Document Number ISGQ-2004-00218032
Title: Past due library notices to Engineer 'Adil Juwad Kazim" fully justifies the invasion in my mind!

Excerpt from ISGQ-2003-M0007994-HT
Title: 50 military phone calls between Iraqi Officers during Iraq-Iran War:

AH: Ahmed, what are you wearing right now?

ED: Oh, you are so bad.

AH: Do yo know how to cook camel shank?

ED: Oh, no. I have my own WMD, woman who makes dinner, at home. Buy some mustard, gas up the jeepney, and come on over for a bite...

I really love document ISGZ-2004-602124
Title: al-Ansar web forum containing an article by 'Abd-al-Bari 'Atwan titled "Bush's mission impossible." Yes, it's a web forum, just like this one, only "powered by vBulletin 2.2.9." If it got as many server error blue screens of death as THIS forum, well, now that's a reason to sacrifice thousands of American troops if ever there was one.

Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan

FoxNews.com: An Arab regime, possibly Iraq, supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

That's the most likely conclusion drawn from an apparent training manual unearthed in captured Iraqi government computer files translated and analyzed exclusively for Fox News, and made public for the first time.

The document, apparently written before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, could bolster the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein was providing support for Islamic extremists who were plotting against America.

The training manual warns, in stark how-to terms, of the dangers of "information leaks," and instructs Arab operatives inside Afghanistan to dress like Afghan tribesmen, to avoid being followed ("Routine is the enemy of security"), to always be armed, and "to behave as if enemies would strike at any moment."

It's always baffled me as to why liberals like congressive wanted al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq via Zarqawi? Why would they want a safe base of operation for them? Wasn't 9-11 enough for the left?

CJ - Because any logic or patriotism they feel is completely overruled by their irrational hatred of George Bush and Republicans in general.

Kahn

I think your right for the most part. However in Congenital Idiots case I think naive stupidity is more likely.

Zoot, I could tolerate simple stupidity much more easily than the resolute determination I see from our neorad posters here to simply ignore the truth, misstate facts, lie, repeat the lies, and focus entirely on irrational hatred of George W. Bush. Even a stupid person could, and probably would, be able to look up links to facts contradicting his beliefs and then process those facts and integrate them into his belief system.

What I see within the neorad subset of Liberalism is a pathology, and a subsequent philosophy which, to their minds, not only supports but validates personality traits which would otherwise be considered to be defects. Sounds harsh?

Well, they do need to feel superior to others, and to ridicule and attack on a personal level those who do not share their pathology. They choose to achieve this perceived superiority not by actions but merely by assuming a philosophy which includes the tenet that the philosophy, in and of itself, is all it takes to be morally and intellectually above others.

They are driven and dominated by a nearly incoherent rage, which they focus on select targets, and when that happens, there are no boundaries to the expression of this loathing. They say they are joking about things like putting a bullet between the eyes of their current target, the President, but when a prominent member of their sect makes such a comment without any objection at all from his fellow travelers, it is significant and indicative of approval and agreement.

They are subject to wild flights of delusion, in which the most obviously impossible becomes real to them, and in which anything is possible and/or allowed, requiring only the crierion that it advance the agenda. In these fantasies, a highly trained and competent fighter pilot entrusted with a multi-million dollar plane and the safety of the nation, sent out on repeated intercept missions over a period of several years, to make sure unidentified intruders are not really attackers, is easily transformed into a cowardly "draft dodger" who did not even finish flight school and who did not report for duty, but when he did he was just screwing around in the skies over Alabama. It is an ability to rewrite history so that an international coalition of nations fighting a common enemy with the approval of the United Nations and our own Congress can be twisted into a "unilateral illegal war".

It is a pathology which reveres a true draft dodger yet uses the phrase as a damning ephitet for an enemy, in spite of its inaccuracy in the second case. It is a pathology which finds nothing odd in believing in "fake--but accurate". It is a pathology in which perpatrators are victims and victims bear the guilt for their attacks. It is a pathology in which multiple court rulings on the legality of some actions are simply dismissed in favor of a pronouncement of illegality by unqualified partisans.

But mostly it is a pathology of rage, intolerance, spite, hypocrisy, and general mean-spiritedness, which claims to be "liberal" and "progressive" but which is really regressive, illiberal, and unforgiving.

It is a pathology in which politics dictate philosophy----"I am a radical left-wing Liberal, therefore my philosophy is that I loathe the President and will stop at nothing to undermine him, uncaring of damage I might do to my country or my fellow citizens in the process." For most of us, philosophy dictates politics: "I am in favor of a strong national defense, lower taxes, a free market system, and adherence to the Constitution, so I vote for conservatives."

It's not just stupidity. It's a chosen way of life, based on emotional needs that most of us, thank God, simply do not share.

Almiranta

While I agree that liberalism is a pathology how do you think they reconcile the fact that they must lie? Is it just a case of the ends justifying the means? Do you think they recognize how silly they look when they trot out all the same lies time after time?

Almiranta,

Care to provide proof of how our invasion wasn't illegal, since the UN didn't authorize an attack?

--Talk about buying into your own BS.

Since when is the United Nations the arbiter of what is legal and not legal in the world TEO?

