report Evolution of the Chemical Warfare Program A speech by Saddam on 2 April 1990 publicly identified Iraq’s CW research and production efforts in anticipation of the next war. Saddam claimed Iraq had a binary agent capability, an assertion that caught MSE scientists off guard, according to Iraqi declaration corroborated by documents the UN discovered at Al Muthanna. * In less than a month after Saddam’s speech, Iraq restarted its CW production lines, tested CW warheads for al Husayn missiles, and reverse-engineered special parachute-retarded bombs. [According to the FFCD, Iraq did not import any aerial bombs in 1990.] Al Muthanna filled the al-Husayn warheads and aerial bombs with a binary nerve agent component. These weapons were accompanied by Jerry cans containing the second component, a chemical that, when mixed with the weapons’ contents, produced nerve agent. This was the mix-before-flight Iraqi ‘binary’ system. Iraq deployed 1,000 binary bombs and 50 al-Husayn warheads-binary and unitary-by August 1990. -------------- In August 1995, shortly after Iraq revealed its production of bulk BW agent, Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq’s WMD programs, Husayn Kamil, fled the country. Saddam made a decision at that time to declare virtually all hidden information and material they felt was significant on Iraq’s programs, turning over WMD documentation, including 12 trunks of CW documents. * The documentation turned over by Iraq, allegedly hidden by Husayn Kamil, included results of Iraqi research material up to 1988 that indicated more extensive research on VX than previously admitted. Iraq Survey Group Final Report Command and Control Iraqi scientists and engineers could maintain a minimal CW production proficiency without engaging in CW-related R&D and production because they were already experienced in key CW agent production processes. Largely based on data available in previously published technical literature, Iraq had sufficiently developed processes to produce nerve, blister, and psychological agents. * For instance, Iraqi research on VX started in 1985 with a literature survey on the preparation and production methods of VX. Based on their literature review, the best and easiest method was chosen for the preparation of VX agent, according to Iraq’s CW Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure (FFCD) to the UN. Iraq Survey Group Final Report Infrastructure-Research and Development Iraq Survey Group Final Report Infrastructure-Production Capability Iraq Survey Group Final Report Weaponization Iraq’s capability to produce CW munitions on a large scale ended with Desert Storm. However, Iraq retained the ability to retool existing factories to produce new munitions, and would have relied on basic fabrication techniques to weaponize agent if it had chosen to do so. ----- Disposition of CW Munitions Post-1991 ISG expended considerable time and effort investigating longstanding Iraqi assertions about the fate of CW munitions known to have been in Baghdad’s possession during the Gulf war. We believe the vast majority of these munitions were destroyed, but questions remain concerning hundreds of CW munitions. Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile (see Figure 5). In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. (See Annex F.) * The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device. The 1991 Decision To Destroy Undeclared Weapons An IAEA inspection led by Dr. David Kay in late June 1991 triggered Iraq’s decision to unilaterally destroy the undeclared weapons that had been concealed from the UN, according to multiple senior Iraqi officials. Dr. Kay’s inspection team was blocked from sites in Abu Ghurayb and Fallujah. The Iraqis fired warning shots over the inspectors’ heads, but Dr. Kay and his group brought back video tapes and photos that indicated Iraq was hiding undeclared uranium enrichment equipment from the inspectors. * Dr. Kay’s inspection and the international uproar surrounding it caused consternation and a measure of panic in the Regime’s leadership, particularly Husayn Kamil, and Saddam appointed a high-level committee headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz to deal with inspection matters, according to multiple sources. Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991 Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time. * ISG has obtained no evidence that contradicts our assessment that the Iraqis destroyed most of their hidden stockpile, although we recovered a small number of pre-1991 chemical munitions in early to mid 2004. Post-OIF Insurgent Attempts to Tap Chemical Resources A group of insurgents began a nascent CW effort without CW scientists or industrial-scale chemical supplies. After OIF, a group of insurgents-referred to as the al-Abud network-assembled key supplies and relevant expertise from community resources to develop a program for weaponizing CW agents for use against Coalition Forces. The al-Abud network in late 2003 recruited a Baghdad chemist-who lacked the relevant CW expertise-to develop chemical agents. The group sought and easily acquired from farmers and local shops chemicals and equipment to conduct CW experiments. An investigation of these CW attempts suggests that the al-Abud network failed to produce desired CW agents, however it remains unclear whether these failures derive from a lack of available precursors or insufficient CW expertise. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Chemical Munitions-Searching Military Depots and Caches Iraq Survey Group Final Report Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Detailed Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Weapons Findings Introduction The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile-containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin-which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist. ---------------- 16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals. Historical context: Iraq only declared its work on binary munitions after Husayn Kamil fled Iraq in 1995, and even then only claimed to have produced a limited number of binary rounds that it used in field trials in 1988. UN investigations revealed a number of uncertainties surrounding the nature and extent of Iraq’s work with these systems and it remains unclear how many rounds it produced, tested, declared, or concealed from the UN.
The NIE, the Senate Report, and Colin Powell The Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq of July 9, 2004 contains the following: * Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. * The IC's bias that Iraq had active WMD programs led analysts to presume, in the absence of evidence, that if Iraq could do something to advance its WMD capabilities, it would. ===================== Colin Powell, Meet the Press, May 16, 2004
COMMISSION ON THE INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction ceased operations and closed its office on May 27, 2005. After a year of study that included the review of thousands of documents and hundreds of interviews with knowledgeable observers from both within and outside the intelligence community, the Commission presented its report to the President on March 31, 2005. Established by Executive Order 13328 and signed by President George W. Bush on February 6, 2004, the Commission was charged with assessing whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks). T he Commission examined the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century. COMMISSION MEMBERS Charles S. Robb Laurence H. Silberman Richard C. Levin OF COUNSEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR * * * … U.S. forces searched without success for the WMD that the Intelligence Community had predicted. Extensive post-war investigations were carried out by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical warfare (CW) stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW after 1991. Just about the only thing that the Intelligence Community got right was its pre-war conclusion that Iraq had deployed missiles with ranges exceeding United Nations limitations. How could the Intelligence Community have been so mistaken? That is the question the President charged this Commission with answering. … CHEMICAL WARFARE … Post-War Findings of the Iraq Survey Group … The ISG concluded-contrary to the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments- that Iraq had actually unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of CW thereafter. Iraq had not regained its pre-1991 CW technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to the war. Further, pre-war concerns of Iraqi plans to use CW if Coalition forces crossed certain defensive “red lines” were groundless; the “red lines” referred to conventional military planning only. Finally, the only CW the Iraq Survey Group recovered were weapons manufactured before the first Gulf War; the ISG concluded that, after 1991, Iraq maintained only small, covert labs to research chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. … Despite having “expended considerable time and expertise searching for extant CW munitions,”-the vaunted stockpiles-the ISG concluded with “high confidence that there are no CW present in the Iraqi inventory.” The ISG specifically investigated 11 sites that were associated with sus pected CW transshipment activity, conducting an in-depth inspection of two of the sites, which were “assessed prior to war to have the strongest indicators of CW movement.” Neither of these sites revealed any CW munitions. Further, the ISG’s “review of documents, interviews, intelligence reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations” for pre-war transshipment activity that the Intelligence Community judged to have been CW-related. … Overall, although the vast majority of CW munitions had been destroyed, the Iraq Survey Group recognized that questions remained relating to the disposition of hundreds of pre-1991 CW munitions. Still, given that, of the dozens of CW munitions that the ISG discovered, all had been manufactured before 1991, the Intelligence Community’s 2002 assessments that Iraq had restarted its CW program turned out to have been seriously off the mark. Finally, on two ancillary issues the ISG found little or no evidence to support indications of Iraqi CW efforts. … Analysis of the Intelligence Community’s Pre-War Assessments … A small quantity of human source reporting supplied the bulk of the narrow band of intelligence supplementing the imagery intelligence. And the most striking fact about reporting on Iraq’s CW program was, as with other elements of Iraq’s weapons programs, its paucity. Yet there was more than just scarcity, for-as with sources on Iraq’s supposed BW program-many of the CW sources subsequently proved unreliable. Indeed, perhaps even more so that with the BW sources, Community analysts should have been more cautious about using the CW sources’ reporting, as much of it was deeply problematic on its face. In our view, prior to the war, analysts should have viewed at least three human sources more skeptically than they did. In addition, post-war, questions about the veracity of two other human sources have also surfaced. Sources Whose Reliability Should Have Been Questioned Prior to the NIE One source, an Iraqi defector who had worked as a chemist in Iraq through the 1990s, reported information that made its way into the NIE. This happened even though, from the start of his relations with the U.S. Intelligence Community, the Community had deemed aspects of his reporting not credible. … Indeed, analytic skepticism about the source’s claims was later confirmed by revelations about his operational history, revelations that led to the Intelligence Community deeming him a fabricator and recalling his reporting, although not all of his reporting was recalled until almost one year after the war started.… Another source, who was described as a contact with “good but historical access” but lacking “an established reporting record,” reported in July 2002 that, as of 1998, Iraq was producing mustard and binary chemical agents. At the same time, he also reported on a “wide range of disparate subjects,” including on Iraq’s missile program and nuclear and biological weapons programs. Such broad access, on its face, was inconsistent with what analysts understood to be Iraq’s well-known tendency towards compartmentation of sensitive weapons programs. Yet because of the Community’s own compartmentation-working-level analysts saw reporting on their area but not on others-they did not realize at the time that one source was reporting on a range of topics for which he was unlikely to have access. Moreover, although analysts did not know it at the time, the source obtained his information from unknown and undescribed sub-sources. Finally, a third source provided information that was technically implausible on its face. His reporting claimed that Iraq had constructed a factory for the production of castor oil that could be used for the production of sarin. Although castor beans can be used to make ricin, not sarin-a fact that analysts readily understood-analysts did not discount the information. …
