Smack the Left with your Sandal



Along with those statues of the dictator in Iraq came crashing down something far more dramatic – the entire superstructure of leftism. It is the piercing of the Berlin Wall of leftist totalitarian thought control. Never was it so overwhelmingly obvious that the Left is so wrong about absolutely everything. Virtually every leftist truism and “idea” was crushed to dust in Iraq this week.

The Left has been insisting ever since September 11 that the Moslems and the Third World peoples hate the Americans with good reason and complete justification, that September 11 was the American comeuppance. They repeated ad nauseum that the Americans are hated and perceived as racists, colonialists, aggressors. This week we see that the Americans are loved by Iraqis with good reason and complete justification, and that the Left should be hated by all people with common sense for good reason and with complete justification.

We had the years of insistence by the Left that US sanctions were killing billions of Iraqi children, ever since the first Gulf War. The Left insisted that ordinary Iraqis hated the US for killing so many of their children through starvation. But the only thing starved to death was the set of leftist axioms. The Iraqi “victims” of US sanctions are marching through the streets screaming Hoorah for the USA, poking their private parts into the eyes of posters of Saddam, waving US flags, cheering Bush, applauding the people who used sanctions against their country, throwing flowers at Marines, smacking their shoes into the faces of Saddam on the posters, dancing in the streets.

There were the countless leftist predictions that Iraq would be a new Vietnam, a quagmire. And three weeks to the day after the war began, US troops were sunning themselves in Saddam’s palaces. There were the predictions of zillions of civilian deaths and jillions of US and British casualties. The civilian deaths are but a tiny portion of the annual toll Saddam himself was extracting from Iraqis, and the Coalition casualties were less than what the PLO produces in a typical month of its atrocities against Israel.

The same Left is already denouncing the US “occupation”, of Iraq, now that this word has replaced all thinking on the part of the Left. Naturally the Left insists that the fall of Iraq should be immediately followed by the dismembering and destruction of Israel. In fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza is exactly the same – not as the US occupation of Iraq but rather – as the US occupation of Boston and Philadelphia. The same Palestinians who took to the streets in massive support of Saddam are now left speechless, as the Iraqis sing the Star Spangled Banner. So are their countless apologists and supporters on the Left.

Here we have the Iraqi Arab exiles of Dearborn marching through the streets with US flags hailing the US victory over Iraq. We have public opinion polls in the US and UK showing support for the invasion now approaching 100%. Even on the European continent there are massive second thoughts about the Chirac posturings. With weapons of mass destruction turning up, even Frenchmen can now see how wrong France had been. With masses of Iraqis waving US flags, every gamble by Bush and Blair paid off. Their courage and willingness to defy political correctness earned them their laurels.

I suppose a part of Bush’s motivation in the first place was to remove the soil from his own father’s legacy. In the three-week victory we now see how foolish it had been to leave Saddam on his throne in 1991 at the end of the first Gulf War, and how easy it would have been even then to topple him, probably easier than in 2003. We see how moronic were all those who insisted that the US not finish the job in 1991. And we recall that among those people was none other than Colin Powell, the man now promoting the “Road Map” that will reward those Arabs who supported Saddam and pay the Arab world a prize for its non-support of the US invasion, paid off in Israeli currency.

All those Cassandras predicting that the moment US troops crossed the Iraqi frontier the entire US would be engulfed in terrorism and anthrax proved as wise as the street Leftists. All those “peace marchers” are now seen for what they really were – anti-Americans seeking to support any enemy of the US no matter how horrible, people who always support the enemy of their nation right or wrong. Those countless urchins in designer jeans marching about with signs saying “Not in Our Name” can rest reassured. Iraq was not liberated in their name. To the contrary, Saddam murdered US and British POWs in their name. Bin Laden operated in their name. Syria and Iraq operate in their name. Arafat blows up Jewish children in their name.

There is one overwhelmingly important lesson from the fall of Baghdad. That is that we all need to take off our shoes and bang them into the faces of Leftism.