War

Yep, that could have been the dumbest comment ever presented here on blogs for bush. By TEO's left wing fanatical extremist thinking Kosovo was illegal too.

As all clear thinking individuals know, Iraq did not meet the requirements set forth with the 1991 cease fire which of course means that hostilities resume when and where the victors decide.

TEO, Warriornation is right. We have not given up our sovereignty to the UN. We have only gone against the wishes of the do nothing but talk UN. You’re the one believing the BS here

hey guys/girls,

It's blatantly obvious that you want to believe that we don't have to follow the laws we have, but just because you don't want it to be so, doesn't make it un-true.

According to the constitution, any treaties we sign on to, are considered supreme law, that means that federal laws which contradict it, aren't recognized as legal.

The UN charter is one of those treaties, and it says that we cannot attack a sovereign nation, pre-emptively, without approval of the SecCouncil, if you don't like the laws, then redress your congress-person to remove us from them, until then we are bound by our contitution to uphold them.

Now, resolution 1441 called for renewed inspections, and if Saddam was found to violate that inspection, then he would be liable for whatever the SEC.COUNCIL decided to do, that doesn't mean we can side-step the proceedure, call for the removal of the inspectors, and invade on our own discretion.

Hostilities could have resumed, BUT only by order of the Sec. Council, the US doesn't have the right to arbitrarily decide for the world when someone is or isn't in violation of a resolution.

Kosovo was a NATO war, ask them why they went in there. By using the same standards I have set forth, the Kosovo bombing campaign was illegal too, until the UN stepped up to take over peace-keeping duties.

TEO, How do I know your not making it all up. Give us the proof. Prove your point, point for point. I think your twisting the truth, lying to us and yourself. I will think that until you give us rock solid proof. I am not going to take your word for it. This sounds like liberal crap. Everybody that voted for the use of force in congress and Bush would be violating this law your talking about.

When the term “illegal” is thrown around it always reminds me of the Law Professor that said, “Nothing is ’illegal’ if you have a good lawyer.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times that when competing interests are at play, the UN treaties or conferences take no more or less importance than any other compelling mandates to the Government. Most recently (2005) the SC ruled against the Government when Alberto Gonzales argued that the interests of a group of US citizens was secondary to a 1971 UN conference (treaty).

Also, by our laws, even if the United Nations passes a treaty, the President must sign the treaty and 2/3 of the Senate must approve it. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was passed by the UN in 1979, Carter signed the treaty but the Senate failed to approve with a 2/3 majority. The US is not obligated to observe any treaty which we have not joined.

You and the liberal minions may believe that US actions when placed at odds with the UN are “illegal” but the Supreme Court, Congress and the Administration (all three branches of our Government) disagree, you and Kofi are, therefore wrong.

I hope this is the last time you throw out that “illegal war” nonsense.

TEO, What I am trying to say is, their is just something wrong in what your saying. It doesn't make complete sense to me.

Almiranta, once again, gets it exactly right.

"They do need to feel superior to others, and to ridicule and attack on a personal level those who do not share their pathology."

I'm always amazed at how low-life scum like Turdy Blonde, Teenage Illiterate and BlowAviators can just spout personal attacks in the face of facts.

"A highly trained and competent fighter pilot entrusted with a multi-million dollar plane and the safety of the nation, sent out on repeated intercept missions over a period of several years is easily transformed into a cowardly "draft dodger" who did not even finish flight school and who did not report for duty."

These guys think John Kerry is a hero for enlisting during wartime, facing enemy fire and getting "wounded" multiple times, but they question the heroism of Mr. Bush for his brave work in Alabama. Completely warped.

"A pathology of rage, intolerance, spite, hypocrisy, and general mean-spiritedness."

I will never understand how these assholes became so vindictive, but I think every single one of them should be hunted down, imprisoned and forgotten. We should then burn down that prison and enclose it in concrete, Chernobyl-style, to ensure their hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness never escapes.

Right on, Almiranta! You think just like me.

Bane, thanks, I didn't know that bit of important information.

Conservative, Kerry joined the navy to avoid combat and ended up on a Swift boat. LOL