UK SOURCE MIDDLE EAST REFERENCE FILE Without evidence, BAC finds that they could do better by putting the components in a shell, partially detonate the shell and let it lie in the desert for a while, detonate the shell some more to make it safe, and have the stuff mix together as a result of the two explosions of the shell. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html Evaluation. The main G-agents produced by Iraq were Tabun, Sarin and Cyclosarin. It is generally accepted that Iraq stopped producing Tabun in 1986 (UNMOVIC accept that this account "is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM's findings", in "Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68), in favour of concentrating on the producing of Sarin and Cyclosarin. These agents deteriorate rapidly, especially if impurities are present in their manufacture. This seems to have been the case with Iraq's nerve agents. The Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force of the US Department of Defense gave the following assessment in March 2001: "Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life. The CIA estimates the chemical warfare agent in the rockets stored at Al Muthanna had deteriorated to approximately 18 percent purity by the time that Bunker 2 was destroyed, leaving about 1600 kilograms (1.6 metric tons) of viable sarin." "The Gulf War Air Campaign - Possible Chemical Warfare Agent Release at Al Muthanna, February 8, 1991", 19 March 2001; http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html#about About This reference file is an inventory and critical analysis of the claims made about the weapons and programmes that Iraq is proscribed from having under the terms of Security Council Resolutions 687 (1991), paragraphs 10 and 12: that is, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km. The file was compiled before UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors were withdrawn from the country on 18 March 2003, and the evaluations contained have not been altered in light of subsequent information. However, suggestions for further reading continue to be added in light of the new information that has come to light since that date. These sections are marked "Key post-war readings", and are at the end of some sub-sections on particular weapons categories. This reference file is not about Iraq's overall compliance with that resolution or subsequent resolutions on Iraq, including SCR 1441 (2002). For example, it does not attempt to analyse the extent of Iraq's obstruction of inspectors from UNSCOM, UNMOVIC or IAEA. It is instead a presentation of what is actually known about the weapons and programmes themselves. For the UN inspectors who were in Iraq, discovering what is unknown about the history and present status of these items was the task at hand. Inspectors engaged with the possibility of Iraq's retention or development of non-conventional weapons, and reported to the Security Council on this basis. However, a set of evaluations can also be made of the likelihood of Iraq's non-conventional weapons programmes, given the material available. No overall judgements are made in this reference file, but material is presented that should allow a more well informed opinion to be reached. The author of this reference file is Dr Glen Rangwala, an independent analyst at the University of Cambridge, UK. If any of the technical claims made below are incorrect or incomplete, such mistakes have not been made in a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader: corrections and clarifications would be greatly appreciated. Contact details are at the end of this page.
In discussing an Un-Constitutional War, we must consider the things that were said to influence public opinion. Lest we forget, here is a review using comments taken directly from the Senate Report. SOURCE: July 9, 2004. -- Ordered to be printed The following quotes are taken from pages 453, 454, 459, 460, 461 of the source publication. The Bush Administration's case against Iraq was largely based on the argument that we knew with certainty that Iraq possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons, was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that an established relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda would allow for the transfer of these weapons for use against the United States. This national security rationale being put forth publicly by senior Administration officials in support of regime change in Iraq was simple, direct and often fundamentally misleading. The rhetorical drumbeat for war in the months leading up to the Intelligence Community's October estimate, sounded from the highest levels of the government, repeatedly overstated what the Intelligence Community assessed at the time. Here are some examples of the exaggerations: "... it's been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 al-Qaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, December 9,2001) "[Saddam Hussein] is a dangerous man who possesses the world's most dangerous weapons." (President Bush, Press Conference, March 22, 2002) "But we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.. .Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." (Vice President Cheney, Speech to the VFW's 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002) "We do know that there have been shipments going... into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to - high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." (National Security Advisor Rice, Late Edition, September 8, 2002) "I think if you asked, do we know that he had a role in 9/11, no, we do not know that [Saddam Hussein] had a role in 9/11. But I think that this is the test that sets a bar that is far too high." (National Security Advisor Rice, Late Edition, September 8, 2002) "Very likely all they need to complete a weapon is fissile material - and they are, at this moment, seeking that material - both from foreign sources and the capability to produce it indigenously." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002) -453- "[Saddam Hussein] has said, in no uncertain terms, that he would use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and is pursuing nuclear weapons." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002) "[Iraq] has weapons of mass destruction. And the battlefield has now shifted to America..." (President Bush, Remarks at OHS Complex, September 19,2002) "Well, I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched. There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information." (Press Secretary Fleischer, Press Briefing, September 24, 2002) "[Y]ou can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (President Bush, Photo Opportunity, September 25, 2002) "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of- weapons of mass destruction capabilities." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Dot) News Briefing, September 26, 2002) "We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it." (Secretary Rumsfeld, DoD News Briefing, September 26, 2002) "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.. .and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." (President Bush, Radio Address, September 28, 2002) "The dangers we face only worsen from month to month and year to year.. .and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group." (President Bush, Radio Address, September 28, 2002) These high-profile statements in support of the Administration's policy of regime change were made in advance of any meaningful intelligence analysis and created pressure on the Intelligence Community to conform to the certainty contained in the pronouncements. -454- "The danger to America for the Iraqi regime is grave and growing... Delay, indecision and inaction are not options for America, because they could leave (sic) to massive and sudden horror." (President Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002) -459- "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof- the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (President Bush, Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002) "After September 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." (President Bush, Remarks in Dearborn, MI, October 14, 2002) "We cannot afford to wait until Saddam Hussein or some terrorist supplied by him attacks us with a chemical or biological or, worst of all, a nuclear weapon, to recognize the danger we face.. .The dots are there for all to see. We must not wait for some terrible event that connects the dot for us." (Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Remarks at Fletcher Conference, October 16, 2002) "Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon." (President Bush, Q&A in Crawford, TX, December 31, 2002) "[Saddam Hussein] could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us. And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have known." (Vice President Cheney, Remarks to the Conservative PAC, January 30, 2003) "And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind." (President Bush, Remarks with Prime Minister Blair, January 31, 2003) "We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.. .The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world." (President Bush, Statement in the Roosevelt Room, February 6, 2003) "[Saddam Hussein] provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries." (President Bush, News Conference, March 6, 2003) "The strongest link of- of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida - we've never said that he somehow masterminded 9/11 or was even involved in 9/11. But the strongest -although there are a lot of tantalizing meetings that - with people who were involved in 9/11." (Dr. Rice, Face the Nation, March 9,2003) -460- "[Saddam Hussein] claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Press Briefing, March 11, 2003) "...we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons... We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003) "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16,2003) * * * By the time American troops had been deployed overseas and were poised to attack Iraq, the Administration had skillfully manipulated and cowed the Intelligence Community into approving public statements that conveyed a level of conviction and certainty that was not supported by an objective reading of the underlying intelligence reporting. The charge levied in the President's State of the Union Address in late January 2003 that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa is the most notable example of how the Intelligence Community's agreed to let the Administration be a fact witness to an intelligence report the CIA considered "weak" and "not credible." Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his speech before the United Nations eight days later with Director Tenet seated directly behind him. The content of his speech was approved by the CIA and laid out the Intelligence Community's case against Iraq in a high degree of certainty that was unencumbered by the limitations of the underlying intelligence and corresponding analytical judgments. It was in this speech that Secretary Powell assured the United Nations General Assembly - and the world at large - that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are fact and conclusion based on solid intelligence." The day before the February 5th United Nations speech, a CIA official involved with intelligence reporting on Iraq sent an email to another agency official responding to concerns about the use of one particular source at the center of the assertion that Iraq had constructed numerous mobile biological weapons laboratories: -461-
Says a poster who claimed the Madrid fire burned at 2000 degrees and couldn't back up the claim when asked. Says a poster who claimed WTC7 "steel was found to have sulphaded, eutectic formations. The structual steel was turned to swiss cheese and was completely evaporated. It takes around 5100 degress to evapoate structual steel" when steel experts who examined the WTC 7 steel said "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge." Says a poster who claimed " The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved." I posted the statement of the head structural engineer on the project, Leslie Robertson, who said the towers were NOT designed for the impact of jets at the speed of the 911 jets and that they were NOT designed for the fires that would result. Says a poster who claimed "NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600." Again, this is untrue. NIST did not perform fire temp tests on steel from the area where their fire code models show the most intense fires occurred. What those tests do, actually, is confirm the fire codes because they show the temperatures in the tested locations agree with what the fire codes say the temperatures would have been in those locations. Furthermore, NIST did not find a reliable, robust method to test temperatures much above 250 to 300 C. They based their conclusions only on tests (using the condition of paint). Those tests would not have worked in regions where steel reached a 1000 C ... which is what the fire codes show happened and experts around the world believe happened. Says a poster who claimed "NIST has no proof of sagging floors pulling the outer perimeter girders" even after being shown PHOTOS of the towers from NIST that show sagging floors pulling on the outer perimeter girders. And NIST also has good structural models that tell them this happened. They also have photos before the collapse showing the perimeter columns bowing inward where those sagging floors would have connected. Says a poster who claimed "NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes". FALSE. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Says a poster who claimed "NIST concluded ... snip ... the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft" when the final report says "The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possibly damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced dislodging could not be established due to (1) the numerical noise inherent in the acceleration time-histories on structural components obtained from the aircraft impact analyses, and (2) lack of data on the strength of insulation materials under such a high rate of loading with sharp peaks in a very short duration. However, there were indications that insulation damage occurred over a larger region than that estimated. Photographic evidence showed insulation dislodged from exterior columns not directly impacted by debris (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). The towers underwent a period of strong impact loading fro about .6 to .7 s. Further, video analysis showed that WTC 2 vibrated for over 4 minutes after aircraft impact with amplitudes in excess of 20 inches at the roof top (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). First person interviews of building occupants indicated that building vibrations due to aircraft impact were strong enough to dislodge ceiling tiles and collapse walls throughout the height of both WTC towers and to cause nearly all elevators to stop functioning (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)." It simply doesn't say what Mark claimed about vibrations, does it.
shalom fish breath. you come off as a kook when you rant like this.
