Hagel: US 'can't dictate' to the world

[dontlop]

UN Resolution 1441 Bush is on Record saying this is why he went in to Iraq, Same as Obama when he bombed Libya using U.N. Resolution 1970 and U.N. Resolution 1973 BOTH BUSH AND O ACTED (as other Presidents have) w/o Congressional approval, the reason is simple, they (Iraq and Libya) no longer wanted to sell goods (oil etc) for dollars, but rather GOLD..... As far as Operation North Wood, that is what eventually led the Elite to take out oe of their own in Kennedy,JFK was angry at being mis-lead with false info (CIA) on Bay of Pigs (Govt purposely did this so they could implement operation NorthWoods) that when they brought the plan to him to JFK per Sec of Defense Robert McNamara JFK refused and let/ fired/ layoff go of his Chief of Staff General Lymon Louis Lemnitzer (wonder if he got a furlough). The final straw came 11/11/62 when JFK was shown photos of Cuban Missile bases, the joint chiefs pressed JFK for immediate action. But JFK having a conscience and fearing Nuclear Fallout and the Safety of the people refused and instead sent Attorney General RFK to defuse the situation and talk to the Russian Ambassador Anotaly Fyodorovich Dobrynin and the situation was neutralized . Nikita Krushehev in his memoirs is quoted as saying "RFK told AFD that "We are under pressure to use Military Force against Cuba, If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the Military will not overthrow him and seize power. Side Note CIA Director at the time was George Bush (any of you know or heard of him ? ) . Read excerpts from Behold A Pale Horse by William Cooper who has 2 documents on JFK assassination, and last but not least a Conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term used to dismiss a critical thinker. Thank you and with respect.

you posted this >>>>UN Resolution 1441 Bush is on Record saying this is why he went in to Iraq, Same as Obama when he bombed Libya using U.N. Resolution 1970 and U.N. Resolution 1973 BOTH BUSH AND O ACTED (as other Presidents have) w/o Congressional approval,

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/142782-hagel-us-cant-dictate-to-the-world/page-4#ixzz2MYNQeUNj

 

i was responding to this what you posted .. bush did not go into iraq   without congressional approval ..

 

 i listened to the reasons bush gave  for going into iraq and yes enforcing  all the resolutions 17 of them  also which was under the athurity of  un resolution 1441 .. but bush was going in no matter if the un  gave approval or not ..

 

 

 

this is the only authorization the president needed.. called joint resolution 114 its what congress sent to bush after they authenticated the intelligence reports from  our intellegence agencys and british ,, germany ,, and russian intelligence  agencys .. but the un  worked their butts off to get the un security council to pass 1441 unanamously  to authorize  the enforcement of all the un resolutions saddam thumbed his nose at over the prior 12 years .. as well as violating the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991

 

 

                      [107th Congress Public Law 243]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>

[DOCID: f:publ243.107]

[[Page 1497]]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243

107th Congress

  Joint Resolution

       To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

            Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 -  [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and

    illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition

    of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the

    national security of the United States and enforce United Nations

    Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a

    United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq

    unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,

    biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver

    and develop them, and to end its support for international

    terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States

    intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that

    Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale

    biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear

    weapons development program that was much closer to producing a

    nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,

    attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify

    and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and

    development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal

    of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that

    Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened

    vital United States interests and international peace and security,

    declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its

    international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take

    appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant

    laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its

    international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of

    the United States and international peace and security in the

    Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach

    of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing

    to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons

    capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and

    supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations

    Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its

    civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

    and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or

    account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,

    including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property

    wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and

    willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations

    and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing

    hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,

    including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush

    and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and

    Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the

    United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for

    attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including

    the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in

    Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist

    organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and

    safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,

    underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of

    weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist

    organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of

    mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either

    employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United

    States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international

    terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that

    would result to the United States and its citizens from such an

    attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend

    itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes

    the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security

    Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions

    and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten

    international peace and security, including the development of

    weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United

    Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security

    Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population

    in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688

    (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations

    in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution

    949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq

    Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President

    ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations

    Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve

    implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,

    665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it

    ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent

    with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

    Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its

    civilian population violates United Nations Security Council

    Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,

    security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that

    Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the

    goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed

    the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United

    States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi

    regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to

    replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United

    States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet

    our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary

    resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council

    resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and

    security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on

    terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist

    groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction

    in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and

    other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it

    is in the national security interests of the United States and in

    furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations

    Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use

    of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on

    terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested

    by the President to take the necessary actions against international

    terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,

    organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or

    aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or

    harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take

    all appropriate actions against international terrorists and

    terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or

    persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist

    attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such

    persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take

    action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism

    against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint

    resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law

    107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to

    restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

    Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of

Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. support FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the