The US is not obligated to observe any treaty which we have not joined.

~~~~~~
Exactly!

Bane and KttR,

Was the UN charter a treaty? Yes

Article six of the Constitution: "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."

"Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

"Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

--The Security Council decides what is and isn't done with regards to the resolutions passed, NOT US, no matter what the President or Congress thinks, you cannot engage in pre-emptive wars arbitrarily.

In regards to Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, No. 04-1084, the court made the distinction between the tea itself being imported, and the plants being imported, the 1971 treaty with the UN, barred "products" of hallucinogenics, and not the plants themselves, the court saw the tea as a "product" even though it was only boiled-water and the plant.

Sorry but your point doesn't hold water. The treaty is still just as viable as a law, but it wasn't a cover for this church to import the products of schedule I drugs. See the difference here?

If a treaty isn't ratified, then it isn't law, whats so hard to see about that? The UN charter on the other hand was signed and ratified in 1945, so it IS law.

So, in conclusion, you and Bush are wrong.

ASWIFE,

UN charter ratified August 8, 1945.

what was your point?

"So, in conclusion, you and Bush are wrong."

So the congress, the senate, the judicial, the executive, were all wrong, and TEO is right.....yea sure.

"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"

Any idea why the sentence is written this way? The Constitution first, Laws second and treaties third. Clause two provides that the Constitution, And laws and treaties made pursuant to it, constitute the supreme law of the land. Know what pursuant means. Figure it out legal eagle.

Article 51

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Since TEO like citing cases so much:

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

The Legislative branch granted the Executive branch and the Commander in Chief, per the constitution, the authority to go into Iraq.

Shove your treaty where the sun dont shine.

Amazing that one person can stick to an idea despite overwhelming evidence that he’s wrong.

The UN Charter does not give blanket authority for all future acts by the UN, especially if those are at odds with the interests of the United States. That would be a violation of the Congress' abiliity to approve treaties.

The AUMF from Congress gives the Executive Branch the authority and the right to use force as deemed necessary by the Commander in Chief. No resolution passed by the UN to which the US is not in agreement is binding on our Government.

Have your jailhouse lawyer explain “sovereignty” to you. (Thanks Zoot for pointing out Article 51.) Than have him explain our cooperation with Israel and refusal to join any of the UN resolutions, condemnations or conferences; we have never considered Zionism racist, in spite of, or because of UN resolutions.

You and your Kofi have declared this war illegal, yet the UN has not sanctioned that view, it has been adjudicated in several international bodies and none of them have agreed with you. More to the point; the US Supreme Court and the Congress of the US don’t consider the war illegal, so you and Kofi are wrong, again, what else is new?

The only court that matters to the US is the USSC; unless and until they declare the actions “illegal” your squealing just a fart in a wetsuit.

Even a stupid person could, and probably would, be able to look up links to facts contradicting his beliefs and then process those facts and integrate them into his belief system.

So what's your excuse, then, Almy? Are you stupider than stupid?

Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar, Herbert Titus sums up the "trteaty" argument thusly, "By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law."

The UN is not a sovereign nation, and therefore the Charter is not a treaty.

TEO...it's impossible to even talk to you because you are so thick headed you don't even understand the facts at hand.

The United Nations does not...repeat...does NOT rule or oversee or govern or anything of the nature regarding US actions or any other member state for that matter.

Why you cannot get that through your thick head is beyond any of us here that understand international law and the laws of this country.

Please...EDUCATE YOURSELF!!! You will look much less the turd that you come across daily here.

This is exactly why the Hague does not have dominion over the USA. It will be a cold day in hell before the USA gives up it's sovereign rights to a world body who opposes nearly everything we do.

EDUCATE YOURSELF

"EDUCATE YOURSELF"

Problem is he thinks he has. I can just see him now furiously googleing looking for a pithy rebuttal.

TEO,

You are the one that is wrong:

In addtion to our sovereign right to defend ourselves under the UN charter there is the Resolution 1441, which justifies our actions against Iraq.

It is interesting that France, the pivotal player in the Security Council’s no-war-with-Iraq coalition, did not taken quite that same view as you leftists. France can hardly be considered the definitive authority on the legality of any U.S. military action. Still, it is worth noting that on Saturday, March 15, prior to the invasion, the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said that if a Security Council vote were to be held on a new resolution to authorize the use of force and the resolution failed to get at least nine votes, then any action contrary to the resolution would not be legal. But if the U.S. were to act on the strength of Resolution 1441 alone without asking for another resolution, he said, that would not be considered a violation of international law.

He was right on that point, because 1441 called for "serious consequences" if Saddam failed to comply fully and imediately, and there was no reference to a need for a further resolution. The United States assured the U.N. only that it would consult with the Security Council before taking action, and the U.S. did so.

The fact that we have not been formally condemned by the UN for our invasion, nor has any such resolution been proposed is proof enough that we were within our rights.

Only in the minds of leftist wackos such as yourself was this invasion illegal.

TEO, even Nancy Pelosi said that the Iraq War was legal.

It's so nice to see TEO fall flat on his face at his own game. Boy did he lose. This was fun to watch! I learned a thing or two from you guys too, thanks!

Keep Right

He loses daily, it's just a matter of how much energy and time many of us here want to spend to show him how wrong he is. At some point you throw up your hands because its just not worth the effort.

You can't teach a stupid dog new tricks

Many times I ignore him because I don't have the time to show him he's wrong. It was so fun seeing him go down in flames! I do understand what your saying too. I think his arrogance makes him stupid.