I'm not the one who brought up the topic of what and how on this thread.
So how are you doing over here? Got'em all fooled yet?
Yet it references Annex F and tells the reader to "See Annex F" when the topic of that discovered munitions is mentioned. The Final Report directs the reader to "See Annex F" when the topic of the discovered munitions is mentioned. Why do that if they believe the contents of Annex F are inaccurate? There is no indication where many claims in the report derive from. Are all such claims to be dismissed now? I'm sorry but it would appear the writers of the document took great care with their wording throughout the report. And they said "projectile - containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin" when they could just as easily have said "of a type that must produce 40 percent concentration to be effective". And the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin was repeated in many venues and not once denied or corrected by members of the ISG.
But the concern isn't military effectiveness. The concern is that a WMD, even a degraded one, might fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to create terror (not to mention kill a lot of people). The final ISG report actually mentions that concern in the addendum. Did you miss that?
Chooser, your ridiculous parsing here is idiotic and fools nobody.
.
Let me ask you a single question: If there is a shred of merit to your silly and utterly discredited WMD KOOKERY, then why doesn't Bush get on national TV tomorrow and save his Presidency with it? The fact that Bush and his media team lied us into the war is one of the primary reasons he is now going down the toilet. And you damn well know this. So is your WMD Kookery is true, then Bush could save himself with it. The question is why doesn't he do it? And why is the type of WMD kookery you push only targeted to gullible goobers like yourself and only in the lowest form of Repbulcan goob fooler publications? Surely you've got a kook conpiracy theory that explains this.
.
Those who issued the Final Report did not include your favorite information from the Preliminary Assessment. It's a tragedy, but it happened.
Link/quote to where "the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin" in any official report. They stated that the shell, partially detonated when found, was remotely detonated and they only tested what residue was left behind (after the shell had detonated twice). You have a wonderful imagination.
There was one already partially detonated 10+ year old prototype shell and nothing left to test but residue. NON-FUNCTIONAL PROTOTYPES are not considered deadly WMD. They do not even function well as an IED. They seem to function splendidly as a BAC propaganda tool. You must have missed the part that stated: The binary chemical round detonated near the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing. Iraq placed at least 12 filled binary Sarin munitions, either 152 or 155mm projectiles, in the basement of the Salah al-Din laboratory at the Al Muthanna CW complex, according to a report. * * * The Technical Research Center (TRC) also worked on producing 152mm binary Sarin artillery shells, but we have no reason to believe that they possessed functional chemical munitions. According to the Iraqi FFCD, the TRC conducted lab experiments with 152mm binary munitions using a simulant to test the mixing of the binary components. No binary tests using chemical agent at the TRC were declared. * * * If the number of 152mm artillery shells produced by Al Muthanna was a few dozen, as was stated in the aforementioned sensitive report, then the shells which remained in the basement of the Salah al-Din Laboratory in the late 1980s may have been the only filled binary sarin rounds which existed at the time of the Gulf war. Reporting states that the only 152mm binary Sarin rounds produced by Al Muthanna that were not destroyed in field tests were in the basement of the Salah al-Din laboratory. The report stated that at least 12 binary munitions were placed there, although they may have been 152mm, 155mm, or a mixture of both.
But they did tell readers to "See Annex F" when it came to the discussion of discovered munitions. Also, the included Annex F on the website where the Final Report was provided. You wish to ignore both, but it happened.
Official report? I never claimed such a thing. But I did claim reports like the following which the ISG never challenged: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html "Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin, Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday. ... snip ... Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell." They didn't say "when found". They called it a "partially detonated IED". http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_06/ChemicalMunition.asp "a “very small” amount of nerve agent was released from the shell because it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. Two members of an explosive ordnance team sustained minor injuries as a result of exposure to the agent." http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3024 "The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent. The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced. The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece. Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED is very limited." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html " An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday." http://www.katc.com/global/story.asp?s=1873019&ClientType=Printable "Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121035,00.html "Because the shell was not fired from a gun but was detonated as a bomb, officials say the initial explosion on May 15 dispersed the precursor chemicals and apparently mixed them in only small amounts."
Show us an official report that actually says this. Since you're big on official reports. And by the way, Annex F states "and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product." Not quite what you are trying to claim. What they are saying is they have no reason to believe Iraq had binary sarin munitions. That is ... weapons that were deployed. It doesn't mean the shell wouldn't have worked as intended if fired by artillery. In fact, documents and interviews indicated that the Iraqis were quite pleased with their binary sarin program. Iraq initially denied researching binary weapons at all. It wasn't until 1995, after Kamil fled Iraq, that they claimed to have produced a limited number of binary rounds. And then claimed they were ALL destroyed. Obviously they've lied about that and probably numerous other things related to binary sarin. And by the way, you could have just as easily have underlined a statement below that in the material quoted ... one that implied the possibility this was a "FILLED" binary sarin round from the basement of the Salah al-Din Laboratory. Whoever used this shell as an IED didn't know what they had. It lacked the usual markings that identify chemical munitions (an attempt by Saddam to hide the fact it was a chemical shell?). If they had known, they might have removed the contents and used a better means of combining the binary components and dispersing the resulting sarin. And killed thousands.
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday. The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable Points from the BAC/Fox News article: Official reports confirm that it was a very old 152mm prototype, not a 155mm shell. The unnamed Defense Department officials did not even know what type of shell they were talking about. Unnamed "intelligence officials," on the basis of misidentification of the size and type of the shell, GUESSED that "three to four liters is likely the right number." The shell was apparently filled over ten years previously and stored for leakage testing. The shell had been partially detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops. The shell had been sitting in the desert for some time prior to its discovery by U.S. troops. The official reports confirm that the shell was remotely detonated by U.S. troops. It did not explode all by itself before it could be rendered inoperable. It was remotely detonated to render it safe. The shell is rendered safe by having the explosive charge burn off the sarin and completely detonate any remaining explosive. The shell was exploded twice. All that was left for testing was whatever liquid remained, i.e., residue. residue. [fr. L. residuum] something that remains after a part is taken, separated,, or designated: REMNANT, REMAINDER. The only binary shells which were tested with sarin were the early ones that were mixed just before firing. After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time, and another explosion to render the shell safe, the remnants of the ten-year old shell were determined to test positive for sarin and substances given off when sarin degrades. The official report by those who have examined the actual evidence and rendered an informed opinion is evidence superior to BAC bullshit from Fox News based on unnamed "intelligence officials" who misidentify the type of shell and admittedly take a guess at how much sarin was in the shell, based on an estimate of what some other shell might be capable of holding. Except in BAC propaganda world.
Sadly, your favorite bit of unsupportable information was neither stated, cited, nor referenced in any way in the final report.
BAC, you're practically resorting to accusing Saddam of using the "F" word. Your assertions are that impertinent - although your assertions are cleverly re- packaged for those stupid enough to take you seriously. Your thought processes are as limp-wristed as you are. Go away, BAC - just leave!
Where do you get that claim? As far as I know, no document says that. I don't even think a credible media source says that. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. Official statements said it detonated BEFORE it could be disarmed. No, I think there is a difference between what you meant to imply by residue and liquid. I don't think you can prove this. The truth is that the ISG doesn't really know what the Iraqi's tested since the documentation they have is incomplete (many of the documents were destroyed by the Iraqis or they just didn't record certain things) and the other sources they have are not exactly trustworthy either. The Iraqis since 91 all the way up to and including the ISG effort have consistently tried to minimize what they did, what they had, and what they intended to do. It's been one lie after another so sorting out the truth is difficult. Especially given that the ISG also said the Iraqis systematically sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD and they have a credible source who says WMD related items were moved to Syria before the war. You just making up a story now. That scenario is NOT stated in any official document or even any credible mainstream media outlet. The ISG said the shell contained a "40 percent concentration" of sarin. I'm sure they didn't say that without some reason and with careful attention to their language.
[BAC] Where do you get that claim? As far as I know, no document says that. I don't even think a credible media source says that. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. Official statements said it detonated BEFORE it could be disarmed. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. It was partially detonated when discovered. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. You do not partially detonate a shell and try to mess with it. You use a remote charge and completely detonate it. You are invited to play with partially detonated shells. The report explicitly states that the munitions were remotely detonated. The report explicitly states that the "remaining liquid" tested "positive" in "ISG field labs" for sarin and "a sarin degradation product." [nc] All that was left for testing was whatever liquid remained, i.e., residue. [BAC] No, I think there is a difference between what you meant to imply by residue and liquid. No, you are leaving out a word and changing "remaining liquid" to just "liquid." [nc] After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time, [BAC] You just making up a story now. That scenario is NOT stated in any official document or even any credible mainstream media outlet. A partially detonated round has exploded but not all of the explosive charge has been expended. And your favorite nonsense from the preliminary assessment never made it into the Final Report. It did not get a mention, or even a reference.