President to--

            (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security

        Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

        and encourages him in those efforts; and

            (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security

        Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,

        evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies

        with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed

Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and

appropriate in order to--

            (1) defend the national security of the United States

        against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

        resolutions regarding Iraq.

    ( Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of

the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President

shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,

but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make

available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

            (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or

        other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately

        protect the national security of the United States against the

        continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to

        enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council

        resolutions regarding Iraq; and

            (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent

        with the United States and other countries continuing to take

        the necessary actions against international terrorist and

        terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,

        or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the

        terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    © 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( of

        the War Powers Resolution.

            (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this

        joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers

        Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

    (a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least

once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant

to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the

exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning

for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are

completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq

Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

    ( Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission

of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission

of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution

otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting

requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such

reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the

Congress.

    © Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information

required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force

Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report

required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the

requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

    Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

            Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.

            Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):

            Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

 

Edited March 4, 2013 by dontlop

[dontlop]

i know the clowns say bush lied .. he made it up and all their other bulll crap ,, because they never read joint resolution 114 . ....and they never read the iraqi liberation act signed into law by bill clinton in 1998 ..

fact is all bush did was say he was given intelligence reports that stated that iraq was stock piling wmds on top of all the other  reasonns he gave ..

 

and bush was given intelligence reports so theres no lie ..

 

 

the next proceedure was to turn those documents over to congress .. which he did ....

 

then its up to congress to athunicate those intell reports as legitimate .. which they did ..

 

 then congress wrote up its resolution to the situation ..   HOW TO RESOLVE  THE SITUATION

 

that resolution was called resolution 114 ...it posted above ..

 

 then  the house and senate voted to approve it .. bi partisian  vote  to  pass the rsolution ..

 

then congress sent the approved resolution to  the president .. .. if you read the resolution .. you will know the reasons that were presented to the president that he had to make a decision on whether or not to use force ..

 

 

at that point george bush went back to george tennant .. the head of cia at the time ..a bill clinto appointee .. and he asked tennant one more time .. are you sure iraq has stock piles of wmds .. and george tennant said .. ";IT`S A SLAM DUNK "

 

 AFTER THAT BUSH AND CHENEY AND RUMSFELD AND HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS MADE THE DECISION .. BUSH GAVE THE FINAL ORDER ....

 

 NOTHING I SAID IS DEBATABLE THOSE ARE THE FACTS ..

 

 IF YOU FIND ANY THING I JUST WROTE TO NOT BE A FACT .. PLEASE POINT IT OUT ...

 

 BECAUSE THIS IS HOW HISTORY WILL READ   THIS  MATTER .. NOT BY SOME LEFT WING BLOG .. OR SOME SOUND BITES .. . FACTS ARE FACTS .

";

Edited March 4, 2013 by dontlop

[dontlop]

THE MORONS WILL NEVER READ THE WAR RESOLUTION . JOINT RESOLUTION 114 .. THEY WILL JUST KEEP LYING SAYING BUSH LIED .. FACT IS HE DID NOT LIE .. THATS THE FACT .

[Maggie123]

Dontlop, Just Who Are You Trying To Convince... YOURSELF?

 

You are only right about ONE thing... Facts Are Facts.

 

 

Anyone see 60 minutes tonight about a bright and couragous 28 year old young man, a veteran, that killed himself because he

 

could not reconcile what has been going on over there? He told his mother that while he and his brothers were putting their

 

lives on the line, and many of his brothers died...

 

that when he came home he saw that the rest of America was at the mall, totally unaffected by what is going on.

 

He told his friends that he saw the lies and he just didn't want to "be here anymore".