Leftists are retarded!

That's it? That's all you got?

"F* Off Prince Charles"?

You may as well just go ahead and say, "Yep. We were wrong, by golly. I'll be darned."

And to all those other stupid leftists that brought us

The revoutionary war

The end of slavery

The repeal of Prohibition

The womens right to vote

Civil rights for people of color

The end of Vietnam

The end of apartheid

Freedom for music and art

and everything else that the stupid conservative right wingers

failed to recognize cuz they were brainwashed by the system.

Wow, that was an amazing commentary. It cut my world right in half. Ive got some things to think about. From the way that sounded, i think Id hate to be in an underground basement being sodomized by you. Are you sure you dont have a thing for the leftys?

Yo, system failure...Lincoln was a Republican.

So far as I know, the left was responsible for all that other stuff.

You want me to thank you personally?

You had nothing to do with any of it.

And yet, you want to hold the right PERSONALLY responsible for all the ills of the world.

The left did a lot of good things. So what's changed?

The political party of peace, love, and understanding is rabidly anti-Semitic. What happened? The left doesn't want the little brown people freed. What happened? The left used to stand for freedomm of expression and debate. Now they get all foamy at the mouth when anyone disagrees with them. What happened?

Tell me -- what happened?

First of all

The "right" refers essentially to governmental conservatism-

Going along with the status quo and what the government thinks is correct.

IT is not a political party, as you have stated that Lincoln was a Republican.

The "left" is an ideology that deals with a change of thought that opens new avenues

of questioning what is good or bad with society.

I dont need to be present in history to understand the differences in different ideologies.

This requires "multi-logic" thinking to question what is "good" for America as a whole.

The "left" is a more "relativistic" point of view that guides society to question its very ideals.

IF you dont see any change in the political ideology of society in general (thru the above points)

then you wouldnt understand.

This societies division of thought leads to changes in thinking of the whole.

as a wise man once put..

Popular consent is the death of democracy.

the revolutionary war was a leftist product?

Led by town groups:

slave owning capitalists

christian fundamentalist capitalists.

End of slavery lead by Christian abolitionists?

A problem here IS brainwashing. All that is good is labeled left and all that is bad right. Look at how the Soviets have become "Rightist" since it was revealed how horrible their rule was.

Nixon is 'bad' and 'right' even through he was the only American President to bring in peacetime price controls, turned his back on taiwan and opened up to Mao, ran a campaign to get the US out of VietNam (and did), had close ties with labor Unions and (argubably) brought our more civil rights bills than LBJ.

Screw that. Imma take mah boon-docker off and whack one upside his squirrley head.

"Popular consent is the death of democracy."

And there we have it.

The Great Unwashed -- the proletariat -- are just too stupid to think for themselves.

Therefore, they need someone to tell them what to think, who to vote for, what to buy.

And the Left thinks they're just right for the job.

Thanks for looking out for us, guys! Us stupid Americans need a Big Brother!

You know, I didn't hear much of this kind of stuff during the Clinton Administration. Weren't we proles brainwashed then?

Oh, I get it. Now that the majority of Americans aren't buying the Leftie version of the world, we're suddenly sheep who need to be enlightened.

Sounds like you're just whining 'cause you're not getting your way.

Get used to it.

Another day.

Another dollar.

Another time to smack the hell outta some leftist asshole.

OK, who wants to be first?

I have a 4th degree black belt. I'm a liberal. Wanna work out, Asshole?

No problem. But at least make it sporting for me. Wear a bullet-proof vest.

Aren't there enough cops already?

Mom, are you going to let me suck on your tits tonight?

There is a certain undemocratic trend when one wing of a "democracy" wants to kill the other wing. I thought we were all citizens united.

Or do the ghouls here not really support Democracy.

Just a question.

...kill anyone on the left.

They're providing such wonderful entertainment.

Saddam is NOT LEFTIST you fucking morrons.

Remember what the fuck this shit is about.