But the claim you have to back up is that "it was detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops." That is not what the official reports said. They said it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. Well the reports specifically say that's what happened. That 2 soldiers were injured while carrying the partially detonated shell somewhere else. And that the shell partially detonated before it could be disarmed (which suggests it was not detonated before thoughts of disarming it came to mind). Not arguing that. Not arguing that. I think there is a difference between what you meant to imply by residue and "remaining liquid". But NOTHING in any document or media report indicates that shell first exploded then sat in the desert for an unknown time before being discovered. The wording of the official reports clearly suggests the shell partially detonated after it was discovered but before it could be disarmed. You are wrong. Annex F is referenced in the Final Report.
But the claim you have to back up is that "it was detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops." The official report says that the U.S. troops remotely detonated the shell after they discovered it. To be BAC-clear, the report does not explicitly state that they remotely detonated the shell only after they discovered it. In BAC-world, perhaps they remotely detonated the shell before they discovered it. A BAC-certified psychic, using remote viewing, performed a psychic remote detonation. He used the power to BAC's mind to remotely detonate the shell with psycho power. The report does not explicitly state that the U.S. troops did not partially detonate the shell. In BAC-world, the EOD folks might partially detonate a shell so they could make it more dangerous to handle. It is explicitly stated that it was a partially detonated shell. Unless it somehow got to be a partially detonated shell after it was discovered, it must have been a partially detonated shell prior to, and at the time of discovery, until the U.S. troops remotely detonated it to make it safe to handle. A partially detonated shell would contain unpredictable explosive material and possibly be leaking CW agents. A partially detonated shell is unsafe to handle. Nobody but BAC would consider partially detonating a shell prior to handling. This would mean discovering an undetonated shell and partially detonating it, rendering it unpredictable and unsafe to handle. This insanity only occurs in BAC-world, where insanity is the norm. The remote detonation is designed to render a shell into a non-explosive device, and the explosive detonation causes a burn off of chemicals. But NOTHING in any document or media report indicates that shell first exploded then sat in the desert for an unknown time before being discovered. Nothing in the report indicates that the shell sprang up every four hours and did calisthenics to keep in shape. Perhaps the shell did not just lie in the desert. Perhaps it had some Aussie in it and went walkabout. But only in BAC-world. Have you figured out yet if "you support the 'right' of Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and kill 34 U.S. Navy men and wound 171 more, and shoot at lifeboats...." Or do you remain passionately of NO OPINION?
I see you're implying with your quotation marks that they weren't pirates. Just your typical dishonest bullshit. When you have to lie, we're done.
Officials also said that it partially denotated before it could be disarmed ... implying that it hadn't partially detonated before it was discovered. But official sources also say it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. That language would imply that efforts to disarm it began before it partially detonated. Which is exactly what the language in the reports and by officials at the times suggests happened. But it wasn't identified as a CW shell (it was unmarked). Well maybe you can square your fantasy that the shell had already been detonated at the time US forces discovered it, with this report from the military that day. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3024 "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent. The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced. The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece. Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED is very limited. The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. Two explosive ordnance team members were minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round."
--------------------------------------------------------- Consider yourself priveleged. You get to receive one of my rare posts. I've been restricted to only 10 a day by christine. She did it after I laughed when I heard that she, Arator and Kamala met Rodriguez in person at Alex Jones' and Charlie Sheen's 911 Conference. I guess that was nothing to laugh about.
Yeah, BAC, you asshole, we know you can split hairs. This single round was declared as a freak find, by the U.S. command. Nobody but you gives a shit! The price of being queer. Your rationalization skills can arbitrarily assign meaning or non-meaning - to anything. Say, BAC, did you notice that no one cares about your limited posting limitations - other than to applaud your status? Take a clue; nobody wants you.
#2. To: BeAChooser (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#3. To: scrapper2, ALL (#2)
#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
But none of that defines the FORM the declaration must take.
#5. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#6. To: BeAChooser, Diana, SkyDrifter (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#7. To: BeAChooser (#1)
(Edited)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
#8. To: BeAChooser (#3)
the FORM the declaration must take.
#9. To: leveller, ALL (#8)
No specific form is required.
But any Congressional act which fails to assert aht a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war.
#10. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#11. To: Dakmar, ALL (#10)
"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others."
That came from wikipedia,
#12. To: BeAChooser (#11)
Written by you, perchance? ROTFLOL!
#13. To: BeAChooser (#9)
Apparently Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree with you.
#14. To: BeAChooser (#11)
(Edited)
#15. To: Dakmar, ALL (#12)
No, you paranoid baboon raper.
#16. To: BeAChooser (#15)
#17. To: scrapper2, ALL (#13)
Did the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the Iraq War?
#18. To: Dakmar, ALL (#14)
A declaration of war is a legal matter
#19. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#17)
#20. To: BeAChooser (#18)
#21. To: Dakmar, ALL (#20)
Did the US declare war on Iraq? Fill me in, I must have missed that.
#22. To: BeAChooser (#21)
#23. To: BeAChooser (#21)
(Edited)
#24. To: BeAChooser, Dakmar, randge (#21)
Then I guess my answer would be YES, Congress declared war on Iraq when it passed a law authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq for a host of WHEREAS reasons.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority
Part III of IV
Monday, February 6, 2006; 3:48 PM GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
#25. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#24)
I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
#26. To: robin (#0)
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
#27. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#24)
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
#28. To: Dakmar, ALL (#25)
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails.
#29. To: BeAChooser (#28)
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS?
#30. To: BeAChooser (#17)
first Circuit Court of Appeals
#31. To: Minerva (#29)
(Edited)
Yawn. Everytime someone scores a point you try to change the subject. Get a new tactic.
#32. To: scrapper2, ALL (#30)
The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts
b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn.
This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War.
But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing.
#33. To: BeAChooser, All (#32)
(Edited)
scrapper2: But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
#34. To: BeAChooser, robin (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I shall presently ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution just read to the Senate. Before the request is submitted, however, I desire to say that, being advised of the declaration of war upon the United States by the Governments of Germany and Italy, and anticipating a message by the President of the United States in relation thereto, and after a conference with the Secretary of State, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I called a meeting of the committee this morning and submitted to the committee the course I expected to pursue as chairman and the request which I expected to make. "Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
#35. To: BeAChooser (#27)
By the way, do you know that Gonzales is on the record calling illegal immigrants American CITIZENS?
#36. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#34)
#37. To: Red Jones (#36)
BAC is a TREASONOUS QUEER! by his own admission as well I think you should know. a man that is a TREASONOUS QUEER is not someone that can or should be trusted.
#38. To: Morgana le Fay (#37)
and the whole internet seems to agree.
#39. To: Morgana le Fay (#37)
i would trust a treasonous queer before i believed anything fish breath told me.
#40. To: Nostalgia (#38)
Yet the succubus claims that's exclusive to 4um'ers.
#41. To: BeAChooser (#32)
#42. To: Morgana le Fay (#41)
#43. To: Minerva (#42)
#44. To: BeAChooser (#28)
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails.
#45. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL (#17)
The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."
#46. To: nolu_chan (#26)
#47. To: scrapper2, ALL (#33)
Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical . . . The war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
Washington DC "I don't have an agenda in the sense of viewing myself as proselytizing or trying to sell this," Mearsheimer told the Forward. "I am a scholar, not an activist, and I am reticent to take questions from the media because I do believe that this is a subject that has to be approached very carefully. You don't want to say the wrong thing. The potential for saying the wrong thing is very great here."
Mearsheimer was hosted on National Public Radio Tuesday for a full hour, to talk about Iraq, but did not make any mention of the controversial paper he co-authored. "To have a throwaway line or two on public radio to promote yourself is a bad idea," he told the Forward, following his NPR appearance. "I prefer to take the high road, although that is not always easy." Since publication, Mearsheimer added, he and Walt also turned down offers from major newspapers, radio and television networks to lay out their thesis.
John Mearsheimer says that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in an American-based scientific publication.
"I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States," Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, "but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States."
Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that "the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue," he said. "Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems."
In their paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," the two professors accuse "the lobby" of "policing academia," intimidating scholars and stifling dissent on campuses, mainly through accusing critics of being antisemitic.
Mearsheimer said that he and Walt expected to be accused of being anti-Israel and antisemitic, so they made a point of stating in the study that the establishment of Israel was morally justified and that America's support of Israel, in principle, is justified as well. He said the paper takes issue with the extent of American support for Israel and the role that the pro-Israel lobby plays in pushing for such assistance.
Asked if the study may have been initially rejected by the American publisher because of poor research, Mearsheimer said that the "evidence in the piece is just the tip of the iceberg," and that the study's observations are supported by a large body of evidence. He did concede, however, that none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews. All the additional supporting material — just like the references footnoted in the paper — is of a secondary nature: citations of books and newspaper articles, Mearsheimer said.
An open letter demanding vigilance in ensuring that Israel does not forcibly expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza has drawn the endorsement of nearly a thousand American academics, including eight at the University of Chicago.
The letter, adopted from one circulated by Israeli academics, cites Israeli politicians who publicly support removing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and relocating them into neighboring Arab countries. The "fog of war [with Iraq] could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing," the letter reads....
"The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again," said John Mearsheimer, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University and one of the letter's signatories.
What is obvious is that they [the Israelis] will use the resulting chaos as a pretext to get rid of the Palestinians, driving them out of the country into Jordan or Egypt. Who will say or do anything to stop them when the region is totally destabilized and a mess?