Guys and Gals,

TEO believes that the UN is superior to the US and we cannot act in our defense without their approval.

On another thread, he/she started listing a series of UN Resolutions against Israel. He/she also was support of the Palestinians. I asked him if he was anti-Semetic. He said since both the Palestinians and the Jews were Semetites, he could be anti-Semetic. So I asked him/her if he just hated Jew then. He/she never responded.

He/she also believes that everything done by the Bush Administration is illegal: The Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, the NSA terrorist communications intercepts, the SWIFT program, everything.

TEO believes that the US is also responsible for all the evil in the world. We trained the terrorists that we are now fighting around the world. We provided Saddam with the WMD. The list goes on and on and on.

When you ask him about President Clinton's ventue into Kosovo without congressional authorization, where we acted on bad intelligence about the ethnic cleansing and mass graves, and killed over 2,500 innocent civilians, he/she shrugs it off as being authorized by NATO.

The only reason anyone should respond to his/her posts is to see him/her crash and burn again and again and again.....

Warriornation

"At some point you throw up your hands because its just not worth the effort."

Like I said, Its like trying to teach a pig to fly it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.

A-10

"The only reason anyone should respond to his/her posts is to see him/her crash and burn again and again and again....."

I think at this point its time to just completely ignore him...maybe he will go away.

Please, "conservative" to the core, do not associate yourself and your rantings with me. I get wound up every now and then, but have never approached your level of bile, and never will. Of course, I am not a seminar caller "conservative" trying to convince people that conservatives are all nuts.

You want to brag about Kerry? OK. He had already gotten several deferments, in his determination to completely avoid military service. He was finally denied a new deferment so he joined the Navy in advance of being drafted.

He was assigned to a ship which was stationed off the coast of Viet Nam, and learned about the Swift Boats---a pretty cool gig, no naval pun intended, as they shuttled between the coast and the offshore ships and were pretty safe and secure. And it was a short cut to getting command of a boat without any prior command experience.

But then those pesky Navy guys went and reassigned the Swift Boats to river patrol! Oooh, Lt, Kerry was so miffed! His temper tantrums and demands to be reassigned were legendary. So all of a sudden, after all the deferments and all the shucking and jiving, he was still stuck out where someone might shoot at him.

While I always thought he finessed his three Purple Hearts with help from his political mentors back home, I read an interview with one of the commanding officers in Viet Nam at the time who said the command was in favor of getting him out of there as soon as possible, before he got someone killed, he was such a screw-up.

Two documented and witnessed examples:

First, he was in training on a Boston Whaler, learning how to be a gunship commander, and his gun jammed, so he picked up a grenade launcher and before the captain could stop him, fired it at a cliff that was way too close to have a grenade shot at it. This was viewed, accurately, as not just a greenhorn mistake but an act of overt stupidity----amplified by his insistence that he have a tiny grenade shrapnel splinter removed BY A DOCTOR and then made a big deal out of cradling his arm in his other arm to keep it from falling out till he could get to a doctor to have it "surgically" removed---with tweezers.

This was his first Purple Heart. He had to hang around till his first doctor went off shift to get another doctor to sign off on it, as the doctor who removed the splinter and applied a band-aid refused, in disgust, to do paperwork for a Purple Heart. No enemy action, no real wound, no Purple Heart. That's what he thought.

Example Two: Kerry's boat came under fire, and it was returned. A young Viet Cong fighter was wounded by 50-cal fire from the boat's machine gun---NOT fired by Kerry, BTW. Kerry then got overexcited and ran the boat up on the shore and leaped out to pursue the wounded soldier and admister a coup de grace, shooting him in the back as he ran.

Commanders said he should have been court-martialed for at least two reasons after this fiasco. For one thing, the Swift Boat had only three strengths---speed, manueverability, and guns. When Kerry ran it up on shore, he lost all three. Speed and manueverability are remarkably compromised when a boat is grounded, and the guns could not be brought to bear on anything at or near ground level, making the boat completely vulnerable to attack.

And Kerry violated a prime directive in taking off after his trophy, leaving his men behind and splitting up the crew.

Then there was the time he missed a boat coming toward his, not paying attention for some reason to the radar screen he was supposed to be manning so they could move out and intercept boats to search them for supplies being ferried to the Viet Cong. The Vietnamese boat came up on the Swift Boat unexpectedly and the pilot was startled and reached into the cockpit and pulled out a rifle. The gunner shot him in self-defense, also killing the young boy who had been riding in the cockpit with his father.

The gunner and another crewman were absolutely sure they would all be called in for a naval review, and probably court-martialed, for this screw-up. But nothing happened, and they figured it had just slipped through the cracks. But when Kerry started running for the presidency on his military "hero" record, they found out that the version Kerry had turned in had him LEAPING into the gun tub to single-handedly open fire on and subdue a Viet Cong boat. And the stricken widow and infant they had taken on board from the real boat had morphed into TWO Viet Cong spies! There was a medal in that one for Lt. Kerry.

He was a disaster. Fortunately he was only in-country for about three months, and didn't manage to kill anyone on his own boat---though he nearly drowned Rasmussen when he bolted for safety, startled by another boat hitting a mine, and flipped Rasmussen over the stern. (He got a medal for coming back to pull Rasmussen out of the water---the Kerry version in the citation had him bravely coming back under intense enemy fire to effect a rescue.)

On the other hand, Bush was repeatedly scrambled to go out over the Gulf of Mexico to intercept unidentified aircraft coming toward the country. Every time he did this,he faced the possibilty that this might be an enemy attack plane, and/or the possibility that he would either be shot at or would have to shoot down the other plane. The "soaring over Alabama" stuff is pure fiction.