And he is not the only "bad guy" up the Americans asses.

Your kid Fresca is one of the most obnoxious people on this board. Put him/her on restriction and I am sure that the cess pool that this board becomes at times will clear up.

PS: Also see if you can get some education for that poor child. He/she has NO clue most of the time.

Thanks.

since it seems that i always have to spell it out for these right wingers.

Popular consent is the death of democracy....means

each individual american should judge issues for themselves, without being coerced

into believing a certain point of view becuase it is what "everyone else" thinks.

ps

Please dont insult the leftists by saying we support CLinton or the democratic party.

Our system has been so corrupted by the right, that there is no longer a "left" represented in politics.

The Republicrats have been paid off by multi national corporations that could give two shits

about "freedom" and "american ideals".

You all will be the same dumbfucks that look back when your 80 years old, and say

"Gee, i guess i was wrong" (scratching head).....

Just like all persons that support collapsing fascist regimes.

Before I admit that I'm wrong for supporting the republicans in this war as you say 80 years down the line, I want you to admit "Gee, I'm wrong" for supporting Hussein and for being against this MASSIVELY successful war on terror (Hussein is a terrorist, but you idiots don't seem to get that)

COuld you provide me with an example

of when it is "proper" or thier "duty"

for a citizen of the united states

to disobey "presidential" orders.

thanks

Um, yes, I could, but can you provide me with the evidence that you are indeed sorry for picking the wrong side in this war on terror?

There was ONLY one side in this war for all of us who are US citizens - we are Americans FIRST. Just because some of us do not agree with the actions of our country, that does NOT make us on the side of someone else. Quit your illogical whining and name calling.

C'mon right wingers

I'm waiting for an answer.

When would it be proper and justified

for an american citizen

to protest the policies of its president?

You have a right to protest whatever action you want, because you live in a free country. Just as I have a right to protest anti-war protestors when they block my car so I can't get to work or when they complain that Bush is an illegitamate president. I have a right to protest those views too, so there.... I'm just glad that the Iraqi people now have the same rights as us, the right to protest their government without fear of dying. Thank God for Bush!

excuse me.....

Thanks for the Rant,

but

Can you answer the question please?

"When would it be proper and justified for an american citizen to protest the policies of its president?"

When it's proven in a court of law, or by another branch of Government that he has committed a crime.

When he looks you in the eye, under oath, and tells you a bald-face lie. Perjury is a crime.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" - WJC

Systemfailure - "When would it be proper and justified

for an american citizen

to protest the policies of its president?"

Uh, and I said "You have a right to protest whatever action you want...", whenever you want. Just realize that I can protest your a$s too.

...please don't hold your breath waiting for the Freeper Scum to respond. Like all bacteria their marching orders are pre-programmed. Asking them to conceive of something abstract like "...Governments are created among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." is way over their head.

Ther correct answer for me is whenever the President violates the principles of Just Governance as Jefferson outined in the snippet from the Declaration of Independence above. We live in a system of enumerated powers delineated by the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. When the President violates those boundaries, as this one has, then it is the DUTY of a Patriotic Citizen to rise in Protest.

Of course the Freeper Scum would probably identify "The Bill of Rights" as part of the "Communist Manifesto" - assuming the big words don't stump them.

So on that logic....

Article IV of the US Constitution establishes that ratified treaties (such as the UN), are the "law of the land".

The UN charter has been ratified by the united states and the congress may not take action--including wars of aggression-- in violation of this UN charter.

Wars of aggression, and threats of wars, are in violation of international humanitarian law to which this nation, and others are legally bound.

Neither congress, nor the president has the right to engage the US in a war of aggression or any vote of endorsement to legalize global war plans.

This is in violation of Article IV of the US Constitution, and serves us the viewpoint to determine

further war crimes.

Uh, this is a war of liberation, war on terror, war to disarm. this is not a preemptive war as your CNN buddies love to tell you, but was brought about because Hussein broke every rule in the book. Stop supporting him, hes dead already. Thanks to the great work of the men and women in uniform. God bless them!