Let us spell out the assumptions underlying this theory:
*That the disastrous outcome of war in Iraq--"chaos," with the region "totally destabilized and a mess"--is foreordained.
*That Israel and its co-conspirators, some of whom hold subcabinet-level positions in the Bush administration, know this, but the rest of the administration and the majority of Congress have no clue and thus have been duped by the Zionist plotters into thinking the war has a significant chance of success.
*That although the whole region will be engulfed in "chaos," "totally destabilized and a mess," Israel will have no problem managing the forcible relocation of more than three million people, many of them heavily armed with guns and explosives, all the while defending its borders against the hostile states and terrorist groups that surround it.
#48. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#34)
They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared."
#49. To: Red Jones, ALL (#36)
BAC said that there was never a declaration of war against Germany.
#50. To: BeAChooser (#48)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#48)
(Edited)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
#52. To: BeAChooser, All (#47)
#53. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#51)
By its very nature of being a declaration of war it must have certain properties just as a table requires legs or it is called a board or a basin in your bathroom has to spray water to be called a shower. One required property is to make a declaration (hence the name) that a state of war exists between the parties or that one party is declaring war on the other(s).
#54. To: BeAChooser (#53)
#55. To: BeAChooser (#53)
#56. To: BeAChooser (#48)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
TALBOT v. SEEMAN, 5 U.S. 1 (1801)
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Legal Information Institute
Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution Declaration of War
----------
1413 Mr. Butler favored "vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Id., 318.
1414 Mr. Pinkney thought the House was too numerous for such deliberations but that the Senate would be more capable of a proper resolution and more acquainted with foreign affairs. Additionally, with the States equally represented in the Senate, the interests of all would be safeguarded. Ibid. 1415 Hamilton’s plan provided that the President was "to make war or peace, with the advice of the senate..." 1 id., 300.
1416 2 id., 318–319. In The Federalist, No. 69 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 465, Hamilton notes: "[T]he President is to be commander–in– chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,—all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (Emphasis in original). And see id., No. 26, 164–171. Cf. C. Berdahl, War Powers of the Executive in the United States (Urbana, Ill.: 1921), ch. V.
1417 The Federalist, No. 69 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 464–465, 470. During the Convention, Gerry remarked that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 318.
1418 The Articles of Confederation vested powers with regard to foreign relations in the Congress.
1419 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 318–319.
1420 Jointly introducing the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make," Madison and Gerry noted the change would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id., 318.
1421 Connecticut originally voted against the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make" but "on the remark by Mr. King that ‘make’ war might be understood to ‘conduct’ it which was an Executive function, Mr. Ellsworth gave up his opposition, and the vote of Connecticut was changed...." Id., 319. The contemporary and subsequent judicial interpretation was to the understanding set out in the text. Cf. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. (5 U.S.), 1, 28 (1801) (Chief Justice Marshall: "The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body alone can be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry."); Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2, 139 (1866).
1422 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, J. Richardson ed. (Washington: 1896), 326, 327.
1423 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. Hamilton ed. (New York: 1851), 746–747.
1424 2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802) (emphasis supplied).
1425 Of course, Congress need not declare war in the all–out sense; it may provide for a limited war which, it may be, the 1802 statute recognized. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. (4 U.S.) 37 (1800).
#57. To: BeAChooser, SmokinOPs, ALL (#53)
Guess the Framers of the Constitution never read your definition.
Legal Information Institute
Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution Declaration of War
1423 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. Hamilton ed. (New York: 1851), 746–747.
1424 2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802) (emphasis supplied).
1425 Of course, Congress need not declare war in the all–out sense; it may provide for a limited war which, it may be, the 1802 statute recognized. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. (4 U.S.) 37 (1800).
#58. To: BeAChooser (#49)
You truly are the typical 4um poster, Red.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#48)
They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared."
#60. To: ..., ALL (#54)
You wrote that yourself didn't you.
Recall that a few weeks ago you told us that wiki wasn't an acceptable source because this was possible.
#61. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#55)
Oh my goodness, pirates didn't issue a recognized formal declaration of war.
#62. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#55)
If you can't tell the difference between protecting shipping interests on the High Seas from Mohammedan pirates and a land war between what the Founders would consider legitimate Sovereigns, then there's no point going on.
#63. To: nolu_chan (#56)
The Constitution gives to the CONGRESS the power to declare war. They may do with any wording of their choosing as long as the chosen wording declares war.
#64. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#57)
[1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#64)
In Iraq, a state of war existed with the US in 1991 and the fact that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement stopping the 91 conflict means a state of war still existed between the US and Iraq in 2003.
#66. To: BeAChooser (#63)
NOWHERE does it say the wording must say "declare war".
#67. To: BeAChooser (#63)
NOWHERE does it say the wording must say "declare war".
#68. To: nolu_chan (#66)
They could declare that BAC deposits a lot of poop on the internet but it would not have the same legal effect.
#69. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#65)
The 1991 conflict was between Iraq and coalition forces. The United Nations authorized the use of force in order to free Kuwait. It was for the UN to decide whether or how to act on an alleged breach of a UN resolution.
#70. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#66)
It says Congress has the authority "To declare war."
A Declaration of War creates a state of war upon its issuance.
#71. To: BeAChooser (#70)
Even the tapes captured in Iraq show that Saddam and his staff considered themselves still at war with us.
#72. To: BeAChooser (#70)
But we were already in a state of war. Had been since 1991. Even the tapes captured in Iraq show that Saddam and his staff considered themselves still at war with us.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#69)
Excerpts from UN resolution 1441:
#74. To: BeAChooser (#63)
By the way, did you know that the law passed by Congress authorizing the use of military force in Iraq even mentioned the word WAR?
Link
Let's review.
If the act was "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons," shouldn't we have attacked Saudi Arabia, or at somebody who had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001?
#75. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#73)
You forgot to include the excerpt that authorized GWB to take military action at his discretion.
#76. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#74)
harbor organizations or persons who did the above?
If the act was "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons," shouldn't we have attacked Saudi Arabia, or at somebody who had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001?
#77. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
1. Condemns this attack as a violation of the cease-fire provisions of Security Council resolution 54 (1948) and as inconsistent with the obligations of the parties under the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel 2/ and under the United Nations Charter;
Resolution 111 (January 19, 1956)2. Reminds the Government of Israel that the Council has already condemned military action in breach of the General Armistice Agreements, whether or not undertaken by way of retaliation, and has called upon Israel to take effective measures to prevent such actions;
Resolution 127 (January 22, 1958)In order to create an atmosphere which would be more conducive to fruitful discussion, activities in the zone, such as those initiated by Israelis on 21 July 1957, should be suspended until such time as the survey has been completed and provisions made for the regulation of activities in the zone;
Resolution 162 (April 11, 1961)1. Endorses the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission of 20 March 1961;
Resolution 171 (April 9, 1962)2. Reaffirms its resolution 111 (1956) of 19 January 1956 which condemned Israel military action in breach of the General Armistice Agreement, whether or not undertaken by way of retaliation;
#78. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
Reaffirming the necessity for strict adherence to the General Armistice Agreement,
Resolution 237 (June 14, 1967)Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 /5 should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967)Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Resolution 248 (March 24, 1968)Recalling resolution 236 (1967) by which the Security Council condemned any and all violations of the cease-fire,
Resolution 250 (April 27, 1968)Having considered the Secretary-General's note (S/8561),1/ particularly his note to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations,
Resolution 251 (May 2, 1968)Recalling resolution 250 (1968) of 27 April 1968,
Resolution 252 (May 21, 1968)Recalling General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 and 2254 (ES-V) of 14 July 1967,
Resolution 256 (August 16, 1968)Observing that both massive air attacks by Israel on Jordanian territory were of a large scale and carefully planned nature in violation of resolution 248 (1968),
Resolution 259 (September 27, 1968)Deploring the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General,
Resolution 262 (December 31, 1968)Observing that the military action by the armed forces of Israel against the civil International Airport of Beirut was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned nature,
Resolution 265 (April 1, 1969)Observing that numerous premeditated violations of the cease-fire have occurred,
Resolution 267 (July 3, 1969)1. Reaffirms its resolution 252 (1968);
Resolution 270 (August 26, 1969)Recalling its resolution 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968,
Resolution 271 (September 15, 1969)3. Determines that the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel's desisting from acting in violation of the aforesaid resolutions and rescinding forthwith all measures and actions taken by it designed to alter the status of Jerusalem;
Resolution 279 (May 12, 1970)The Security Council,
Resolution 280 (May 19, 1970)Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968 and 270 (1969) of 26 August 1969,
Resolution 285 (September 5, 1970)The Security Council,
Resolution 298 (September 25, 1971)1. Reaffirms its resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969);
#79. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
The Security Council,
Resolution 316 (June 26, 1972)Deploring the tragic loss of life resulting from all acts of violence and retaliation,
Resolution 317 (July 21, 1972)1. Reaffirms resolution 316 (1972) adopted by the Security Council on 26 June 1972;
Resolution 332 (April 21, 1973)Grieved at the tragic loss of civilian life,
Resolution 337 (August 15, 1973)Having heard the statement of the representative of Lebanon concerning the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force, of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airways, 1/
Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973)The Security Council
Resolution 339 (October 23, 1973)The Security Council,
Resolution 347 (April 24, 1974)Recalling its previous relevant resolutions,
Resolution 350 (May 31, 1974)1. Welcomes the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces, negotiated in implementation of Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;
#80. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
Resolution 427 (May 3, 1978)Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978,
Resolution 444 (January 19, 1979)Expressing concern over the grave situation in southern Lebanon resulting from obstacles placed against the full implementation of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978,
Resolution 446 (March 22, 1979)Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Resolution 450 (June 14, 1979)Reaffirming its call for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,
Resolution 452 (July 20, 1979)The Security Council,
Resolution 465 (March 1, 1980)Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),
Resolution 467 (April 24, 1980)1. Reaffirms its determination to implement the above-mentioned resolutions, particularly resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978) and 459 (1979), in the totality of the area of operations assigned to UNIFIL, up to the internationally recognized boundaries;
Resolution 468 (May 8, 1980)The Security Council,
Resolution 469 (May 20, 1980)Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and in particular article 1, which reads "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances," and article 49, which reads "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive;",
Resolution 471 (June 5, 1980)Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980)Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissable,
Resolution 478 (August 20, 1980)The Security Council,
Resolution 484 (December 19, 1980)The Security Council,
Resolution 487 (June 19, 1981)Taking note of the statement made by the DirectorGeneral of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981,
Resolution 497 (December 17, 1981)Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,
Resolution 498 (December 21, 1981)1. Reaffirms its resolution 425 (1978) in which it
#81. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
1. Reaffirms its resolution 425 (1978) which reads:
Resolution 509 (June 6, 1982)Reaffirming the need for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,
Resolution 515 (July 29, 1982)Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907,
Resolution 517 (August 4, 1982)The Security Council,
Resolution 518 (August 12, 1982)The Security Council,
Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982)Condemning the murder of Bashir Gemayel, Lebanon's constitutionally selected President-elect, and every effort to disrupt by violence the restoration of a strong, stable government in Lebanon,
Resolution 573 (October 4, 1985)Having heard the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Tunisia,
Resolution 587 (September 23, 1986)The Security Council,
Resolution 592 (December 8, 1986)Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,
#82. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
Considering that the current policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied territories are bound to have grave consequences for the endeavours to achieve comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Resolution 607 (January 5, 1988)Recalling its resolution 605 (1987) of 22 December 1987,
Resolution 608 (January 14, 1988)Reaffirming its resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988,
Resolution 636 (July 6, 1989)Reaffirming its resolutions 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988 and 608 (1988) of 14 January 1988,
Resolution 641 (August 30, 1989)Reaffirming its resolutions 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, 608 (1988) of 14 January 1988 and 636 (1989) of 6 July 1989,
Resolution 672 (October 12, 1990)Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people,
Resolution 673 (October 24, 1990)Expressing alarm at the rejection of Security Council resolution 672 (1990) by the Israeli Government, and its refusal to accept the mission of the Secretary-General,
Resolution 681 (December 20, 1990)Reaffirming the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter,
Resolution 694 (May 24, 1991)Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
#83. To: BeAChooser (#75)
I suppose you think that the UN thought "serious consequences" meant more diplomacy ... with a quarter million US soldiers mobilizing on Iraq's borders and with the US Congress having already passed a bill authorizing the use of military force. ROTFLOL!