Bush did whatever was asked of him, and did it well, according to his reviews and his commanding officers. He spent nearly two full years in pilot training in an Air Force program to train ANG pilots, that is in the military FULL TIME, before being assigned to an ANG base. Only after career pilots were being sent home from Viet Nam and needed planes to be able to keep up their hours did the ANG encourage its short-time pilots to apply for early outs. And at that time Bush, having put in THREE TIMES the amount of service required to stay current in the ANG, applied for and was granted an early out.

You and your fellow travelers have never accounted for the missing years of Kerry's tour of duty. You know, the remainder of his six year commitment. We know that legally he was supposed to have still been on active duty as an officer in the US Navy during the period he was recruiting men to pretend they were Viet Nam veterans, to throw purchased medals over the White House fence, to stage anti-war street theater, and while he was making illegal trips to North Viet Nam to conspire with the enemy, and while he was lying under oath to Congress about invented atrocities he supposedly not only saw but committed himself in Viet Nam.

Whatcha got for us on that, "conservative"? Where WAS Kerry during the "missing years"? How did he manage to complete his military service while sloping around in hippie garb with long hair and having tea with the enemy? Did his actions during that time have anything to do with the real reason his Honorable Discharge was dated in March of 2001? What's the straight scoop on this, "con"?

Kinda hard to tell from his records, since they have not been made available. But surely YOU know, being such a Kerry groupie and all.

Again, all witnesses and all records have Bush doing the right thing and doing it well. All the witnesses except those Kerry crew members who (coincidentally?) have been wined and dined, taken on European trips, hosted in Kerry-Hienz mansions, and substantially benefitted by being Kerry supporters have described his screw-ups and his lies in detail.

So you go right on believing the fake stuff, and you go right on thinking you are so cute and so clever with your phony name and phony positions. But it looks like this is all ya got----and it ain't much.

The following is a list of more than 54 nations that defied the United Nations and participated in a "unilateral illegal war" when they pre-emptively invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. Let's prosecute them all!/sarcasm.

"Coalition of the Willing" Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalition
Heritage.org
March 19, 2003

"To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries."

The Coalition of the Willing

Afghanistan: Afghanistan has pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. May open airspace to U.S. and allied military flights.

Albania: Offered to send troops. Approved U.S. use of airspace and bases.

Angola:*
Australia: Sent 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf.

Azerbaijan:*

Bahrain: Headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Bulgaria: Offered use of airspace, base and refueling for U.S. warplanes; sent 150 non-combat troops specializing in chemical and biological warfare decontamination.

Canada:* Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships.

Colombia:*
Croatia: Airspace and airports open to civilian transport planes from the coalition.

Czech Republic: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to U.S. request.

Denmark: The government decided to take part in the military action with submarine, surface ships, and a medical team comprised of 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers.

Dominican Republic:*
El Salvador*
Eritrea*

Estonia*

Ethiopia: Ethiopia has publicly pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq.

Georgia: Georgia has expressed strong support for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and has offered both its airspace and military bases to support the campaign.3
Greece: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. sixth fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes.

Honduras:*
Hungary: Hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are trained for possible post-war administrative roles. NATO can use the country’s roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey’s defense. May open airspace for U.S. military flights.

Iceland: *
Italy: Offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under longstanding NATO commitments.

Japan: Japan expressed unequivocal support for U.S. plans to forcibly disarm Iraq. Will provide post-conflict assistance.

Jordan: Opened its airspace to coalition planes; hosts U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue operations in western Iraq and manning a Patriot anti-missile defense system.

Kuwait: Hosts coalition forces massed for an invasion.

Latvia: Government has decided to ask parliament to authorize the deployment of a small number of troops.

Lithuania: Authorized use of airspace for U.S. backed mission to disarm Iraq.

Macedonia*
Marshall Islands:*
Micronesia:*
Mongolia:*
Netherlands: A few hundred Dutch troops are stationed in Turkey to operate three Patriot missile defense systems, allowing movement of U.S. troops and supplies from Germany through the Netherlands en route to the Persian Gulf.

Nicaragua*
Norway: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey.

Philippines: The Philippine National Security Council offered political support for a U.S. led war to disarm Iraq.

Poland: To deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, which will perform an unspecified non-combat role, supporting the U.S.-led offensive. A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and transport ship already stationed in the Gulf area, as part of the Afghanistan campaign, could be enlisted.

Portugal: Made available NATO air bases and an air base in the Azores.

Qatar: Hosts a mobile HQ for U.S. Central Command; allowed Washington to expand an airfield to handle more combat jets.

Romania: Airspace and a base open to U.S. warplanes; sent non-combat specialists in chemical decontamination, medics, engineers and military police in response to a U.S. request. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases.

Rwanda:*
Saudi Arabia: U.S. and British planes use its Prince Sultan Air Base to enforce a "no-fly zone" over southern Iraq.

Singapore:*
Slovakia: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to a U.S. request. Has approved U.S. flyovers and use of its bases.

Slovenia: Signed the Vilnius 10 declaration supporting the United States

Solomon Islands:

South Korea: Seoul will dispatch some 500 army engineers to support a U.S. led war on Iraq, in addition to post-war assistance.