Really?

I thought the initial propaganda was to overrride the UN for its failure to enforce

its resolutions, with making Iraq comply with inspectors that were

looking for weapons of mass destruction?

Any which way you look at it

the United States is the aggressor

ps

you are as the french would say

ES-TUP-ID-IOT.

ha ha

(kid on "simpsons" voice)

"Any which way you look at it

the United States is the aggressor"

Sure. In as much as we took the offense in this one I guess you're right. So what. Semantics.

The point is this.

Sadam is gone. Iraq (whether you like it or not) is a better place and getting better. (If you try to argue this you're a fool )

The threat of Sdam's regime helping an organization like Al queda is gone

Large civilian casualties and infrastructure damage simply didn't happen.

Grow a pair of balls and admit you're wrong skinhead.

No, America does not go to war just to override the UN, we go to war to protect ourselves. We are not proud like the French who only oppose America because its the 'in' thing to do. We do things because of our beliefs. And maybe you forgot about 1441, which said for Saddam to disarm, he never did. Iraq is the true aggressor. Why dont you go burn an American flag?

As the Japanese say: "omae wa okama kuso"

...the madmen continue to rant about their glorious victory - of which they had no part and took no risk.

To Systemfailure - don't let the "Ankle-Biters" trouble you. They do not have the basis of a sound argument amongs the packette of them.

A few stray thoughts inspired by your Post:

This ended up a little longer than I originally planned but then I am not a man of “few” words. I have, at times, suffered the accusation of being innoculated with a phonograph needle. Hyperbole I assure you.

However on to matters. The Bush Junta also stands in violation of the following (in addition to Bush’s violation of his Presidential Oath - alone grounds for impeachment):

“Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. ...”

Article 1. Section 8 “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...”

The Executive does not have the authority to order troops to war except in an emergency. The pResidents actions in committing troops to war in Iraq is a clear violation of the language of the Constitution.



As well the actions of the U.S. Governemt contravene the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Accords.

Were it not the United States Government conducting this war there would already be serious talks of War Crimes Trials.

What the blinded by Psyops, intellectual laziness, and outright stupidity, Freak Republik Scum don’t get is that they are the absolute antithesis of what this nation was founded upon.

It is not even charicature to compare them to the Brown Shirts who Hitler counted upon to silence his opposition.

Their Posts reek of hate and unreason. They have cast off their humanity in an allegiance to a Cult called NeoConservtism. Which shares in it’s philosophy, so far as it has one, commonalities with Stalinism and Fascism. Their allegiance does not appear to be to the United States and it’s Constitution but to a leader of a faction, in their view, who supersedes the principles upon which this nation was founded.

I recall a comment by Bush Admirer that redolent of the Stalinist Left: From memory - that the Constitution was 200 Years old and Flexible and needed to be “adjusted to the times”. This was offered in defense of the un-Patriot Act.

Of course that is patently absurd as the principles of Just governance have not changed in the last 200 years. The principles of just government and the safeguards installed in the Constitution to prevent the rise of tyranny are no different today than in 1787. Frequently you will hear the proponents of a “more modern view” start talking about how much we have advanced in the last 200 years. Mere technologic changes; means of conveyance or means of communication have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of a just political order. And yet this same argument is offered up by both Left and Right. Invincible Ignorance is most appropriate.

I am a realist and a utilitarian. I discarded my Rose colored glasses sometime back. Evil respects no time and place nor nation. I am alert and am jealously protective of what I regard as the great strengths of our nation i.e., the Constitution and the Rights protected therein. The Neo Luddites of the unthinking NeoCon “movement” do not read the Constitution or it’s surrounding documents. They take their cue from Spin Doctors like Limbaugh or O’Reilly. And if you listen carefully over time both reveal themselves as consumate liars. Limbaugh in particular makes Clinton look like an amateur.