Recalling the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter,
Resolution 799 (December 18, 1992)Recalling the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter,
#84. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#77)
Which of these UN Security Council resolutions authorize the use of military force against Israel?
#85. To: BeAChooser (#76)
Taking note of the statement made by the DirectorGeneral of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981,
#86. To: BeAChooser (#84)
Israel???
#87. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#85)
Al Qaeda members were in the United States plotting.
It was Saudi Arabians who planned the 9/11 operation, funded the 9/11 operation, and executed the 9/11 operation.
It is alright for Saudis to attack the twin towers as long as some Saudi government official says "My bad" afterwards.
As for Al Qaeda being allowed to operate freely in Iraq, that did not occur until the Bush administration assumed responsibility for running the place.
As Al Qaeda had no WMD
and Iraq had no WMD to give them
Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies
#88. To: BeAChooser (#87)
The dozen al-Qaeda put on trial and convicted in Jordan said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad BEFORE the invasion.
#89. To: BeAChooser (#87)
That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves you wrong. And there were hundreds of other shells of various types found containing materials we wouldn't want terrorists to get their hands on.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#87)
The dozen al-Qaeda put on trial and convicted in Jordan said they met al-Zarqawi in Baghdad BEFORE the invasion.
#91. To: BeAChooser (#87)
And what is it with you and Israel?
#92. To: BeAChooser (#87)
That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves you wrong.
#93. To: BeAChooser (#87)
Odd that al-Zarqawi would pick Baghdad (seat of government of his enemy and a city filled with security types from Saddam's regime) to meet with the terrorists he was dispatching to kill tens of thousands in Jordan. Odd that al-Zarqawi would go to a Baghdad hospital to get treatment. Odd that Iraq openly applauded the actions of their enemy. Odd that Iraq had friendly contacts with the Taliban after 9/11 to warn them about a possible US attack to get bin Laden.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#87)
#95. To: BeAChooser (#87)
That binary sarin shell
#96. To: BeAChooser (#87)
And what is it with you and Israel?
-- Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger
-- Anne Henderson-Pollard quoted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David Geneson at her sentencing hearing from an interview with Mike Wallace that aired on 60 Minutes.
-- Eric Margolis, The Toronto Sun, Jan. 14, 1999
#97. To: ..., ALL (#88)
But you can't give him any dates here because that would blow your bullshit out of the water. As you recall, this alleged incident took place in April of 2004.
#98. To: BeAChooser (#97)
#99. To: ..., ALL (#89)
"That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves you wrong."
Recall that you are quoting NewsMax here. All the repectable publications noted that your single rusty shell was left over from a time before the first Gulf war.
#100. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
#101. To: BeAChooser (#99)
And for the record, you are once again wrong. This didn't come from Newsmax. It came from the ISG report.
#102. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones (#99)
And for the record, you are once again wrong. This didn't come from Newsmax. It came from the ISG report.
#103. To: All (#101)
#104. To: ... (#103)
Let me remind everyone that Chooser used his fake link tactic on another thread about an hour ago. He made grandiose claims, got called on it and then posted a dead link to "prove" his point.
#105. To: BeAChooser, ..., ALL (#97)
I suggest folks visit the following thread to see ... and his argument blown out of the water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda
#106. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#92)
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered,
In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks,
#107. To: robin, ALL (#104)
#108. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#94)
They were so old and degraded they were about as potent as camel dung or BAC manure.
#109. To: BeAChooser (#106)
The fact that these munitions were part of pre-1991 stocks doesn't make them less potent or deadly.
#110. To: BeAChooser (#108)
The ISG said the binary sarin shell had 4 to 5 liters of 40 percent Sarin.
#111. To: BeAChooser (#108)
#112. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#95)
then tell me about the magic vintage sarin.
#113. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#112)
#114. To: ..., ALL (#100)
You lose the argument on one thread and you come over here and try to restart the argument in exactly the same way.
#115. To: BeAChooser (#112)
(Edited)
#116. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#114)
Actually, I came to this thread when I'd gotten to the point on the other thread where mine was the last post. Check the time of the posts if you don't believe me. And sometime I'll get around to returning to the other thread to blow you out of the water again. But I'm curious. Did you ever get your browser to work? ROTFLOL!
#117. To: BeAChooser (#114)
#118. To: ... (#116)
#119. To: BeAChooser (#108)
#120. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#99)
The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."
#121. To: ..., ALL (#101)
Chooser, you are a really pathetic bald faced liar.
For the second time tonight you posted a dead link when you got backed into a corner by the facts.
THE LINK YOU POSTED ABOVE IS A DEAD LINK!
THAT IS TWICE IN TWO HOURS YOU POSTED A FAKE DEAD LINK TO ALLEGEDLY BACK UP YOUR DISHONEST SHIT. IT ISN'T AN ACCIDENT CHOOSER.
#122. To: ..., ALL (#103)
Let me remind everyone that Chooser used his fake link tactic on another thread about an hour ago.
#123. To: BeAChooser (#121)
Can I help it if the CIA changed their URL to this document?
#124. To: BeAChooser (#122)
I had no trouble obtaining the document at the link I provided on that thread
#125. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#121)
#126. To: robin, ALL (#104)
...and spamming threads with repetitious long posts containing lies that have already been refuted numerous times on other threads.
#127. To: BeAChooser (#126)
(Edited)
Lies like pointing out that the WTC towers took 15 seconds, not 10, to collapse?
#128. To: BeAChooser (#126)
Which lies would you be talking about, robin?
#129. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#126)
Lies like pointing out the hole in the Pentagon was more than 90 feet across, not less than 20 feet?
#130. To: BeAChooser (#126)
Which lies would you be talking about, robin?
#131. To: SKYDRIFTER (#129)
(Edited)
The purported "hole" at the pentagon was less than 20 feet. The "damage" was more broad, but didn't suggest anything on the order of an aircraft - rather, the contrary.
#132. To: , *9-11* (#126)
...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
#133. To: BeAChooser (#126)
Lies like pointing out that the WTC towers took 15 seconds, not 10, to collapse?
#134. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#105)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All
#135. To: Dakmar, ALL (#109)
Doesn't it pretty much destroy your case that Saddam was actively developing WMDs?
#136. To: BeAChooser (#134)
Pay particular attention to posts number 60, 89, 133, 150, 162, 164, 165, 167, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 300, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 404, 405, 406, 407, 412, 413, 414, 415, 426, 427, 432, 433, 434, 440, 441, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 470, 478, 479, 480, 481.
#137. To: BeAChooser (#135)
#138. To: BeAChooser (#135)
Is that my case?
#139. To: ..., ALL (#123)
That is the official CIA page and you can't get on without an ID. And you know that.
#140. To: ..., ALL (#127)
That is some sorry scumbag shit you're into bac.