 

Broke My Heart.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Maggie123

[Thaiexpat]

I read all these posts and i have one question to ask for anyone: Have you ever been to war? Its not what you think or see in the movies. It never is. it is a sickening event which you wish you could erase from your memory. The world isnt as simple-black and white as so many think. Lives are destroyed, families shattered, loves lost forever. It isnt what you think.........

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Dontlop, Just Who Are You Trying To Convince... YOURSELF?

 

You are only right about ONE thing... Facts Are Facts.

 

 

Anyone see 60 minutes tonight about a bright and couragous 28 year old young man, a veteran, that killed himself because he

 

could not reconcile what has been going on over there? He told his mother that while he and his brothers were putting their

 

lives on the line, and many of his brothers died...

 

that when he came home he saw that the rest of America was at the mall, totally unaffected by what is going on.

 

He told his friends that he saw the lies and he just didn't want to "be here anymore".

 

Broke My Heart.

He convinced me.

 

I read all these posts and i have one question to ask for anyone: Have you ever been to war? Its not what you think or see in the movies. It never is. it is a sickening event which you wish you could erase from your memory. The world isnt as simple-black and white as so many think. Lives are destroyed, families shattered, loves lost forever. It isnt what you think.........

Spoken like a TRUE WW2 vet. These people have no idea what war will 

 

bring. But I'm afraid they will soon find out. 

[Maggie123]

BTW Dontlop, just to be clear...

 

Your "Facts" Are Incorrect.

 

Bush was handed (or shall I say he and Ching Ching Chaney handed out) a pack of lies.

He convinced me.

 

Thank You for confirming what I saw. Much Appreciated.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Maggie123

[dontlop]

BTW Dontlop, just to be clear...

 

Your "Facts" Are Incorrect.

 

Bush was handed (or shall I say he and Ching Ching Chaney handed out) a pack of lies.

 

Thank You for confirming what I saw. Much Appreciated.

 

 SERIOUSLY WHAT DOES THIS SENTENCE MEAN >>>> Bush was handed (or shall I say he and Ching Ching Chaney handed out) a pack of lies.

 

I GUESS WE CAN TAKE OUT THE PARENTHESIS  >>>Bush was handed  a pack of lies <<<<.WE CAN DEBATE THAT .. 

 

BUT WHEN THE ARGUEMENT STARTS OUT THAT BUSH LIED ... YOU LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY .. SO THE DEBATE IS OVER ..

 

YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW ME WHICH OF MY FACTS ARE  INCORRECT .. IM SURE YOU CANNOT DO THAT .BUT I HAD TO ASK

[Maggie123]

Bush lost his credibility.

 

Said and DONE dontlop. Sorry Man.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Maggie123

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Bush lost his credibility.

 

Said and DONE dontlop. Sorry Man.

 

You call that a debate? And then wonder why dontlop convinced me.   

 

 

Matthew 7

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

 

To know about Jesus is one thing, To know Jesus in a very personal relationship is an

 

​ ENTIRELY different thing.  

[joekooltrips]

THE MORONS WILL NEVER READ THE WAR RESOLUTION . JOINT RESOLUTION 114 .. THEY WILL JUST KEEP LYING SAYING BUSH LIED .. FACT IS HE DID NOT LIE .. THATS THE FACT .