Let me be a bit presumptuous and define a term as it is central to my viewpoint: “Confront: to face without flinching or avoiding. Confront is actually the ability to be there comfortably and perceive.” To perceive the nature of the reality of our situation requires an honest confrontation of all of the available information. If you want to dismiss something without confronting it call it a derisive name say “conspiracy mongering”, a popular dodge by the Freeper crowd when confronted by a datum that contradicts their prejudices, then question the motives, intelligence, or morality of the messenger and then quickly change the subject without debating the merits of the case. Sort of ”it cannot be that way therefore it isn’t” and the evidence be damned. It is a foreign way of thinking for me. I am not willing to put a bag over my head and ignore the obvious because it throws prior assumptions into question. The Truth IS out there if you want to look. However, it requires effort, and the confront to face evil.

"No, America does not go to war just to override the UN, we go to war to protect ourselves."

Speak for yourself.

Neither "you are dumb" or "fresca's", arguments appear valid. I noticed in your usual failing efforts to debate why All Americans believe we should be terrorizing the rest of the world, you resort to insults, aggression, and evading the truth. (Sounds like you've been taking lessons from Bush Jr....)

You and the U.S. Government wouldn't need to be so hell bent on "protecting ourselves" if you didn't choose to bomb those around us.

Also, fresca, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but YOU are wrong; Saddam is not dead yet. Only his statue came down......and how many of those very few dancing Iraqi's (that the "news" tiredly loops over and over again) know the the war isn't even CLOSE to being over? The U.S. hasn't even secured Bagdad yet.

Don't break out the champagne so early....as the U.S. Government promises, there is more slaughter to come, to quench your sadistic, desperate, bloody thirsts.

“Article IV of the US Constitution establishes that ratified treaties (such as the UN), are the "law of the land". “

One of the reason that I don’t hold the Constitution as the end-all, be all that you obviously do.

“The UN charter has been ratified by the united states and the congress may not take action--including wars of aggression-- in violation of this UN charter. “

Your argument doesn’t hold water. Ever heard of the word “sovereignty”? The Constitution also precludes foreign authority from having governance over, and the ability to deploy, the American military. But the Treaty with the UN gives that body those abilities. Sort of a catch 22, wouldn’t you say?

”Wars of aggression, and threats of wars, are in violation of international humanitarian law to which this nation, and others are legally bound. “

Legally bound by whom? The illegal and unconstitutional obligations to the UN? Get real. “Sovereignty”. To me, that is almost as powerful a word as “freedom”. And I hold it just as dearly to my heart.

And if in fact the U.S. is in violation of the U.N. Treaty, and is committing illegal “wars of aggression” as you champion, then I would rebut that it is the duty of the U.N. to make these allegations (not you, some idiotic 5th column leftist with zero clout in any forum) and pursue legalities against us. Why have they not done so? Why are none of these dissentient nations rising to stop us?

Sounds like someone named Diogenes has never head of the War Powers Act of 1973. And, yes, it is the law. If you want to challenge it, if you actually believe you have a case, THEN PROVE IT by taking it to the Supreme Court.

>“Article IV of the US Constitution establishes that ratified treaties (such as the UN), are the "law of the land". “

Time out. This from the same people who believe that Bush wants to create a New World Order. This whole New World Order brew-ha-ha nothing is the UN according to those who believe this sort of tripe. The theory going that a few well-healed families will control the world through the UN. So, if Bush give the UN the finger, just exactly how does this play into the "UN will run the New World Order" baloney?

That "Word of the Day" toilet paper is really paying off, isn't it?

I smelled the stench of Dioginosis as soon as I clicked on this thread...

Please tell me how the "War Powers Act" supersedes the Constitution?

That would be an interesting confabulation.

P.S. You moron - an ordinary citizen does not have the "Legal Standing" before the court to offer a challenge an Act unless they directly run afoul of it.

Further the Bush Junta's action violate the War Powers act anyway. Which I showed on another thread.