#141. To: BeAChooser (#139)
hat is the official CIA page and you can't get on without an ID. And you know that.
#142. To: BeAChooser (#140)
'm beginning to think you have a real problem.
#143. To: ..., ALL (#141)
I read the page you posted as support for the bullshit quote you made up.
#144. To: BeAChooser (#140)
#145. To: BeAChooser (#143)
It doesn't matter how you dance, the ISG report still said
#146. To: BeAChooser (#143)
#147. To: BeAChooser (#143)
ROTFLOL!
#148. To: robin, ALL (#132)
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: ...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter.
Left side and center hole damage 
central hole and right side damage 
Right side damage. 
Collage of what the damage looked like pre-collapse 
region impacted compared to size of plane 
light pole damage and damaged columns in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds.
#149. To: BeAChooser (#143)
#150. To: christine, ALL (#133)
you evil liar. you know damn well that your own government reported 10 seconds on one of the towers
#151. To: rowdee (#148)
...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
#152. To: BeAChooser (#148)
he 9/11 report got it wrong ... like they got many things wrong.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#150)
tell me again why I am evil. I'm not the one trying to deceive people here.
#154. To: BeAChooser (#150)
No christine, the 9/11 commission reported this.
#155. To: ..., ALL (#142)
"And I'm trying to figure out who you remind me of over at LP."
Hurling insults? Tactic number two?
#156. To: robin (#151)
He's still dropping the same sentence you caught him dropping before.
#157. To: BeAChooser (#155)
#158. To: BeAChooser (#155)
So are you denying ever posting at LP or are you saying that posting at LP would have been beneath you?
#159. To: ..., Nolu_Chan, ALL (#145)
You have absolutely no credibility. How do I know you are not making that up like you did that last quote you posted to me?
#160. To: Dakmar, ALL (#147)
Who sold Saddam the Sarin, you suppose?
#161. To: BeAChooser (#159)
Are you incapable of visiting the link Nolu provided for Annex F?
#162. To: BeAChooser (#160)
Well the UN said he made it. Did you know that?
#163. To: ..., ALL (#149)
#164. To: BeAChooser (#160)
#165. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#163)
Just keep digging your hole deeper, ...
#166. To: robin, ALL (#151)
Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight
#167. To: ... (#154)
#168. To: robin (#151)
#169. To: ..., ALL (#152)
Did you fabricate the photos?
#170. To: BeAChooser (#166)
Apparently robin doesn't realize that all the photos I posted where taken BEFORE the roof collapsed.
#171. To: rowdee (#168)
#172. To: BeAChooser (#169)
You are only making a complete mockery of this forum.
#173. To: Dakmar, ..., christine, ALL (#157)
Bravo, that's the way to hound someone.
#174. To: ..., rowdee (#170)
Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight
#175. To: ..., BeAChooser (#162)
#176. To: BeAChooser (#173)
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um?
#177. To: BeAChooser (#173)
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um?
#178. To: BeAChooser (#173)
As opposed to what ... has tried to do since I joined 4um?
#179. To: robin (#171)
(Edited)
#180. To: rowdee (#179)
Personally, I believe when shills act like this they should be forced to have a tag line, in bold red, explaining they are a shill and/or troll.
#181. To: robin (#167)
He's trying to say the 9/11 Commission is not the govt.
The seismic data and the 9/11
Commission say 10 seconds,
The 9/11
truth websites explain very carefully how the falling building met with no
resistance from the floors beneath them, which is why they fell so fast, not
quite freefall, which 9.2 seconds.
#182. To: Christine, beachooser, Minerva, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#133)
you evil liar. you know damn well that your own government reported 10 seconds on one of the towers and the truthers said 14. you've been caught in so many lies yet you persist. who the fuck do you think you're fooling? no one but yourself. i despise you. you enemy of truth.
mood a-gettin' longer too-oo-oo
Facts soundin' so good to me
But I gotta, said I gotta
Yeah, BAC’s just a bad LIAR
BAC’s pants are on fire
Oooh yeah, what a LIAR
Bak’s-a-saka-big-saka poo
Truth's in your city too-oo-oo
Reality's gettin' right to me
But now don't ya, I said don't ya
Yeah, don't ya know BAC’s the LIAR
Baby, baby, he’ll never ever TIRE
Oooh man, that sorry damn LIAR
Bak’s-a-saka-big-saka poo
Don't ya wanna come clean, LIAR!
Oooh yeah! You rotten LIAR!
Pants are on fire; big fire!
Come on BAC baby – you LIAR!
A little bit-a-the-truth - LIAR!
We know you’re such a LIAR!
Said your pants are on fire!
Bak’s-a-saka-big-saka poo
Time's here for BAC to moo-oo-oove
BAC-less soundin' so good to me
BAC’s got two lying faces
Yeah, BAC you’re a LIAR!
Face it, you’re just a LIAR!
Oooh yeah you LIAR!
BAC’s just a LIAR!
C'mon BAC, you LIAR!
Always the LIAR!
LIAR!
LIAR!
LIAR!
BAC is the LIAR!
#183. To: robin, ALL (#174)
A facade is not a roof
#184. To: BeAChooser (#181)
No, I'm saying that the 9/11 Commission got it wrong
#185. To: SKYDRIFTER (#182)
#186. To: BeAChooser (#183)
It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed.
#187. To: BeAChooser (#181)
What? Don't believe your own eyes, robin, when you look at a video?
#188. To: BeAChooser (#148)
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: ...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter.
I have to assume you are speaking of the only "hole" in the photo, in the background of the white car, which does appear to be somewhat larger than twenty feet. Is this the Hole you reference?
#189. To: beachooser, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#183)
ROTFLOL! As usual robin just demonstrates that she doesn't know what she is talking about. It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed. In fact, robin proves she doesn't even know the definition of facade to use the term in this case.
fr. It. facciata, fr. faccia face, L. facies. See Face.]
(Arch.)
The front of a building; esp., the principal front, having some architectural pretensions. Thus a church is said to have its fa[,c]ade unfinished, though the interior may be in use.
#190. To: SKYDRIFTER (#189)
#191. To: tom007, robin, ALL (#188)
to assume you are speaking of the only "hole" in the photo, in the background of the white car, which does appear to be somewhat larger than twenty feet. Is this the Hole you reference?
#192. To: BeAChooser (#191)
#193. To: BeAChooser (#191)
#194. To: BeAChooser, Robin, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, BTPHoldings (#148)
(Edited)
#195. To: robin, ALL (#190)
I have a theory that BAC only tries to destroy threads that have the most dangerous truth in them.
#196. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#191)
Now I ask you ... does that match Kwiatkowski's description?
BAC is a "LIAR!"
#197. To: BeAChooser (#195)
#198. To: BeAChooser (#195)
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
#199. To: BeAChooser (#195)
#200. To: BeAChooser (#195)
#201. To: wbales, ALL (#194)
In the first picture in this (#148) post, there are arrows indicating "left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole" showing, well, very little damage.
Where is the wing in that picture?
Where's the engine (yes the one that is 7 foot in diameter and weighs about 9800 pounds--about 5 TONS).
Like the photo of the woman hanging out of the WTC while molten steel is allegedly dripping all over the place
#202. To: beachooser (#201)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
#203. To: BeAChooser (#201)
Inside the building.
#204. To: BeAChooser (#201)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
#205. To: BeAChooser (#106)
Being old doesn't mean the munitions aren't still deadly and of great interest to would be terrorists. That binary sarin shell was still viable.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C469
This source has the wrong size shell. The round in question was a 152mm prototype, not the 155mm round developed later. An anonymous source, based on an incorrect assumption of the shell type, made a further wild assumption regarding the volume of the content of the round based on the capacity of a different size round. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html
[BAC #434] That's why that binary weapon is so interesting. It was the best Saddam had, still above the "quality control acceptance level of 40%",
#206. To: nolu_chan (#205)
#207. To: BeAChooser (#205)
#208. To: nolu_chan (#205)
#209. To: Kamala, YertleTurtle, Destro, Critter (#201)
(Edited)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it. ~BeAChooser
#210. To: wbales, ALL (#203)
Your link show a purported turbo fan out on the grass
#211. To: BeAChooser (#112)
You see, binary sarin has an INDEFINITE shelf life.
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970825/970613_dim37_91d_txt_0001.html
The Iraqi DF, a key component of the binary shell, would catalyze and decompose while sitting on a shelf due to impurities.
#212. To: BeAChooser (#201)
(Edited)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
#213. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#205)
More recycled sewage.
... snip ...
[BAC #453] We know the shell contained enough materials to make 4-5 liters of 40% pure sarin. That just happens to be about the same quantity and purity as was used in the Tokyo subway attack.
Such is neither known, nor is it knowable.
-------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue.
[BAC #453] Allow me to again note that UN Resolution 687 stated that Iraq would "not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism."
The following is United Nations Resolution 687 from the seventh regular session of the UN in 1952. ... snip ... 5 December 1952 ..... INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION I guess you screwed up again.
430. To: BeAChooser (#426)
[BAC 2.0 #426] As far as that one issue is concerned, the cease-fire agreement Iraq signed did the same thing. It halted the fighting PROVIDED Iraq met the conditions of the ceas-fire. I'm not going to play semantic games or definition of "is" games with you. I'm not going to prove anything to you that is common knowledge.
I take it the poor baby is having a difficult time finding the text of the cease-fire agreement and naming the parties thereto.
Allow me to help you over this seemingly unsurmountable roadblock to overcome your self-denial.
You are looking for United Nations Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 as accepted by Iraq on April 6, 1991.
