BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Enemy, Ally, will it Matter?

Continuing with the port story, I have to explain UAE/dubai more because people on both sides have givin facts about the UAE and they are both right. People against it have given facts about how the UAE has helped terrorists, and people for it have given facts about how the UAE has helped us. So who's side is the UAE on? There's no telling. They may be allies, and they may be back-stabbers, but no matter which they are, I don't think they should be able to maintain our ports. But that makes me a racist right? No. No matter which side they are on, we will have an increased chance of getting attacked if this goes forward, I'll explain.

First, lets say they aren't trustworthy. They really do hate America; they are just covering it up. In the past they were bad, maybe they haven't really changed, they just want to pretend to be friends with us. When they get the ports, they will probably hire someone from Al-Qaeda as soon as possible and send them to America to work at the ports. Not such a stretch, they could get a phoney ID and workers VISA and they're in. A terrorist will now have full access to our ports. Sooner or later they will have have him bring a bomb to work, supplied by a sleeper cell. Then, he will blow up the port. But that's just one port, what if all six ports were attacked at the same time? Like I said, it would be an economic 9/11. In my earlier article I explained in greater depth how easily this scenario could occur, but I didn't give my scenario for how we could get attacked if they were friends.

Now lets say they really are our allies. When we let them maintain our ports it will anger Al-Qaeda. The reason for this is because of a few factors. The first, and this one is from the 9/11 commission, is that we had a chance to kill Osama, but we couldn't because we didn't want to kill the people from Dubai he was working with. So at some point they were business partners. If you don't know, Muslim radicals hate infidels, but the only people they hate more is moderate Muslims who tolerate infidels, especially Americans. If this happens, Al-Qaeda will look at it like this. Dubai back-stabbed them to work with American infidels, making them moderate Muslims. This will invoke rage among the members of Al-Qaeda. Osama warned us he was planning another terrorist attack, if this goes through he'll most definitely bomb the ports, not only to kill infidels, but the back-stabbing Dubai guys, and again, hurt the economy. But how could Al-Qaeda do this? I don't know. I still don't know how they could have pulled off 9/11, but they did. All it takes is one mistake on our part and they could do it, or we could not take the chance of this deal to secure our safety. As you can see, even if Dubai is an ally, we can't do this because of Al-Qaeda.

The way I see things, no matter who's side the UAE is on, we will have a great chance of getting attacked if this goes through. Yes, even if they really are allies. If they are allies, we can explain to them that it isn't their fault, it's because of Al-Qaeda. They should understand if we explain it clearly.

We as Americans need to do everything we can to stop this deal from going forward. If we want to prevent a potential economic 9/11, both Conservatives and Liberals must come together to support this position. Do everything you can. If you have a blog, write in it. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, stop until they come to their senses on this. Write to a congressmen. Do anything you can. We have to stop this as soon as possible or I fear we will see a dark time in our future.

57 Comments:

  • At 24/2/06 12:59 AM, Blogger Jenn of the Jungle said…

    First, thanks for stopping by my Blog. You'll find I'm a bit of a moderate conservative on some things and a crazy ass nut-ball on others.

    That being said, I couldn't agree with you more, I am too addicted to politics.

    Helpful hint, I get a lot of sh*t from mispelling from the liberal jack *sses that come to my site on a regular basis.

    I tend to do my best writing when slightly intoxicated, and that leads to the occasional mispelling.(Say like right now).

    Just a hint..... Given, not givin.

    Nice blog, please, really come back and visit, I can use all the voices of rationality I can find. I seem to attract slimey liberals like a flower attracts bee's.

     
  • At 24/2/06 10:06 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Wether the UAE can be trusted or not is a moot point. They have a track record of supporting known terrorists recentally and that should be enough to deny them complete acces to American ports.

    The one thing you're missing though is the driving factor behind the UAE. It's not terror, it's money. So yes the UAE will get money from us, but they might also get money from terrorists to sneak things in. I think that the UAE is trying to play both sides and see which one provides more cash or power. Sneaky but possible.

     
  • At 24/2/06 11:01 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Something you may be interested in -- a book (and website) by an Insider who worked for the UAE Central Bank:

    United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing

    Unlike Georges Sada, author Iqbal Ismail Hakim says some things you will probably disagree with:

    "Is the U.S. taking any action to track down the financing that allows terrorism to operate? Or is the U.S. allowing and helping it to continue?"

    I heard about this from Randi Rhodes, who interviewed Mr. Hakim on her show today.

    Cody Said... I still don't know how they could have pulled off 9/11, but they did.

    You can thank the Bush Administration's incompetence or complicity.

     
  • At 25/2/06 11:34 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    You're right-on, Cody. I agree... this is not a good idea, and that's putting it mildly!

    Great post. :)

     
  • At 25/2/06 11:38 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You can thank the Bush Administration's incompetence or complicity.

    Er no, not really. He was only in office one year at the time, however Clinton was in office 8 years, and in those 8 years the military was cut. Also the terrorists learned that they could attack America when Clinton did nothing about the 1993 WTC bombing.

     
  • At 25/2/06 5:48 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Er no, not really.

    Er, yes. REALLY.

    The following is from my blog:

    The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 quite possibly could have been prevented if not for the bush Administration's inability to "connect the dots". The bush Administration was briefed by the outgoing Clinton Adminstration concerning the growing terrorism threat. The recently completed $10 Million Hart-Rudman Report, commissioned by outgoing President Bill Clinton's Secretary of defense, William Cohen (a Republican), was delivered just after Bush and Cheney's inauguration.

    Alarming Excerpts from the Hart/Rudman Report:

    "It is unlikely that we will continue to be the blessed country we've been all these years," Rudman said, referring to the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. "The threat is asymmetric and we're not prepared for it".