In short: Kiss my ass you Fascist Scum.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133."

So much for the War Powers Act.

And systemfailure, the BS about the UN Charter? It recognizes member nations' right to self-defense. Perhaps if you'd read all of it...

Try again, children.

No credible proof has ever been presented that Iraq:

A. Represented a threat to the United States.

No statements by the Iraqi government.

No attacks against the United States

B. No evidence of Iraq's holding of any significant stock of Banned Weapons exists. Nor do the weapons.

Cave all you are presenting is warmed over Propaganda that was not very palatable the first time around.

Served up by you is fit only to Slop Hogs. Like the ones you support.

...that you're wrong about the War Powers Act.

Hee hee!

You're right, Diogenes. There's no proof at all that Iraq is a threat to the United States, and there never will be.

We just started it to annoy the yo-yos on Indymedia.

IT WORKED!! Bru-hahahaha!

So far we have two out of three branches of our Government countenancing this so called "illegal" war. Not to mention the vast majority of the American people, and truth be told, the Iraqis themselves.

The only ones bellyaching are the 5th column leftists. Perhaps they'd like to ask the third branch of Government what it thinks...

"an ordinary citizen does not have the "Legal Standing" before the court to offer a challenge an Act unless they directly run afoul of it."

Oh gee, I guess not.

This was all so funny.

The death, the terror and even the

bad parts.

...you are such a self-panic. You remind me of Mark Twain's comment:

"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid."

Do you have a hard copy of Bartlett's, or do you use the web site?

"Self-panic"? Huh? I'm having a blast! Thanks for giving me so much to work with.

>Please tell me how the "War Powers Act" supersedes the Constitution?

So, you've admiited you've heard of it.

It's a law, passed by Congress, signed by the president. It give the president the right to place troops into battle. If you don't like the law, petition to have it changed. But calling me names isn't going to change the law or help your case.

...have I heard of it but where in the Constitution does it grant Congress the Authority to delegate it's RESPONSIBILTY for the Declaration of War?

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. If we are not to descend into the Barbarism of a Banana Republic then the provisions of the Constitution must be upheld and enforced.

Back when the Left was objecting to Reagan/Bush's support for the Contra's they specifically avoided challenging the Reagan/Bush Administrations actions under the War Powers Act as it is almost a foregone conclusion that it is an illegal violation of the Seperation of Powers.

In short it is Unconstitutional - as is Bush's War.

That does not mean that it will come to an end but that we have reached a Crisis in our Constitutional Republic's History. Either we stand up and defend the Rights of the Citizenry to Limit the authority of government, and insist they follow the Constitution, or we can take the path to Despotism and Slavery.

First of all // Good work Diogenes--these neo-conservatives have no clue about political philosophy, or any aspect of what the constitution is or how it relates to a citizens "social contract" with the government.

Secondly (let me get this straight)

1 The UN passes a resolution to inspect Iraq

2 There are problems with the inspections looking for weapons of mass destruction

3 The United States says Saddams "WMD" are a threat to world peace.

4 The UN votes via the security council to not go to war

5 The United States says "if you are not going to enforce the resolutions- we will"

or course these resolutions dealt specifically with finding WMD.

The violation of Article VI states

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

All you dummies out there need to do a few things:

Eric---the "vetran"--- read "The Federalist Papers"

Daveman the caveman----Read the constitution and the declaration of Independence.

Te----finish high school

Why did they turn it into some weird "reality tv" series

to liberate Iraq

to kill saddam

to liberate the kurds

==

and not to find WMD

Uh, Systemfailure, you don't have it straight.

"Secondly (let me get this straight)

1 The UN passes a resolution to inspect Iraq

2 There are problems with the inspections looking for weapons of mass destruction

3 The United States says Saddams "WMD" are a threat to world peace.

4 The UN votes via the security council to not go to war

5 The United States says "if you are not going to enforce the resolutions- we will"

or course these resolutions dealt specifically with finding WMD."

First of all the UN passed resolution 1441 which called on Iraq to IMMEDIATELY declare and dispose of all WMDs. This resolution went on to state that should Iraq fail to do so, it would face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. Now we've already got them under a bunch of UN sanctions, so I suppose that you can read between the lines and decypher what serious consequences means, can't you?

Secondly, the goal of 1441 was not to inspect Iraq. The goal was to get Iraq to disarm. Iraq chose not to.

The security council never voted "not to go to war". In fact, as stated above, the language of 1441 clearly means military compulsion when it intones "serious consequences".

Other than all the crap you got wrong, you're right on.

caveman: "So far as I know..."

...measurement unit: nanometers

According to the UN resolutions that we are currently "enforcing"

opposed to Article VI of the Constitution...

and opposed to the UN security council

Is the war in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction,

or to liberate the Iraqi people,

or to kill Saddam and promote a regime change?

According to the UN resolutions that we are currently "enforcing"

opposed to Article VI of the Constitution...

and opposed to the UN security council

Is the war in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction,

or to liberate the Iraqi people,

or to kill Saddam and promote a regime change?

...convieniently leaves out is that 1441 specifies that action will be taken. It does not specify what action. The action was to be determined by the Security Council.

The Security Council DID NOT sanction this attack on Iraq.

So Psymon is left logically in Limbo. As usual - he ignores and avoids facts inconvienient to his case.

1. That Aggressive Unprovoked War is Prohibited under the U.N. Charter.

2. It is Prohibited Under the Geneva Conventions and is a War Crime.

3. It is Prohibited Under the Nuremberg Codes and is a War Crime.

Psympleton wants to have it both ways meaning he is knowingly constructing a fallacious argument.

The War is Authorized per Psympleton under 1441.

The remedy was not specified under 1441.

Under the U.N. Charter the War is illegal.

The U.S. Constitution Stipulates that Treaties are the Supreme Authority within their Realm.

The U.S. is at War in Violation of a legally ratified Treaty.

The Bush Junta is engaged in a WAR CRIME.

Psympleton your argument just fell apart like a cheap Suit in a Rain Storm.

P.S. How's the weather in Langely?

...convieniently leaves out is that 1441 specifies that action will be taken. It does not specify what action. The action was to be determined by the Security Council.

The Security Council DID NOT sanction this attack on Iraq.

So Psymon is left logically in Limbo. As usual - he ignores and avoids facts inconvienient to his case.

1. That Aggressive Unprovoked War is Prohibited under the U.N. Charter.

2. It is Prohibited Under the Geneva Conventions and is a War Crime.

3. It is Prohibited Under the Nuremberg Codes and is a War Crime.

Psympleton wants to have it both ways meaning he is knowingly constructing a fallacious argument.

The War is Authorized per Psympleton under 1441.

The remedy was not specified under 1441.

Under the U.N. Charter the War is illegal.

The U.S. Constitution Stipulates that Treaties are the Supreme Authority within their Realm.

The U.S. is at War in Violation of a legally ratified Treaty.

The Bush Junta is engaged in a WAR CRIME.

Psympleton your argument just fell apart like a cheap Suit in a Rain Storm.

P.S. How's the weather in Langely?

Let me guess, is this another "non-scientific poll",

like the ones CNN and Fox News try to force feed us?

Hmmm.....I just went to the link now....looky, we can vote as many times as we like.

Govt. Polls don't convince me,

especially when the politicians in the U.S. OWN much of the poll

counter systems (and propaganda), which is why GW Jr. is where he is today.....

No, I am not ready to turn in my Constitutional Rights or my History Books in for your measely invalid "poll count".

Only when Freedom Demonstrators and the Dead Casulties of this War are allowed to participate, will any "poll count" be honest, and taken seriously.

When the Govt News reported there was only 2,000 protesters in a community where I witnessed 10,000 protesters, (that were refused coverage, as usual), the Govt proved to me that protesters, nor the Bill of Rights, are NOT "down the toilet".