Spain: Strongest ally of the United States and Britain. Promised use of its NATO bases for a strike on Iraq. Spain will send a medical support vessel equipped with nuclear, biological and chemical treatment facilities. A frigate and 900 troops will accompany the support vessel in the event of a conflict.

Taiwan: Taipei opened its airspace to U.S. military aircraft.

Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Parliament has rejected a resolution to allow use of airspace and deployment of American troops for an attack on Iraq but the cabinet was to debate the resolution again on Tuesday with a possible parliamentary vote on Wednesday. (Update: 3/19 Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.)

Uganda:*
Ukraine: Agreed to U.S. request that it send chemical warfare and nuclear decontamination experts

United Arab Emirates: Base for U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and refueling; host to an estimated 3,000 western troops. Has pledged 4,000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war in Iraq.

United Kingdom: Washington's chief ally on Iraq has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships.

Uzbekistan*

Countries offering Conditional Support

France: Paris says it may help U.S. if Iraq uses biological or chemical weapons

Germany: Despite opposition to a war on Iraq, Germany has chemical warfare decontamination specialists in Kuwait. Germany has also promises unhindered use of its airspace and U.S. and British bases, and will provide Turkey with AWACS and Patriot anti-missile rockets for protection.

Oman: Base for U.S. planes used in Afghanistan, but says will play no role in a war against Iraq. Oman has sent one battalion under Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait.

*Countries mentioned by Secretary of State Colin Powell

Definition of unilateral: 1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE -sided c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party. (Merriam-Webster)

Liberal Orwellian Newspeak definition of unilateral: done or undertaken by more than 54 nations led by the USA.

"why liberals like congressive wanted al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq via Zarqawi?"

CJ, you could not be more wrong. Nice projection, though.

It was Bushy boy and his throng like you who wanted to fight "them" over "there," a cowardly and despicable burden to place on the Iraqi people who had nothing to do with al Qaida before Bushy boy destroyed Iraqi security forces.

OBL: Knock knock

BUSH: Who's there?

OBL: Osama

BUSH: Osama who?

congressive, would you prefer another 9/11? Would you prefer that car bombs go off on our streets? Would you prefer that innocent Americans die on our streets and homes? Do you think that would be courageous? I hope not! What would you think is a better plan to fight terrorism? If you think diplomacy is the answer, thank again. Diplomacy, historically has failed time and again. It's not cowardly to aggressively go after the terrorist on their own turf. It’s the terrorist that is killing the innocent civilians in Iraq. (Don’t disparage our fine solders because of a small number of “bad apples.”) Oh yes it’s a despicable burden to free the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant. I guess you’d prefer to leave them under Saddam and to give the terrorist a safe haven to launch their jihad against the west. No, this is not retaliation on their part for American foreign policy, that’s a common misconception. I have not been to a particular web site in some time but there is a website that is run by former Muslims at www.islamicreview.com, that will enlighten you, if your open minded enough.

Guys/girls,

Keep feeding your kind the BS you wish, The UN charter is a treaty, I would ask you to find any political scientist worth a spit that will deny it has the weight of international law behind it.

Zoot, we weren't attacked by Iraq, you can't prove they had a hand in 9/11, so what the hell are you talking about, dude? Article 51 is for DEFENSIVE purposes, who are you trying to fool?

Secondly, the order in which the statement is listed has NOTHING to do with how it is weighed in relation to federal laws. If we sign onto a treaty we obligated to uphold it as "Supreme Law".

Bane, AUMF means exactly dick to the rest of the world, Congress can give authority to do a lot of things, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to recognize it, our laws and resolutions go as far as international waters. Are you really that stupid?

Ratboy, "(2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power "

--Are you 12 man, read your own posts.

phnxbmed, you apparently didn't comprehend the post I made, the Sec Council decides what is, and isn't "serious consequences" to certain actions, or inactions, NOT the united states, re-read article 39:

"Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

--you see that little statement about the Sec Council determining threats to peace and deciding which measures will be used in accordance to sanctions or military action...NOT THE US!

A-10, you're a liar, and a bad one at that.

If you want to believe that we have infinite latitude to engage in pre-emptive wars on nations who present no immediate threat to us, then so be it, but that doesn't make it true...if we were so right then explain this little nugget of joy from your uber-chickenhawk Perle.

"In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

--not a very strong denunciation of the meme of "illegal" war, now is it? LOL

The basic point here is that if the US really had all it needed to attack Iraq, then why go through the trouble of asking for approval from the security council? Why not just go do what needed to be done? Why go sucking up to get the 9 votes we needed to authorize the attacks if it was already a foregone conclusion that they were in material breach of the resolution? Why not just take our coalition of the willing and be on our way, leaving the UN to scratch their heads?

Could it be because we NEED the approval for pre-emptive attacks...hmmm, could be.

I will keep smacking you folks on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of truth, like furniture chewing puppies.

I am not here to change your minds, because they are permanently encased in the cement of stupidity, but I really enjoy bursting your little rhetorical circle-jerks, and will continue to do so. Lie about me if you wish, I don't care, I smile when I sign-off here and go home to my beautiful girlfriend.

I love to see you ditto-heads crash and burn LOL!

war,

You said, "He loses daily, it's just a matter of how much energy and time many of us here want to spend to show him how wrong he is. At some point you throw up your hands because its just not worth the effort.

You can't teach a stupid dog new tricks"

He is back and still thinks he doesn't know he lost. It's time to ignore this retarded fool!

TEO the mental midget says:
"Zoot, we weren't attacked by Iraq,"

January 31, 2003