    "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century."

    (From The Washington Post: Overhaul of National Security Apparatus Urged. Commission Cites U.S. Vulnerability. By Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer. Thursday, February 1, 2001.)

    Unfortunately, Cheney closed down the Rudman-Hart commission and shelved the report. Instead, Cheney decided he would develop his own plan for dealing with terrorism. It wasn't until after September 11th that the report and its recommendations were reexamined. (See the Salon.com article Commission warned Bush, and "Worse than Watergate" by John W. Dean, Hardcover edition p.108-109)

    From the 9-11 Commission, Staff Statement Number 8, "National Policy Coordination", pp 9-10: (National Security Advisor) Richard Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues (outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo) and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al-Qaeda was a "first order threat" and not a routine problem being exaggerated by "chicken little" alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al-Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the Deputies Committee needed to work through the many issues related to new policy on al-Qaeda. The Principals Committee did meet frequently before 9/11 on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East peace process". (The Wrong Priorities: Before 9/11, Bush Administration was Focused on the Wrong Threats to America.)

     
  • At 25/2/06 7:38 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Well of course some of it was his fault but most of it was Clinton. He refused to build up the military and did nothing about the 93 bombing. My point still stands. Every president was responsible, but mostt of the blame lies with Clinton.

     
  • At 25/2/06 10:29 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    What President Clinton did to fight terrorism and make us safer:

    The Clinton critics like to dismiss his administration's efforts to stop bin Laden as a couple of missiles fired at an empty tent. Yet there was no lack of zeal in Clinton's hunt for the Saudi terrorist. In 1998 Clinton signed a secret National Security Directive that authorized an intensive, ongoing campaign to destroy al Qaeda and seize or assassinate bin Laden. Several attempts were made on bin Laden's life, aside from the famous cruise missile launch that summer, which conservatives falsely denounced as an attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

    In 1999, the CIA organized a Pakistani commando unit in enter Afghanistan on a mission to capture or kill bin Laden. That operation was aborted when General Pervez Musharraf seized the Pakistani government from Nawaz Sharif, the more cooperative civilian Prime Minster. A year later, bin Laden was reportedly almost killed in a rocket-grenade attack on his convoy. Unfortunately, the missiles hit the wrong truck.

    Simultaneously, the White House tried to persuade or coerce the Taliban regime into expelling bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton signed an executive order freezing $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States, while the State Department kept the Taliban internationally isolated.

    On Clinton's watch, the CIA and the National Security Council instituted a special al Qaeda unit that thwarted several deadly conspiracies, including a scheme to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on Millennium eve, and plots to bomb the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels in New York City as well as the United Nations building. Timely American intelligence also prevented a deadly assault on the Israeli embassy in Washington. Meanwhile, the State Department and the CIA neutralized dozens of terrorist cells overseas through quiet prosecutions, extraditions, and executions undertaken by allies from Albania to the Philippines.

    A month before Clinton left office -- and nine months before the planes hit the world trade center -- the nation's most experienced diplomats in counter terrorism praised those efforts. "Overall, I give them very high marks", said Robert Oakley, former Ambassador for Counter terrorism in the Reagan State Department. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger". Paul Bremer, who had served in the same post under Reagan and later was chosen by congressional leaders to chair the National Commission on Terrorism, disagreed slightly with his colleague. Bremer told the Washington Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden". (from "Big Lies" by Joe Conason. pages 205-207)

    What president bush did to fight terrorism and make us safer:

    Used 9/11 and trumped up charges against Iraq to start an illegal preventive war. We aren't safer -- The Iraq was has stimulated terrorism. al-Qaeda uses it as a recruitment tool.

     
  • At 26/2/06 3:13 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    I agree with you. This is an incredibly stupid idea and I can't believe Bush is defending it. He's setting it up for Democrats to actually look like hawks.

     
  • At 26/2/06 4:27 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Helpful hint, I get a lot of sh*t from mispelling from the liberal jack *sses that come to my site on a regular basis."

    I know EXACTLY what you mean, I get it a lot.

    "First, thanks for stopping by my Blog."

    Of course, I'll link you up too if you want.

    "The one thing you're missing though is the driving factor behind the UAE. It's not terror, it's money. So yes the UAE will get money from us, but they might also get money from terrorists to sneak things in. I think that the UAE is trying to play both sides and see which one provides more cash or power. Sneaky but possible."

    Interesting point Robby. If we weren't talking about the ports deal though, you'd sound like an aspiring socialist! lol.

    "Is the U.S. taking any action to track down the financing that allows terrorism to operate? Or is the U.S. allowing and helping it to continue?"

    Well, in a simple answer for this case yes, but I'm assuming Bush THINKS the UAE is trustworthy, although I don't know how. I think the guy wants what's best, but I can't understand where he's coming from here, because he's helping out a company with a dodgy record.

    And about 9/11, both the Bush, and Clinton administrations made horrible mistakes, no doubt. But again, I don't think they in any way WANTED 9/11 to happen.

    "I agree with you. This is an incredibly stupid idea and I can't believe Bush is defending it. He's setting it up for Democrats to actually look like hawks."

    And if Bush stays with this position he'll just be digging the GOP grave. Horrible times it will be. Republicans will be a minority, Hillary will be president, and terrorists will bomb our ports, just great...

     
  • At 26/2/06 6:49 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Interesting point Robby. If we weren't talking about the ports deal though, you'd sound like an aspiring socialist! lol.

    Hey now I never said it was BAD to make money, I just said that's what might be going on. I would actually congratulate the UAE for that clever ploy.