Thank you Dontlop for your response. Now to answer your question, Bush went in on Joint Resolution 114, that Resolution is directly tied to UN Resolution 1441, UN Security Council Article 25 in action, I know what your saying DonLop, Trust me, I do, here's the the thing, The reason he (or any President for that matter since 1945 and even before that, I can cite if you like/ wanna know) doesn't need congressional approval for that matter (1) The President RULES by Executive Order (UN-Constitutional), (2)The Congress sits by Resolution (UN-Constitutional) NOT by Positive Law ( Article 1 The real Constitution states that Legislature can enact Positive Law) Resolutions and Positive Law are 2 different things, just like Legal and Law. (3) Checks and Balance NOT used unless the President is concerned with a potential revolution based on the outcry of the citizens (remember this word CITZENS as i'll touch on that later in the post). (4)Under a Democracy (Legal) the Power structure is Vertical (UN-Constitutional)  (1) President (2) Legislature (Congress AND Senate voices Public Opinion) (3) Judicial (Article 1 courts) Most Courts in the country are Article 1 n 2 Courts (4) Judicial Article 3 court (virtually Non-Existent except when it benefits the Elite, How convenient).... Under a Republic (Law) The Power Structure is Horizontal, Checks and Balance,,,, legislature Article 1, (Senate voices States Rights, Congress voices the Peoples Rights),,,, Executive Article 2,,, and Judicial Article 3 courts..........You see from a legal POV based on Democracy you are correct, BUT from the Republic POV based on LAW you are wrong, so it's a matter of what you choose, a Democracy which leads to Communism-(Karl Marx) or A Republic where the people are the GOVT........Definition of Govt DEMOCRACY is that form of Govt in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the WHOLE BODY OF FREE CITIZENS directly or indirectly through a system of representatives. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition page 432)........,The Definition of a REPUBLICAN GOVT is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the PEOPLE, and are EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE, to whom powers are specifically delegated. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition Page 695). The reason I used caps when defining BOTH forms of GOVT is that I wanted you/ all who read this post to notice the trick/word play that is being used on us ?.... I think i'll stop here for now and take a break-fast and come back to post more As always With Respect    . 

Edited March 4, 2013 by joekooltrips

[64jaguar]

I Agree TP.

 

Seems some here have a "Fox" frame of mind and NO reading comprehension.

 

Really???

 

We needed to give thousands and thousands of our son's lives in Vietnam and Iraq? Plus the slaughter of so many innocent citizens in those countries.    

 

Why was that?

 

Oh how quickly some forget...

 

 

 

YES! We should fight... ANY DIRECT THREAT TO THE US.

 

NO! We should NOT condone or support the "WAR MACHINE" which is designed to enrich the elite.

 

 

 

 

PEACE IS OUR GOAL

 

JMHO Maggie

 

ALL wars are BANKSTERS WARS, 

[hame55]

  

Well..., let me help you connect some dots using YOUR logic from your own words. If our past generations thought like you and your ilk..., you wouldn't have the luxury of speaking your mind today!

 

Using your logic (ahem...) any war is good - we fought for freedom in ALL ofthem - right?

 

Ignorance

[dontlop]

Bush lost his credibility.

 

Said and DONE dontlop. Sorry Man.

NO ..  NO.. YOU  CALLED ME OUT  SAYING  MT FACTS  ARE INCORRECT . HERES YOUR STATEMENT ..>>

 

BTW Dontlop, just to be clear...

 

Your "Facts" Are Incorrect.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/142782-hagel-us-cant-dictate-to-the-world/page-5#ixzz2MayejXP2

 

 

NOW .. I WAS POSTING THESE THINGS BECAUSE I WAS ACCUSED OF PASSING AROUND PROPAGANDA BY SOME OTHER WASTE BAGS .. NOW YOU CHIME IN.. WITH YOUR STATEMENT TO JOIN IN ON THE PILE UP .. BY YOUR TYPES .. ..YOU KNOW THE IGNORANT ..TYPES ..

 

SO I ASKED YOU  TO SHOW ME WHERE MY FACTS ARE WRONG .. AND YOU CANNOT .. JUST LIKE I PREDICTED .. 

 

 

 NOW I GOT ANOTHER ONE TO DEAL WITH THAT THINKS THIS IS ALL BECAUSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS .. ..WHERE DOES IT END .. WHEN DO THE IGNORANT  START TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES ..

BUSH ONLY LOST HIS CREDIBILITY AMONGEST THE NATIONS IGNORANT LIARS .. NO GREAT  LOSS  TO HIM IM SURE .. HE HASNT LOST MY CREDIBILITY . THE REST OF US ALL KNOW YOUR IGNORANT   .. SO YOU DONT LOOK VERY INTELLIGENT AT ALL.. BUT HEY AS LONG AS THERES IGNORANT  PEOPLE ON THE SUBJECT .. YOU WILL NOT BE ALONE . NOW THATS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF AND TEACH YOUR OFF SPRING .

Edited March 4, 2013 by dontlop

[hame55]

"At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can,

not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything....

The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it."