Stuttgart Germany Operation Northern Watch (ONW) aircraft were fired upon and threatened by elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system today. Since Dec. 28, 1998, Saddam Hussein has opted to challenge this enforcement by firing at coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and by targeting them with weapons radar.

December 04,2002
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites approximately 15 miles northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

December 02,2002
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery from sites approximately 10 miles east of Mosul while coalition aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Nov 28, 2002
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites south of Tall Afar while ONW
aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

November 17, 2002
Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

October 30, 2002
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft weapons while coalition aircraft were carrying out routine enforcement.

Oct 22, 2002
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

February 19, 1999
U.S. warplanes fired on an Iraqi missile site Friday after being targeted by Iraq radar in the northern no-fly zone, a U.S. military official said.

December 28, 1998
Iraq attacks U.S. jets during routine patrols of the northern no-fly zone, claiming Western planes violate Iraqi airspace during their patrols.

TEO your a f***ing moron.

Isnt it a shame when someone is so proudly and willfully stupid.

Zoot,

You're obviously more of an idiot than I first thought, amazing.

read article 39, does it say the US gets to decide when it is and isn't acceptable to attack a nation? Did they authorize us to attack based on them firing on us?

When the UN authorizes an attack, then it is legal, otherwise it is outside the boundries of international law.

KttR,

For all the ignoring you do, you keep trying to get the last word.

I win, you have no case that holds water. LOL!

TEO,

This is the last time I will waste my time directly responding to you and would encourage all others on this board to do the same. I've read Article 39 I've also read Article 51 which clearly states that NO ONE has to wait for the Useless Nations to pull their finger out of their ass if fired upon to respond. What part of we were fired upon by someone who was bound by a CEASEFIRE agreement doesnt penetrate that incredibly thick skull of yours. Sovereignty is obviously a concept to complicated for that waste of cells you call a mind.

"You're obviously more of an idiot than I first thought, amazing"

Well I'm not amazed by you. I pegged you for a moron from the first post you wasted oxygen spewing. You arent suprising me, just confirming what I expected all along.

Hey Zoot, do hear a gadfly buzzing around here? I hear that ignoring these pesky gadflies is the best way to get rid of them. This one is especally stupid and doesn't know it. This IS THE LAST TIME I'll even say anything about this gadfly. This gadfly is too vain to think I won't.

Zoot,

Problem is that the 'No-Fly Zone' isn't part of any UN resolution, so we are acting in conjunction with the UK against Iraqi sovereignty.

Again, we run up against the wall of legality here. Resolution 688 setup protections for UN and IAEA members and associates, acting under the banner of the UN. Since our NFZ is something we came up with, the UN doesn't have anything to do with it, so to try and claim that somehow our made-up right to patrol their skies and the resulting fire we have taken because of it trigger's 1441 is simply false.

I love the fact that we setup NFZs to protect the Kurds, and then we gave Turkey the Ok to bomb them back in '94.

Take a look at the Sec. Council's quotes regarding how silly it is to think this is a legal trigger for "serious consequences". This is just another example of warmongers trying to justify their actions by any means possible...and the rhetoric isn't even plausible.

LOL try again buck-o

still trying for the last word, huh?

TEO.
Keep 'liar' out of your debate.You sound like a 6th grader!
I have never seen A-10 put out there what he won't back up. And he has the resources to put out there what he says.

Burr,

Ok, well if you feel the need to stand up for your buddy, then maybe you can explain to me how his conjecture is true?

1."I asked him if he was anti-Semetic. He said since both the Palestinians and the Jews were Semetites, he could be anti-Semetic. So I asked him/her if he just hated Jew then. He/she never responded."

2. "When you ask him about President Clinton's ventue into Kosovo without congressional authorization, where we acted on bad intelligence about the ethnic cleansing and mass graves, and killed over 2,500 innocent civilians, he/she shrugs it off as being authorized by NATO."

--care to go research this for your buddy?

I said I don't spend my time hating people, I leave my contempt for people who kill innocent civilians, then followed that statement up by saying I hold Hamas AND IDF responsible for tit-for-tat escalation of the israeli/palestinian conflict. It's a blatant lie to say I never responded back regarding his assertion I hate jews.

On his second "point" about Kosovo, I simply reminded him that NATO called for action, and as a member of NATO we responded to that call from our allies, its more than a bit disingenous to say this was anything other than that, if he cares to prove what intentions of politicians are, then I welcome his proof. I regard that campaign as an illegal military action, just as I regard Bush's war an illegal action.

so ask him for his proof, otherwise, he is a liar. But if you can find those "resources" I will be happy to look at them.

TEO,

I stand corrected. You did respond. You just didn't answer the question. You did your typical tap dance around the question. You still haven't answered the question with a simple yes or no.

Your answer above about Clinton's incursion into Kosovo is the first time you have given a straight answer to that question. It only took you about two weeks. But you still didn't answer the question I asked.

Why aren't you so vocal about getting the troops out of Kosovo? Why don't you condemn Clinton for cherry-picking intelligence that proved to be false? Why don't you condemn Clinton for the killing of 2,500 innocents?

You can regard "Bush's war" as an illegal action, but that doesn't make it illegal. In fact, as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, there is a Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, passed by a Democrat Senate and signed into law by a Democrat President, and the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations of the use of Military Force. In the eyes of the United States Government, the liberation of Iraq is illegal. It doesn't matter that you think it is illegal, or if the entire liberal world thinks it is illegal. An Act was passed by Congress Authorizing the Use of Military Force and signed into law by the President. That makes it legal. Case closed.