    Another interesting thing, notice that the Democrats are saying that this port issue is bad? Funny they're usually against anything that lowers NS. More proof they're just extremelly anti-Bush. (Not that I agree with Bush on this one either.)

     
  • At 27/2/06 2:21 AM, Blogger BushCheney08 said…

    good post. your right on, and very insightful.

     
  • At 27/2/06 6:18 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    BushCheney08 said...
    "good post. your right on, and very insightful."


    Welcome back Jayson! I was wondering where you had been, I'm guessing you're on school vacation right now?

     
  • At 27/2/06 7:04 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I'm watching CNN right now, and according to Lou Dobbs, even though the president has agreed to a 45 day review, the actual transfer of ownership is going to take place this coming Thursday. From what I've heard, Dobbs (a life long Republican, but not a bush supporter) is against the deal.

    It was (quite rightly) pointed out that, given the fact that the sale is going through BEFORE the investigation, how can this investigation be anything but a farce?

    Lou Dobbs Quick Poll:

    Do you believe the 45-day national security review of the ports deal will result in an examination of national security interests, or is it a White House and Republican effort to facilitate the deal?

    Vigorous examination: 2%
    Effort to facilitate deal: 98%

    Several times during the program Lou referred to the Senate Republicans as "rolling over", and "falling in line" with the president.

     
  • At 28/2/06 7:39 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    That's some pretty scary news dervish, but thanks for pointing it out, I had no idea that was happening. I'll probably write one more article about this deal before Thursday.

     
  • At 1/3/06 12:00 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    I just want to tell you that my blog name has changed from Politics to Republican Ramblings.

     
  • At 1/3/06 1:01 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Got it, I'll change the link.

     
  • At 1/3/06 2:24 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    Thanks.

     
  • At 3/3/06 8:52 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I still can't figure out why Bush is going along with this, but I do believe he must know something we don't know. After all, he is the President of the U.S.! I'm hoping this is some sort of strategy and that he has something more up his sleeve than his arm.

     
  • At 3/3/06 11:16 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Gayle said... I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I still can't figure out why Bush is going along with this, but I do believe he must know something we don't know.

    Something YOU don't know. To everyone else the reason is fairly obvious. It's about money for the cronies! John W. Snow, US Secretary of the Treasury, is going to make $30 million when this deal goes though. You Republicans just don't get it! Making sure that the rich get richer is the only thing that matters to bush. EVERYTHING he does is with that goal in mind! EVERYTHING.

     
  • At 3/3/06 2:57 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Wow what a kook. Sorry dervish but you can't have it both ways. Sometimes you complain about wasted money and then you say everything's for money. You have to keep consistent.

     
  • At 3/3/06 7:44 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Wow what a kook. Sorry dervish but you can't have it both ways. Sometimes you complain about wasted money and then you say everything's for money. You have to keep consistent.

    What the hell are you talking about? I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to your posts. They don't even make any sense.

     
  • At 3/3/06 7:52 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Whatever "trap" you're laying for me this time -- I'm not falling for it. Nobody could possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be.

     
  • At 4/3/06 11:37 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    That's nice dervish. Run along now.

     
  • At 4/3/06 12:47 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Wow, what a kook! he makes a bunch of nonsensical comments, ignores me when I ask for an explaination, and then tells me to "run along".

     
  • At 4/3/06 4:35 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Gayle said...

    "I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I still can't figure out why Bush is going along with this, but I do believe he must know something we don't know."

    w-dervish said...
    "Something YOU don't know. To everyone else the reason is fairly obvious. It's about money for the cronies! John W. Snow, US Secretary of the Treasury, is going to make $30 million when this deal goes though. You Republicans just don't get it! Making sure that the rich get richer is the only thing that matters to bush. EVERYTHING he does is with that goal in mind! EVERYTHING."

    Don't get it? She's agreeing with you, scumbag! At least to the point of being against this, not the whole profit thing. In my opinion Bush is doing this for foreign relations, not to make money. Sure he may be making money in the process but what the hell is wrong with that?! It's called a deal for a reason. We get money, they get port maintnence. Now don't get me wrong, I'm against the deal too, but this is not an example of how capitalism is evil.

    I'm really getting tired of you, dervish. I try to be reasonable, I try to be nice, I even agree with you on an issue. But you can't even settle with that. No. You take an extremist position armed with conspiracy theories and insults to go around. Why? Because in your mind, national security doesn't trump party politics. It's always party politics with you, on everything. I know when to stop party politics on an issue, and I know when to stop in putting down Democrats, you don't. For you, the Republicans are wrong even if they agree with you, and there is no stopping point to the politics. Hostile is an understatment for you. You get so caught up in your damn politics you with death upon people because you disagree with them. You're a hateful bigot, and there's no limit to it.

    With that said, please just leave, I f**king hate you.

     
  • At 4/3/06 9:19 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... Don't get it? She's agreeing with you, scumbag!

    That's not what I read. She said that bush must know something we don't... meaning there is a reason this port deal is a GOOD thing -- we are just unaware of it. BTW "we" aren't making any money. John Snow is.

    Sure he may be making money in the process but what the hell is wrong with that?!

    It's a conflict of interest. They're pushing ahead with this deal even though it's a bad thing -- because the only thing bush cares about is enriching his friends.

    Why? Because in your mind, national security doesn't trump party politics. It's always party politics with you, on everything.

    Yes, National Security trumps party politics. I'm glad some Republicans are speaking out against this deal. It's a good thing when Republicans and Democrats can find some common ground and work together. And even if they can't always work together -- having opposing viewpoints is also a good thing. That way everyone's voice is heard.

    What I'm against is working with CRIMINALS. That is what the bush gang is. You don't allow them to pass laws which help other criminals. You don't allow them to steal taxpayer money. You don't work with, or compromise with criminals. You throw criminals in jail.

    Cody O'Connor said... You're a hateful bigot, and there's no limit to it.

    I admit it. I hate bush and his CORRUPT friends. They are hurting our country. The motivation for everything they do is GREED. And people like you are allowing him to get away with it. THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS ARE SO MAD. You should be too.

    In your original post on this subject you said...

    In fact, if he does try to veto any bills trying to stop this transaction, I'll call for his impeachment on the grounds of treason.

    Now it sounds to me like you've backed away from your original extreme stand. Have you?

    BTW I don't know why you'd hate someone you never met. When I say I hate bush, I mean I hate him in his position as president. I wish he would have stayed out of politics. If he weren't now president (and above the law) he'd probably be in jail for committing some white-collar crime like insider trading (which he has been accused of, by the way).

     
  • At 4/3/06 10:09 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Just ignore him Cody, his party's lost an election and is angry about it. Think about it. He can try to make us angry but who's in charge of the White House and Congress? We win in the end, so there's no reason to be pissed at this loser. He is nothing to the world. Bottom line: it may help to think of the fact that he is completely insignificant and it's no use getting a coronary about what he says.

     
  • At 4/3/06 10:16 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    And another thing: the difference betwwen you and I and him is that while the world cares nothing for ANY of us personally, we can live with that, wheras he cannot stand not being center of attention. Trust me, ignore him and he will leave. Personally I think the more he comments the better, it shows everyone that he's a liar and a bully. It sends a bad messege about Democrats which is fine with me. Next time you read a comment by him go away for about 15 minutes and then come back and type a levelheaded reply. He will not do the same and it will kill his credibility as he gets angrier and angerier. Don't stoop to that level. If you want him to leave either ignore him or delete his comments. Without his comments here he cannot be the center of attention and will move on to another site where he hopes to cause more discord. Again I tolerate him because he commits political suicide every time he comments. Whatever you do don't stoop to his level.

     
  • At 4/3/06 10:56 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Just ignore him Cody, his party's lost an election and is angry about it. Think about it. He can try to make us angry but who's in charge of the White House and Congress? We win in the end, so there's no reason to be pissed at this loser.

    With bush in the White House we all lose! Of course by the time you realize this is true it will be to late. What a sad, pathetic loser you will be then.

     
  • At 4/3/06 11:01 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You see Cody? It works! He is showing us that he is a bully who can do naught but insult political opponents in retaliation.

     
  • At 5/3/06 12:44 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... And another thing: the difference betwwen you and I and him is that while the world cares nothing for ANY of us personally, we can live with that, wheras he cannot stand not being center of attention.

    I'm the center of attention? Believe me, attention from YOU means NOTHING to me.

    Trust me, ignore him and he will leave. Personally I think the more he comments the better, it shows everyone that he's a liar and a bully.

    I'm a liar and a bully? What am I lying about? Who am I bullying?

    DarkSaturos said... It sends a bad messege about Democrats which is fine with me.

    What is that message? Democrats must agree with everything bush says and does or they are traitors?

    DarkSaturos said... Next time you read a comment by him go away for about 15 minutes and then come back and type a levelheaded reply. He will not do the same and it will kill his credibility as he gets angrier and angerier.

    Blah blah blah. This is an interesting fantasy you have concocted. First of all, who is my credibility being killed with? The large number of Democrats who read this blog? Republicans? I know... all the Republicans who might have believed me except that I went to far with my "conspiracy theories". Am I right?

    DarkSaturos said... If you want him to leave either ignore him or delete his comments. Without his comments here he cannot be the center of attention and will move on to another site where he hopes to cause more discord.

    What "discord" am I causing? Every time I reply it is giving you another opportunity to deftly prove me wrong and impress your readers in the process. Isn't that what you think is happening? Or, are you worried that I might be right about some of these things? Otherwise I don't see how you could possibly think I'm causing any "discord".

    DarkSaturos said... Again I tolerate him because he commits political suicide every time he comments. Whatever you do don't stoop to his level.

    I'm committing "political suicide"? How so? The large number of Democrats who read this blog will say, "That guy's crazy, I think I shall change parties"?

    Cripes! What a kook!

     
  • At 5/3/06 9:27 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm the center of attention? Believe me, attention from YOU means NOTHING to me.

    Again I don't care what you think of me. If I said that to you it would drive you nuts.

    I'm a liar and a bully? What am I lying about? Who am I bullying?

    Well let's see, calling Bush a murderer is lying, and calling everyone who disagrees stupid is bullying.

    What is that message? Democrats must agree with everything bush says and does or they are traitors?


    It sends the messege that Democrats cannot debate without getting angry or looking like little children.

    Blah blah blah. This is an interesting fantasy you have concocted. First of all, who is my credibility being killed with? The large number of Democrats who read this blog? Republicans? I know... all the Republicans who might have believed me except that I went to far with my "conspiracy theories". Am I right?


    No you're not right. And too is spelled with two o's, since you care so much about people's spelling, you might want to fix your own. Basically your credibility is wrecked with SANE people who see you yelling and think you're crazy.

    What "discord" am I causing? Every time I reply it is giving you another opportunity to deftly prove me wrong and impress your readers in the process.

    That's amusing. I don't think you impress anyone here dervish. Again this proves that you think you're the center of attention.

    I'm committing "political suicide"? How so? The large number of Democrats who read this blog will say, "That guy's crazy, I think I shall change parties"?

    Actually a lot of Democrats are doing that now rather than following the liberals. Reagan did that, so it's not like it's not happened before.

     
  • At 5/3/06 1:34 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Again I don't care what you think of me. If I said that to you it would drive you nuts.

    Another of your illogical conclusions. Disregarded.

    DarkSaturos said... Well let's see, calling Bush a murderer is lying, and calling everyone who disagrees stupid is bullying.

    bush is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. At least 30,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians and over 3,000 US soldiers killed in his illegal preventive war with Iraq. Then there is also the deaths he is responsible for in New Orleans. People who could have been saved if he had acted quickly, AS HE PROMISED.

    These are not lies, they are FACTS. But I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

    From Dictionary.com: Bully (verb) To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation.

    Are you intimidated DarkSaturos?

    DarkSaturos said... That's amusing. I don't think you impress anyone here dervish. Again this proves that you think you're the center of attention.

    Senseless ranting followed by an illogical conclusion. Disregarded.

    DarkSaturos said... Actually a lot of Democrats are doing that now rather than following the liberals. Reagan did that, so it's not like it's not happened before.

    Proof? Oh that's right... Only I have to provide proof (which you then dismiss because it's a "conspiracy theory" or because my source is "biased"). Republican opinions count as factual evidence.

    Here's some proof for you which shows that the OPPOSITE is happening:

    Democrat vets issue call to political arms. (excerpt) Washington -- Marine Lt. Col. Tim Dunn landed in Iraq the day the country's interim president was assassinated just outside U.S. command headquarters. He spent the next six months dodging guerrilla attacks, sometimes surviving by sheer luck.

    "I never really experienced anything like I experienced in Iraq", said Dunn, a decorated veteran from North Carolina who also served in the Persian Gulf War and Kosovo.

    What Dunn said he saw in Iraq -- the lack of security, soldiers and vehicles without proper armor -- is helping fuel his latest mission: running for Congress.

    Standing Wednesday on the National Mall with 39 other veteran-candidates, Dunn motioned toward the Capitol dome and told a small crowd, "We are fighting for change, all of us. It's time to take the Hill".

    More than 50 war veterans are running as Democrats for the House in the fall elections, 10 of them veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Republicans said they have 41 veterans running and two are Iraq vets: Van Taylor, who is seeking a Texas congressional seat, and Hiram Lewis, who is running for a Senate seat in West Virginia.

    But the Democrats have united under a single banner, calling themselves Veterans for a Secure America. They say they're running to give voice to public impatience with the Iraq war and broad distrust of a Republican-run White House, House and Senate mired in scandals.

    "We need you now more than ever", former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a triple amputee Vietnam veteran, told them at their gathering. "Our country is headed in the wrong direction".

    Dunn said he expected the veterans to have "instant credibility" with the public on national security issues, a realm Republicans traditionally dominate. (By Bob Kemper, Cox News Service. 2/9/2006)

     
  • At 5/3/06 2:44 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    bush is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. At least 30,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians and over 3,000 US soldiers killed in his illegal preventive war with Iraq.

    Against International law maybe, but not US law. Oh by the way, Saddam broke over 15 times as many laws as we did.

    Then there is also the deaths he is responsible for in New Orleans. People who could have been saved if he had acted quickly, AS HE PROMISED.


    Again, you don't understand that the president has little power over these things. Your proposed plan was the same as the pres. so in effect you're critizing your own plan.

    Proof? Oh that's right... Only I have to provide proof (which you then dismiss because it's a "conspiracy theory" or because my source is "biased"). Republican opinions count as factual evidence.

    Proof? We've elected Bush twice. How much more proof do you need that this country doesn't like liberals? Wake up.

    Here's some proof for you which shows that the OPPOSITE is happening:

    Democrat vets issue call to political arms.


    Yeah 50 or so. Wow.

     
  • At 5/3/06 2:46 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    bush is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. At least 30,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians and over 3,000 US soldiers killed in his illegal preventive war with Iraq.

    Okay so here's the score in three years:

    Bush: 33,000
    Saddam had we lost:3,000,000

    See the difference? Bush has saved 2,967,000 lives. Simple math.

     
  • At 5/3/06 2:48 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    And why does this matter? Every time there's a debate it comes to the same thing. Always the war. You liberals always sidetrack if you can't win. Why don't you STAY ON TOPIC?

     
  • At 6/3/06 6:00 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Against International law maybe, but not US law.

    The United States is bound by International Law. Article 6 of the US Constitution, The "Supremacy Clause" states: Clause two provides that the Constitution, and laws and treaties made pursuant to it, constitute the supreme law of the land.

    The United States is one of the signatory nations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which is an international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy".

    Excerpt from "Preventive War" and International Law After Iraq: The new Bush doctrine of "preventive war" which was published in the National Security Strategy in September 2002 contemplates attacking a state in the absence of specific evidence of a pending attack. This doctrine marks a departure from the prohibition of the use of force under international law, starting from the Kellogg-Briand pact, the establishment of the Nuremberg Charter, the conclusion of the United Nations Charter and the establishment of the International Criminal Court, and marks a return to a readiness to use force in international relations.

    Following the publication of that doctrine, the United States, together with United Kingdom, Australia and other States, launched an attack on Iraq, having failed to gain approval of the Security Council under Chapter VII. Many international lawyers believe that attack was illegal and amounted to a war of aggression.

    bush's preventive war policy is illegal under International law, and illegal under Article 6 of the US Constitution.

    DarkSaturos said... Again, you don't understand that the president has little power over these things. Your proposed plan was the same as the pres. so in effect you're critizing your own plan.

    Inane nonsense. Disregarded. Do you want to try again, or is this ridiculous, completely false argument the best you can come up with?

    DarkSaturos said... Yeah 50 or so. Wow.

    The point was that 50 Iraq vets are running as Democrats compared to 2 Iraq vets running as Republicans! Yes, I'd say WOW. More proof that your claims about our soldiers are completely WRONG.

    DarkSaturos said... And why does this matter? Every time there's a debate it comes to the same thing. Always the war. You liberals always sidetrack if you can't win. Why don't you STAY ON TOPIC?

    YES, always the war!! Our soldiers dying for bush's lies is something I'll bring up at every opportunity. bush's lied, people died! As for staying on topic -- you asked a question, I answered it. How is that sidetracking? And again, you imply that you are winning the argument! WHO has the big ego? WHO wants to be the center of attention? Clearly it is YOU.

    I just heard about a new book I think every bush supporter here should check out -- A book written by a Reagan Conservative. Seriously, I think you people need to get a clue as to why bush is so bad for our country.

    Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. By Bruce Bartlett. 2006.

    Bartlett, an economist and former Reagan administration official, attacks the Bush administration hard but from the political Right. Challenging Bush's conservative principles of operation and credentials, Bartlett actually gives former president Clinton more credit for following conservative economic principles. In contrast, the Bush administration has been marked by shortsightedness, if not anti--intellectualism, too willing to reward friends without regard to competency and to punish as enemies those who deviate from the party line. Bush's shortcomings include his drug bill, trade policies, and expanded regulatory requirements. Interestingly, Bartlett concludes that Bush's relentless effort to cut taxes will leave an unenviable legacy for a conservative -- the need for America's largest tax increase. Bartlett also takes the administration to task for corruption that violates the principles of difference the Republican Party declared during the campaign against Clinton. This is a worthy critique, one that the administration will not be able to dismiss as liberal propaganda.

     
  • At 6/3/06 6:09 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Og all your tedious post that had to do with the law comment it doesn't prove that he broke the law. What was that about?

    Again this is not on topic. The topic is the port deal. Anyhting not pertaining to it will not be responded to from hereon out.

     
  • At 6/3/06 6:24 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Og all your tedious post that had to do with the law comment it doesn't prove that he broke the law. What was that about?

    What was that about??! It was about answering the question YOU ASKED! You claimed that the United States can ignore international law. I pointed out that's not true according to the US Constitution. Again, I thought you read at a college level!

    DarkSaturos said... Again this is not on topic. The topic is the port deal. Anyhting not pertaining to it will not be responded to from hereon out.

    YOU changed the topic when you started talking about my desire to be the center of attention. How was that on topic? I defended myself. Then you asked some questions and I answered them.

    My guess is that you couldn't understand my last post, so you decided to ignore it, saying I was "off topic".

    I am finished responding to your posts. It's pointless to argue with someone who can't even understand what I'm writing due to his low reading comprehension level.

     
  • At 6/3/06 8:03 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I am finished responding to your posts. It's pointless to argue with someone who can't even understand what I'm writing due to his low reading comprehension level."

    How long will it take to get you to stop responding to my comments?

    I said...
    "In fact, if he does try to veto any bills trying to stop this transaction, I'll call for his impeachment on the grounds of treason."

    w-dervish said...
    "Now it sounds to me like you've backed away from your original extreme stand. Have you?"

    I have not. I have been immensely dissapointed with the president recently, and this issue is just an outrage, and if he goes through with this deal I'll stick with what I said. Anyone who puts American lives at risk needs to get out of office.

    The reason I'm angry at you is the fact that you are Republican bashing on an issue that we actually agree on. We say it's foreign relations with good intentions, but a bad reality. You say it's motivated by money. Who knows who's is right, there's really no way to prove either side, so we might as well just agree to disagree on that little bit, and agree on the rest of it.

    "Whatever you do don't stoop to his level."

    I get a little heated once in a while, once per thread at the most. But the only way to stoop to his level is to be heated in nearly every comment. THAT I won't do.

     
  • At 6/3/06 8:13 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    w-dervish said...
    "bush's lied, people died!"

    Ugh...

    No, No, No No, No. Bush told the honest truth every time when it came to Iraq, he has not lied once. Yes, people did die. It's a war. I'm just glad you weren't alive during WWII. You'd probably protest the idea of taking down Hitler to save the millions of Jews that had been tortured. Just like you protest the idea of taking down Saddam to save the million(s) of Iraqi's he tortured.

     
  • At 6/3/06 8:49 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    What was that about??! It was about answering the question YOU ASKED! You claimed that the United States can ignore international law. I pointed out that's not true according to the US Constitution. Again, I thought you read at a college level!

    Er dervish, international law was not AROUND back during the Constitution writing days.

     
  • At 6/3/06 8:50 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I am finished responding to your posts.

    Geez finally. How long did it take him to realize that he's not wanted here?

     
  • At 7/3/06 12:43 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... The reason I'm angry at you is the fact that you are Republican bashing on an issue that we actually agree on.

    I said I was sorry about my initial comment to your first post on this topic. We do agree this deal isn't a good thing. I'm NOT Republican bashing! I'm bush bashing! I've said it before and I'll say it again -- bush ISN'T a Republican. Other Republicans agree -- check out the book I recommended in my last post.

    Cody Said... You say it's motivated by money. Who knows who's is right, there's really no way to prove either side, so we might as well just agree to disagree on that little bit, and agree on the rest of it.

    John Snow sat on the board that approved this deal, and he's going to make a LOT money as a result. Can we also agree that is a Conflict of Interest?

    DarkSaturos said... Er dervish, international law was not AROUND back during the Constitution writing days.

    From Wikipedia: The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was completed on September 17, 1787.