- Uday Hussein, 9/20/01 (NOTE: The first Anthrax-laced letters were mailed on 9/18/01)

(That means Hussein's son wrote this before any news had come out about the Anthrax mailings in the U.S.)

(Noted in the Wall Street Journal, "Saddam and the Next 9/11", 2/14/03)

"In this man's heart (Osama bin Laden) you'll find an insistence,

a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House

and will bomb it with everything that is in it.....with the seriousness of the Bedouin

of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.

...the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting.

That the man....will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs."

(A reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"?)

- From the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya: July 21, 2001

(Also noted in the Wall Street Journal, "Saddam and the Next 9/11", 2/14/03)

 

 

I have a question for you LOP and JonJon - you guys seem very sure of yourselves.

You could not be more wrong about Bush or the war.

 

WHY?

 

Did you ever ask yourself why almost all of the 911 hijackers were Saudis - our allies? We never went after SA.

 

Did you ever ask yourself WHY Bush himself admitted there were no WMDs afterwards? And you keep saying there were....who is right?

 

Did you ever ask yourself why we invaded Iraq even though there were no Iraqis on the 911 planes?

 

Did you ever ask yourself WHY we have had our NOSES is the Mid East's business pissing them off for DECADES before the '91 invasion -- and then everybody goes "OH! Gee, we got attacked in NY on 911!"

 

(easy answer - it wasn't the camel nuggets.)

 

You guys stand with former Pres. Bush. Well, that says it all, doesn't it?

[MyLadiesDaddy]

I have a question for all you liberals in here, What do you think of this?

 

The drone debate is back and this time, it isn't about killing Americans who have joined enemy forces overseas. The Department of Homeland Security has requested drones be able to detect whether civilians are armed during surveillance.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.

The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department's unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States' northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.

Homeland Security's specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they "shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not," meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify "signals interception" technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and "direction finding" technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

And guess what? Drones are already flying around domestically for a number of different reasons. So far, they're simply loaded with a camera, not firearms detection devices.

They hover over Hollywood film sets and professional sports events. They track wildfires in Colorado, survey Kansas farm crops and vineyards in California. They inspect miles of industrial pipeline and monitor wildlife, river temperatures and volcanic activity.

They also locate marijuana fields, reconstruct crime scenes and spot illegal immigrants breaching U.S. borders.

Tens of thousands of domestic drones are zipping through U.S. skies, often flouting tight federal restrictions on drone use that require even the police and the military to get special permits.

Armed with streaming video, swivel cameras and infrared sensors, a new breed of high-tech domestic drones is beginning to change the way Americans see the world - and each other.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/142896-found-on-tpnn-drones/#ixzz2Mb4HQKwE

[hame55]

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq

Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada

 

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/

 

 

"Saddam Hussein was not involved in 911." 

 

 -George W. Bush 

 

This is a quote - Google it LOP - and stop watching FOX.

I have a question for all you liberals in here, What do you think of this?

 

The drone debate is back and this time, it isn't about killing Americans who have joined enemy forces overseas. The Department of Homeland Security has requested drones be able to detect whether civilians are armed during surveillance.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.

The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department's unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States' northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.

Homeland Security's specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they "shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not," meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify "signals interception" technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and "direction finding" technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

And guess what? Drones are already flying around domestically for a number of different reasons. So far, they're simply loaded with a camera, not firearms detection devices.

They hover over Hollywood film sets and professional sports events. They track wildfires in Colorado, survey Kansas farm crops and vineyards in California. They inspect miles of industrial pipeline and monitor wildlife, river temperatures and volcanic activity.

They also locate marijuana fields, reconstruct crime scenes and spot illegal immigrants breaching U.S. borders.

Tens of thousands of domestic drones are zipping through U.S. skies, often flouting tight federal restrictions on drone use that require even the police and the military to get special permits.

Armed with streaming video, swivel cameras and infrared sensors, a new breed of high-tech domestic drones is beginning to change the way Americans see the world - and each other.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/142896-found-on-tpnn-drones/#ixzz2Mb4HQKwE

 Lady Grace ---- You're missing one important point.

 

This liberal is on your side. Do you think because I voted for Obama means I like a police state?