You are awfully quick to brand people liars. Which is typical for a "compassionate" and "understanding" liberal. You never give anyone the benefit of the doubt or allow an opposing opinion. Everyone who doesn't conform to your warped vision of the world is a liar. In fact, the prevailing philosophy of current liberalism is 180 degrees out of phase. Liberals are supposed to be accepting of differing points of view, but they don't. They are are supposed to be champions of human rights, but they don't support securing human rights for 50,000,000 oppressed Iraqis and Afghans. Today's liberal is a walking, talking contradiction. A hypocrite.

OOPS: "In the eyes of the United States Government, the liberation of Iraq is legal."

A-10,

Didn't I just say that I don't find Clinton's actions to be any more legal that Bush's?

We shouldn't be there, we shouldn't have bombed Kosovo, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, We shouldn't have helped overthrow democratically elected governments. There does that explain it better? I am less vocal about Kosovo because we aren't still engaged in actions which are killing innocent civilians, such as we are in Iraq.

Look, the congress can pass as many resolutions as it wants, but that doesn't give it the right to ignore international treaties and engage in pre-emptive wars. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, to engage in military action requires us to have either been attacked by a nation, or have proof of impending attack, neither of which applies to Iraq, so therefore all actions must be done according to the UN charter, which we did not follow. Case Closed!

I called you a liar because of the accusations you have made that I somehow haven't answered your claims. You know damn well I answered all your questions, and if you have proof otherwise then show it.

"We shouldn't have helped overthrow democratically elected governments"...

LOL...You consider Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Saddam to be democratically elected governments? Sorry pal, you just lost the last bit of credibility you might have had. There was absolutely nothing "democratic" about any national election in either country for years. When there is only one person running for President and he gets 100% of the vote, that is not "democratic election".

"Look, the congress can pass as many resolutions as it wants"

Sure, they can pass resolutions, they are frequently non-binding. There is a significant different between a resolution that becomes Public Law, such as the Iraq Liberation Act and the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, and a congressional resolution that is just for show. Most Resolutions are not laws. Go back to Civics 101. Do not pass "Go".

"to engage in military action requires us to have either been attacked by a nation, or have proof of impending attack"

Who is making these rules up? You? Your merry band of liberal loonies?

There are several ways that the United States can engage in military action: (1) Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the President can consult with Congress, then commence hostilities. He then must report to Congress periodically while hostilities continue; (2) Under a Congressional Declaration of War, the President may order the military to engage in hostilities; (3) Under an Authorization of the Use of Military Force.

Under none of these authorities is there a requirement to have been attacked by a nation, or have proof of impending attack. They do require that it is in the best interest of the national security of the US.

You seem to forget that in the past 13 years the United States has been attacked several times by various terrorist organizations. These organizations have had the backing of several governments, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

US aircraft had been fired upon countless times by the Iraqis under Saddam. Doesn't that count as an attack against us?

"so therefore all actions must be done according to the UN charter"

Proof of my point that you bow down to the throne of the UN. As many have pointed out to you, but either you refuse to listen, refuse to accept, or are too stupid to understand, the United States is a soverign nation. It does not require the approval of the UN to take action. You obviously believe in a world government where the UN rules. Sorry. Never going to happen. Get that through your liberal head. The UN is corrupt. Just look at some of the countries who have been placed in charge of various UN committees. Or the Oil-for-Food program. Or their failure to prevent genocide in Africa. Half the membership of the General Assembly are countries ruled by dictators, tyrants, and despots. You want this gang of misfits to have authority over our national security? The only worse group to put in charge of our national security are the liberals.

Under your rules, the following US actions were not authorized by the UN, so they are illegal:

1983 Invasion of Grenada.

1989-1990 Invasion of Panama

1993-1994 Bombing in Bosnia

1998 Cruise Missile attacks against Sudan

1998 Cruise Missile attacks against Afghanistan

1998 Cruise Missile attacks against Iraq

Finally, no, you haven't answered my questions. You tapped-danced around the questions, just as you are doing now. You still haven't given me a "yes" or "no" whether you are anti-Jew. Your "I don't hate anyone" answer doesn't cut it.

Further, I do think you hate people. I think you hate conservatives, especially President Bush. I think you hate conservatives and the President because the conservatives now have control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Recent judicial appointments have returned the Federal Bench back to its Constitutional duty of interpreting laws, not making them, and you see liberals losing their last hope to forward their agenda. You see the numbers of liberals declining and the numbers of conservatives increasing. You see the liberal base moving farther and farther left to the point of lunacy. You see the liberal "leadership" showing no leadership. You see the President's policies effectively re-invigorating our economy. You see his policies bringing freedom to millions throughout the world. You hate the fact that your guys are continuing to lose elections. You hate that the conservative movement is successful, and the liberal movement is a failure. You hate it that a "dumb" cowboy has outsmarted every political move by the liberals. You cannot accept being wrong, so you direct you anger towards those who have proven you wrong.

You need to get a life. Or convert to conservatism. We have a positive outlook towards the direction the nation is heading. Increased economic opportunities for all. Freedom and democracy spreading throughout the world. Live is good. Be thankful you live now and in the US (assuming you do live here and are not a foreign troll, in which case you can go pound sand).

Live is good, but life is better. :-)