    Also from Wikipedia, The History of International Law: The development of modern public international law is usually traced back to the Westphalian treaties of 1648...

    1648 came BEFORE 1787. Do you disagree?

    What I posted was a direct quote from Article 6 of the Constitution. Are you trying to tell me that Article 6 doesn't exist?

    Cookoo!

     
  • At 7/3/06 6:12 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I'm NOT Republican bashing! I'm bush bashing! I've said it before and I'll say it again -- bush ISN'T a Republican."

    I would have to disagree, he's a Republican simply because that's the party he affiliates with, just like John McCain is a Republican because of their affiliation. But what they aren't, in my opinion, is real Conservatives

    "John Snow sat on the board that approved this deal, and he's going to make a LOT money as a result. Can we also agree that is a Conflict of Interest?"

    Well, since I don't really know anything about John Snow (except for what his occupation is), I can't really defend him, so it's anyones guess what he's trying to do here.

     
  • At 7/3/06 2:55 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 7/3/06 2:58 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I thought he said he wasn't responding anymore. I wish these liberals would keep thier promises once in a while...

    1648 came BEFORE 1787. Do you disagree?

    I meant international law that RELATES TO THE US. It was not around in 1648. In fact the U.S. wasn't around in 1648. 1648 came before 1776 would you disagree? Also the Westphalian Treaties aren't really international law per sey. International law pertains to the world in general, wheras the Westphalian Treaties were about Europe's laws only. You're just playing sementics.

     
  • At 7/3/06 3:02 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    In fact if you want to use international law in that context (which is incorrect by the way) you'd have to go all the way back to Classical Greece, maybe before. Possibly the Assyrians.

    Also I see nothing in Article 6 that has to do with international law in its correct context. Again, it has more to do with Europe and America only. There is nothing in there that has anything to do with going to war either, so I'm not sure what you were trying to prove...

     
  • At 7/3/06 6:18 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I thought he said he wasn't responding anymore. I wish these liberals would keep thier promises once in a while...

    I thought you said you wouldn't respond unless my comment was on topic. Why didn't you keep YOUR promise?

    DarkSaturos said... Also I see nothing in Article 6 that has to do with international law in its correct context.

    Article 6 of the US Constitution, Clause two, provides that the Constitution, and laws and treaties made pursuant to it, constitute the supreme law of the land.

    In other words, the US is bound to honor the treaties it signs. I already posted this. I guess you missed it the first time. I don't know what you mean by "correct context".

    DarkSaturos said... I meant international law that RELATES TO THE US. It was not around in 1648. In fact the U.S. wasn't around in 1648.

    Yes, the US couldn't sign or be bound by any treaties BEFORE the US Constitution was written! However, the framers did anticipate that the US might sign some treaties, which is why Article 6 was written.

    As for International law that relates to the US -- I already gave you the name of the relevant treaty! I guess you missed it the first time -- so here it is AGAIN:

    The Kellogg-Briand Pact: An international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy".

    The US signed this treaty, which means, according to Article 6, it is part of "the supreme law of the land".

    International laws which APPLY to the United States because the US helped develop and agreed to them:

    The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the Nuremberg Principles -- Under which George Bush could be charged with crimes against peace and war crimes.

    Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    War Crimes: murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war (torture), plunder of public or private property (oil), wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity (shock and awe).

    The United Nations Charter: The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states' conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)

    Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances existed prior to bush's Invasion of Iraq.

    The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq had not attacked any state, nor was there any evidence showing that an attack by Iraq was imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.

    Seeing as the US failed to gain approval for military action against iraq under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter many international lawyers believe that attack was illegal and amounted to a war of aggression. (Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy, Global Action to Prevent War.)

    The International Criminal Court: Established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (which the US signed). US President Bill Clinton signed the ICC treaty, although it has not been ratified by the US Senate. Signing has some legal consequences from customary international law. A state is expected not to sabotage a treaty it has signed even though it has not ratified it.

    The United Kingdom, Australia and Poland, parties to the "Coalition of the willing", did sign the treaty, and therefore their nationals are liable to prosecution by the court for any relevant crimes. As the United States is not a state party, American citizens can only be prosecuted by the court if the crime takes place in the territory of a state party (e.g. Jordan), or if the situation is referred to it by the United Nations Security Council.

    The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006, that it had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. Many of these complaints concerned the British participation in the the invasion, as well as the alleged responsibility for torture deaths whilst in detention in British-controlled areas.

    DarkSaturos said... Also the Westphalian Treaties aren't really international law per sey. International law pertains to the world in general, wheras the Westphalian Treaties were about Europe's laws only. You're just playing sementics.

    First you try to tell me that international law didn't even exist when the constitution was written, now you're going to teach me all about it?! This intellectually superior delusion of yours is becoming tiresome. Finally, your reference to my "playing sementics" makes no sense. Disregarded.

     
  • At 7/3/06 6:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I thought you said you wouldn't respond unless my comment was on topic. Why didn't you keep YOUR promise?

    Because I wasn't referring to this post. In fact if you look that comment was on a completely different post. Maybe you should keep your comments and others' straight.

    In other words, the US is bound to honor the treaties it signs.

    Yeah and? This is international law how?

    The Kellogg-Briand Pact: An international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy".

    So? The war's not about that, so it doesn't apply.

    plunder of public or private property (oil),

    Wait let's get this straight, we have an oil crisis and were plundering oil? How does that work?

    The United Nations Charter:

    Again, don't care about the UN. They've been proven corrupt.

    First you try to tell me that international law didn't even exist when the constitution was written, now you're going to teach me all about it?! This intellectually superior delusion of yours is becoming tiresome. Finally, your reference to my "playing sementics" makes no sense. Disregarded.

    International law did NOT exist. Avoiding the explanation why are we? I gave you the reasons why it didn't make sense, taken from YOUR OWN LINK. Maybe your link is wrong. As for playing sementics do you know what it means (without going to dictionary .com)?

     
  • At 7/3/06 11:25 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Because I wasn't referring to this post. In fact if you look that comment was on a completely different post. Maybe you should keep your comments and others' straight.

    It was in THIS thread that you said you weren't going to reply to me any longer if I wasn't on topic. Here's the post:

    "Again this is not on topic. The topic is the port deal. Anyhting not pertaining to it will not be responded to from hereon out".

    Can't keep YOUR comments straight?

    DarkSaturos said... Yeah and? This is international law how?

    Sources of International Law: International law has three primary sources -- international treaties, custom, and general principles of law. (Reference.com)

    Notice the word I bolded: TREATIES. Treaties are one of the three sources of International Law. The US is obligated to adhere to treaties it signs, as per Article VI of the US Constitution. This is the last time I am going to answer this question.

    DarkSaturos said... Again, don't care about the UN. They've been proven corrupt.

    Your personal feelings about the UN are completely irrelative. The US signed UN charter and is bound to follow it's laws pursuant to Article VI of the US Constitution.

    United Nations Charter: As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945... (United Nations Charter Wikipedia entry)

    Notice the section I bolded. The UN charter is a constituent treaty. AGAIN, The US is obligated to adhere to treaties it signs, as per Article VI of the US Constitution.

    DarkSaturos said... International law did NOT exist. Avoiding the explanation why are we?

    YES, International Law existed when the Constitution was signed!

    From one of YOUR previous posts: "In fact if you want to use international law in that context (which is incorrect by the way) you'd have to go all the way back to Classical Greece, maybe before. Possibly the Assyrians".

    Again, I'm don't know what you're talking about when you refer to the "correct context", but clearly you are acknowledging the existence of International Law PRIOR to the creation of the US Constitution. Why do you think anyone should take your posts seriously when you aren't being consistent with your arguments?

    DarkSaturos said... I gave you the reasons why it didn't make sense, taken from YOUR OWN LINK. Maybe your link is wrong.

    Again, I don't know what you're talking about. WHAT didn't make sense? WHAT did you take from the page I linked to?

    DarkSaturos said... As for playing sementics do you know what it means (without going to dictionary .com)?

    It means absolutely nothing, since "sementics" isn't a word. If you meant "semantics", nothing I posted could be categorized as "playing semantics". If you bring up this nonsense again I'm going to ignore it.

     
  • At 8/3/06 6:28 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    War Crimes: murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war (torture), plunder of public or private property (oil), wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity (shock and awe)."



    Too bad we didn't break any of that, huh dervish?

    "crimes against peace"

    A war of aggression and against peace? BS. Saddam was killing people and he posed a threat against us, in my opinion the war is for peace, look at all the people we've saved from a murderous dictator.

    "War Crimes"

    This is more BS. We aren't killing or torturing prisoners. The worst "torture" that's gone on at Gitmo is (and this is one of the things Rumsfeld ordered) playing Brittany Spears music! And don't tell me this is for oil, if this was for oil we'd be...duh... getting oil! Use your head!

     
  • At 8/3/06 8:19 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... A war of aggression and against peace?

    Yes.


    Cody O'Connor said... BS.

    No.

    Cody O'Connor said... Saddam was killing people

    So why aren't we lining them ALL up and taking them ALL down (murderous dictators that is)?? Because this war IS about oil. Get a clue!

    Cody O'Connor said... he posed a threat against us

    BS.

    Cody O'Connor said... in my opinion the war is for peace, look at all the people we've saved from a murderous dictator.

    In my opinion it's about oil. And an excuse to funnel money upwards. Halliburton??

    Cody O'Connor said... This is more BS. We aren't killing or torturing prisoners.

    Yes we are killing and torturing prisoners. I gave you the links! And this is the stuff that leaked out! Trust me, theres a lot more that we don't know about!

    Cody O'Connor said... And don't tell me this is for oil, if this was for oil we'd be...duh... getting oil! Use your head!

    Why would "we" (the American People) be getting oil?? That money is going to bush cronies! Think about it -- the oil companies are making record profits! They didn't offer to share any of that money with you did they? Use YOUR head!

     
  • At 8/3/06 2:52 PM, Blogger Sofocleto said…

    Write to a congressmen? Yes!

    An explanation from Vice President Richard Cheney regarding the "orders" described by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in his testimony before The 9/11 Commission. Secretary Mineta stated that while in an underground bunker at the White House, he watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as a plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The officer should be identified and allowed to testify at a deposition under oath.

    See HERE

     
  • At 8/3/06 2:55 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Your personal feelings about the UN are completely irrelative. The US signed UN charter and is bound to follow it's laws pursuant to Article VI of the US Constitution.

    I can assure you article VI has nothing in it about the UN dervish.

    So why aren't we lining them ALL up and taking them ALL down (murderous dictators that is)??

    Because they're not ALL threats to the US. The middle eastern ones gernerally are. You want to end the war AND fight ALL the dictators? That sounds difficult.

     
  • At 9/3/06 11:54 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I can assure you article VI has nothing in it about the UN dervish.

    I didn't say it did! Either you're acting stupid in an attempt to "trick" me into answering this question again -- or you are a total freakin' moron! FOR THE LAST TIME:

    Article VI concerns TREATIES. The UN Charter is a TREATY. Under Article VI, TREATIES, when signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, become part of the "supreme law of the land". The UN Charter was signed by President Harry S. Truman and ratified by the Senate on August 8, 1945.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home