That's a bit naive, wouldn't you say?

 

Drones are very bad for everyone. Someday Chinese drones will fly over California shooting up SUV's. Or tiny drones that look like bugs spreading viruses. Not a good thing.

 

OBVIOUSLY.

 

We libs and your righties need to get together and fight the ELITES that run BOTH parties.

 

Get over this left and right thingy....LOL .

 

THEY WANT US FIGHTING!  That way we don't go after them...

 

You can see this, right?

[KiaKaha]

I understand your frustrations, dontlop, I totally do. The problem here is that BOTH parties have been lying to us for SO long, we all think our side is the only one telling us the truth. We need to get away from the two party system and get some new blood in office, I'm afraid, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the American public are brainwashed that only the R or D can win... true, in history, only the R or D has won... but it doesn't have to be that way! I thought when the Tea Party started years ago, they would be able to help us... and they keep trying... but they have aligned themselves with the R rather than a third party.

 

We have to continue to pray for this great nation and her people... ALL of her people... and continue trying to educate OURSELVES to the full truth then try to share our knowledge with our brothers and sisters.

 

Major props to you for taking on the left on this thread... may God bless your mind with clarity and continued conviction...

 

KK

MADD for Heather

[KiaKaha]

We libs and your righties need to get together and fight the ELITES that run BOTH parties.

 

Get over this left and right thingy....LOL .

 

THEY WANT US FIGHTING!  That way we don't go after them...

 

You can see this, right?

 

AMEN, Hame!!!!! Divide and conquer! If only we could wake up the people of this great country and help them realize this point!

 

KK

 

MADD for Heather

[joekooltrips]

Dontlop your either for a Democracy or a Republic it's your choice. I ask again what was the IRAQI inquiry about ?. U.N. Resolution 1441, you sited House Joint Resolution 114 tied to 1441 there's no way around that. The (resolution HJR 114) you cited was because Bush said they failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441 per UN Resolution 678. The inquiry (Fake as it was) was on the "extent of authority" of UN Resolution 1441, hence why its a House Joint Resolution 114. Why did Bush draft HJR 114 ?. Because in his opinion, Iraq was in VIOLATION of UN Resolution 1441 per UN Resolution 678. The UK shared Bush opinion, while USSR, CHINA, and FRANCE were against( at least that's what they said). With Respect 

Edited March 4, 2013 by joekooltrips

[dontlop]

the United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq. For discussion of pre-emptive self-defense in the terrorism context, see the ASIL Insight, "Pre-emptive Action to Forestall Terrorism" (June 2002).

 

 

denny hastert  and  136 co sponcers  sponcered joint resolution 114 .. its a joint resolution to what joe liberman introduced to the senate bill  sj 46 >>>

 

S.J.RES.46 -- Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Introduced in Senate - IS)

 

SJ 46 IS

 

107th CONGRESS

 

2d Session

 

S. J. RES. 46

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

  October 2, 2002

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. HELMS, and Mr. MILLER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time

 

  bush didnt draft it .. this is what congress sent to bush  after they authenicated the intelligence reports on iraq as well as added their own intell .

 

so the house bill along with the senate bill became a joint resolution ..

 

 

 you look at house resolution resolution 114   <<<< http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm    <<<<<>>>>and senate bill sj46  < <<<<<<<< http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107YiCroO  >>> they are the joint resolution from congress , they are the same .. .its not a joint resolution with 1441 ,,   bush did mention  resolution 1441 many times  to state to the world he is not in violation of any  un resolutions ... because in that resolution 1441 .. he has the full right  to do what he did ..

 

 

  Finally, the United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq. For discussion of pre-emptive self-defense in the terrorism context, see the ASIL Insight, "Pre-emptive Action to Forestall Terrorism" (June 2002).  http://www.asil.org/insigh92.cfm#_edn2

Edited March 4, 2013 by dontlop

[SherryB]

About what the war was all about ???  Was protecting our security and our interests.  The terrorists were Arab Afganistans, trained under Osama Bin Laden, who was hiding from the Arab government, certainly not supported by it.   These terrorists were located in many places, including the US.  Good thing they

didn't have weapons of mass destruction yet!!!!, or these anti-american terrorists would have done a heck of a lot more damage on 9 /11.  I don't care what

kind of order Bush used, in my opinion we had to declare war on terrorism, where ever their location, they had to be stopped, and don't think they are not still out there.

[dontlop]

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

 

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

 

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

 

• • (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
•  and  enforce un security council resolutions . i guess that could mean  its a joint resolution  with  1441  and the rest of the un resolutions of iraq

About what the war was all about ???  Was protecting our security and our interests.  The terrorists were Arab Afganistans, trained under Osama Bin Laden, who was hiding from the Arab government, certainly not supported by it.   These terrorists were located in many places, including the US.  Good thing they

didn't have weapons of mass destruction yet!!!!, or these anti-american terrorists would have done a heck of a lot more damage on 9 /11.  I don't care what

kind of order Bush used, in my opinion we had to declare war on terrorism, where ever their location, they had to be stopped, and don't think they are not still out there.

yes  there were many reasons  for the removal of saddam hussien and the bathe party govt ..

but bush made it clear .. it was about the terrorists  getting one vial .. one small canister  of a wmd .. and smuggling it into the united states ,, and detonating it in a large population  of our society  in the form of a suit case bomb..

 

every day  during these times every news  channel after 911 was talking about suit case bombs .. dirty bombs .. it was a security matter  while we were ingaged in a war on terror .

 

now bush told the world govts .. do not give these terrorists safe haven  when they run away from the afganistan war .. we knew from our friends in the north of iraq ... the kurds .. that they had come to iraq . and were building training camps  to train terrorists  in northern iraq

 

saddam thumbed his nose at bush and didnt stop it .. saddam was allowing this to happen and he was giving the wounded  alkieda  who ran away from afganistan medical treatments and safe haven ...

 

so bush was worried about one vial .. one small canister of  a chemical or biological weapon getting into the terrorists hands .. we did get anthrax  mailed to different places ..like post offices ...

 the dems made it into .. the whole thing was based on iraq having stock piles of wmds .. which was not the case . it was about making sure iraq is completely disarmed  so that alkieda couldnt get its paws on wmds and they werent providing safe havens for alkieda to operate and make attacks on the us

now its alan green span said .. .. wow   none of them have anything but  opinions and theorys .. no actual proof of anything .. .. everybody knows .. thats a good one tirght out of the liberal  play book ..

 

first of all they dont know what the word everybody means .. that should tell ya something .

 

 i guess they think  alan green span is the one getting intelligence briefings every day .. the whole waorld should just go ask alan green span whats going on ..

Edited March 4, 2013 by dontlop

[pattyangel]

"Saddam Hussein was not involved in 911." 

 

 -George W. Bush 

 

This is a quote - Google it LOP - and stop watching FOX.

 Lady Grace ---- You're missing one important point.

 

This liberal is on your side. Do you think because I voted for Obama means I like a police state?

That's a bit naive, wouldn't you say?

 

Drones are very bad for everyone. Someday Chinese drones will fly over California shooting up SUV's. Or tiny drones that look like bugs spreading viruses. Not a good thing.

 

OBVIOUSLY.

 

We libs and your righties need to get together and fight the ELITES that run BOTH parties.

 

Get over this left and right thingy....LOL .

 

THEY WANT US FIGHTING!  That way we don't go after them...

 

You can see this, right?

 

 

 

Hame, this is one statement I have to agree with you on. 

 

There is division between both parties and he's cunning in his ways of creating this division.  He as well does a lot of blaming and little leadership.  Guess what, that is his goal. 

[TPSprayduster]

Folks, Lop has been going on and on about this charde, he was never in the Middle east, and he is the resident expert i was there for the first big desert skimish and went back as a civlilian for the second campaign and occupation.  NO WMDS were found you can continue to read all of the documentation from the so call liberal media, off grid media and his other sources.  I was their and nothing was found except for some chemical used to treat water.  So LOP keep on squawking and hollering from the pews if you need to convince yourself but sir your opinion is your opinion.  Since Bump is now looking i probably got reported for irritating LOP.  Oh well, i guess he has to understand their is more than one opinion out there.  If he was there and found some then ok, if not and just going by what someone has told him.  Well i got a bridge i want to sell him in the Arizona desert.