[BAC #441] Thus it's a red herring since the shell in question contained binary sarin, which has an indefinite shell life according to experts.
"According to experts" fails to meet the level of "rumor has it"and descends to the level of having heard it on Jeff Rense between segments on bigfoot and George W. Bush being a shapeshifting reptile.
Neither the volume nor purity was known or knowable. No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue.
It is facts such as these which make your pronouncements so entertaining.
You should consider laying low for the next few days to minimize the possibility of anyone mistakenly putting you in an oven on Thursday and roasting you.
#214. To: BeAChooser (#213)
I can't help it if your liberal biases have blinded you to the facts,
#215. To: BeAChooser (#213)
#216. To: nolu_chan (#211)
The Iraqi DF, a key component of the binary shell, would
catalyze and decompose while sitting on a shelf due to impurities.
#217. To: BeAChooser (#216)
So which is false?
#218. To: BeAChooser (#216)
#219. To: BeAChooser (#216)
#220. To: BeAChooser (#213)
And here's my response to you ... from the same thread:
Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Annex F Iraq's WMD > Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program > Annex F
#221. To: nolu_chan (#220)
Note what BAC is doing by way of dishonesty THIS time. He is using the PRELIMINARY Assessment to rebut the final report. After the completed investigation, the final report did NOT support the PRELIMINARY assessment.
#222. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#220)
All are welcome to take their choice - the final report or something in an annex to the preliminary assessment.
#223. To: ... (#221)
#224. To: BeAChooser (#222)
#225. To: BeAChooser (#216)
Yet the ISG said the shell contained 40 percent sarin, the same as you yourself claimed the shell was DESIGNED to produce in that LP thread.
Sarin Discovered In Iraq Was A Relic, Not A Weapon
#226. To: christine (#209)
#227. To: BeAChooser (#222)
So it this the final report or the preliminary report?
Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Annex F
A. IIS Undeclared Research on Poisons and Toxins for Assassination 43
B. Al Muthanna Chemical Weapons Complex 61
C. The Iraqi Industrial Committee 85
D. Tariq Company's Activities 89
E. Al-Abud Network 93
F. Detailed Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Weapons Findings 97
G. Chemical Warfare and the Defense of Baghdad 107
H. Summary of Key Findings at Captured Enemy Ammunition Consolidation Points 113
I. Review of 24 Iraqi Ammunition Supply Points
#228. To: BeAChooser (#222)
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
* ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks.
* These remaining pre-1991 weapons either escaped destruction in 1991 or suffered only partial damage. More may be found in the months and years ahead.
#229. To: BeAChooser (#213)
And just for you information, the quantity of nerve gas in a 152 mm round is about the same as in a 155 mm round. So you are worrying about the nits (I call it desperation) and missing the big picture.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C390
The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.
----------
by Al Swalley Monday April 19, 2004 at 05:13 PM
#230. To: christine (#209)
#231. To: Kamala, christine (#230)
I think everyone is losing their focus and energy.
#232. To: Destro (#226)
You guys are way off topic.
#233. To: wbales (#231)
Are the what and how (did a 757 hit the pentagon; where the WTCs brought down by the planes with WTC7 colapsing from collateral damage or from pre-placed explosives; was flight 93 shot down) distracting from the much more important Why and Who?
#234. To: Kamala (#233)
Are the what and how (did a 757 hit the pentagon; where the WTCs brought down by the planes with WTC7 colapsing from collateral damage or from pre-placed explosives; was flight 93 shot down) distracting from the much more important Why and Who?
#235. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#227)
It is the Preliminary Assessment as included as Annex F of the final report. It does not represent the finding of the ISG.
#236. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#225)
No, sarin at less than 40% purity fails to meet the minimum standard for weapons grade. The shell is designed to work with 40% pure sarin.
The shell was a prototype which was tested.
#237. To: BeAChooser (#235)
#238. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#239. To: BeAChooser (#236)
* The documents also included papers related to new agent research, mix-in-flight binary munitions development, and previously undisclosed involvement of other organizations in CW research.
* Iraq’s CW agent purity, formulation, and production standards in the 1980s program - although inferior to Western standards with the exception of its high-grade mustard - were “good enough” to produce harmful agent proven successful during previous use.
* ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks.
* A senior Iraqi scientist who directed the destruction of chemical and biological munitions contends that the decision to destroy the hidden materials was made at the end of June 1991. David Kay’s inspection and the ensuing controversy prompted Iraqi concerns about renewed war with the United States, according to Dr. Mahmud Firaj Bilal. Amir Rashid contacted Dr. Bilal and ordered that all hidden chemical and biological munitions be destroyed within 48 hours. When Bilal responded that this was impossible, Rashid directed that Bilal use the resources of the Iraqi Air Force and the surface-to-surface missile force to accomplish the task. Dr. Bilal gathered his colleagues from Al Muthanna State Establishment, went to the locations of the stored munitions, and began the destruction.
* Iraq declared some of the unilateral destruction-missiles and chemical munitions-to UNSCOM in March 1992 but continued to conceal the destruction of the biological weapons program.
* These remaining pre-1991 weapons either escaped destruction in 1991 or suffered only partial damage. More may be found in the months and years ahead.
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Annex F
Chemical Munitions-Other Finds
#240. To: BeAChooser (#236)
"But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."
#241. To: BeAChooser (#236)
Co-Chairman
Co-Chairman
John McCain
Henry S. Rowen
Walter B. Slocombe
William O. Studeman
Charles M. Vest
Patricia Wald
Lloyd Cutler
Vice Admiral (Ret.) Scott Redd
#242. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#243. To: BeAChooser (#236)
108th Congress, 2d Session
SENATE
S. Report 108-301
REPORT of the Select Committee on Intelligence
on the
U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence
together with
Additional Views
#244. To: Kamala, ALL (#230)
Why is anyone bothering with "IT". I think everyone is losing their focus and energy. "IT" is a LIAR.
#245. To: BeAChooser (#244)
#246. To: wbales, Kamala, ALL (#234)
It steers the conversation in the direction of what and how.
#247. To: BeAChooser (#246)
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Presently cone of balls
#248. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#239)
This is the Iraq Survey Group FINAL REPORT findings on Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program. Annex F is a copy of the Preliminary Assessment.
The Final Report contains no representation about the purity of sarin produced by Iraq,
The "40% concentration" is in the introduction to the Preliminary Assessment, but not in the main body comments of the Final Report. There is no indication of where that information derived from.
#249. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#242)
US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective.
#250. To: BeAChooser (#248)
#251. To: BeAChooser (#249)
But the concern isn't military effectiveness. The concern is that a WMD, even a degraded one, might fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to create terror (not to mention kill a lot of people). The final ISG report actually mentions that concern in the addendum. Did you miss that?
#252. To: BeAChooser (#248)
There is no indication where many claims in the report derive from. Are all such claims to be dismissed now?
#253. To: BeAChooser (#248)
And the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin was repeated in many venues and not once denied or corrected by members of the ISG.
#254. To: BeAChooser (#249)
But the concern isn't military effectiveness. The concern is that a WMD, even a degraded one, might fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to create terror (not to mention kill a lot of people).
Origin of the Binary Sarin Round Used on BIAP
#255. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#252)
Those who issued the Final Report did not include your favorite information from the Preliminary Assessment.
#256. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#253)
Link/quote to where "the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin" in any official report.
They stated that the shell, partially detonated when found,
was remotely detonated and they only tested what residue was left behind (after the shell had detonated twice).
#257. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#254)
and nothing left to test but residue.
we have no reason to believe that they possessed functional chemical munitions.
No binary tests using chemical agent at the TRC were declared.
They do not even function well as an IED.
#258. To: BeAChooser (#256)
#259. To: BeAChooser (#255)
#260. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#256)
#261. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#258)
The shell had been partially detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops.
All that was left for testing was whatever liquid remained, i.e., residue.
The only binary shells which were tested with sarin were the early ones that were mixed just before firing.
After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time,
the remnants of the ten-year old shell were determined to test positive for sarin and substances given off when sarin degrades.
#262. To: BeAChooser (#261)
#263. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#262)
[BAC] Where do you get that claim? As far as I know, no document says that. I don't even think a credible media source says that. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. Official statements said it detonated BEFORE it could be disarmed.
The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s.
It was partially detonated when discovered.
You do not partially detonate a shell and try to mess with it.
The report explicitly states that the munitions were remotely detonated.
The report explicitly states that the "remaining liquid" tested "positive" in "ISG field labs" for sarin and "a sarin degradation product."
No, you are leaving out a word and changing "remaining liquid" to just "liquid."
[nc] After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time,
[BAC] You just making up a story now. That scenario is NOT stated in any official document or even any credible mainstream media outlet.
A partially detonated round has exploded but not all of the explosive charge has been expended.
And your favorite nonsense from the preliminary assessment never made it into the Final Report. It did not get a mention, or even a reference.
#264. To: BeAChooser (#263)
#265. To: BeAChooser (#61)
"pirates"
#266. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#264)
The official report says that the U.S. troops remotely detonated the shell after they discovered it.
It is explicitly stated that it was a partially detonated shell.
Unless it somehow got to be a partially detonated shell after it was discovered
A partially detonated shell would contain unpredictable explosive material and possibly be leaking CW agents. A partially detonated shell is unsafe to handle.
Nobody but BAC would consider partially detonating a shell prior to handling. This would mean discovering an undetonated shell and partially detonating it, rendering it unpredictable and unsafe to handle. This insanity only occurs in BAC-world, where insanity is the norm.
#267. To: nolu_chan, beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
....about that binary round....
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest