Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Liberty]

Liberty, why don't you actually post the comment made by McCain IN ITS ENTIRETY. You're being duped, and you're perpetuating an untruth. McCain never once - not once! - said he'd drag the war out 100 years. Never one time. If you can show me where he said that, I'll mail you a $5 bill. What he said was that he could see leaving troops in Iraq as long as it was a safe area for 100 years. He then made the comparison to Germany, Japan, and Korea, stating that we've had troops there for 50 years and would likely have them there for many more. You're being a puppet if you spout this crap without checking your facts.

As for the economy? Go read my post on the topic. There's a lot there which would indicate McCain has a better understanding that anyone is giving him credit for.

$5? I'd prefer a McCain poster.

[Liberty]

Screw it. You people are making all these accusations and perpetuating fraud without coming back with any actual research, so I've done it for you yet again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Here's the speech you're twisting around Liberty. Pay special attention to the part where he compares the positioning of troops to the same all over the globe in every other place we've fought wars as well as to the qualifying statement that it would be conditional on the safety of Americans.

Oh, yeah, Simple task, given the fact that THOSE PEOPLE DON'T WANT US IN THEIR BACKYARD! Well, maybe after 100 years.

[Ghost]

You have to have UN approval to go to war. Or are we going down the "we are the United States of America and we answer to no one" route.

[Liberty]

Liberty, you are running scared. I never said that you couldn't debate whether or not the war was right, honest, just, moral, ethical, or any of those things. If you want to call the war a dishonest, unethical, wrong war, that's absolutely fine. But it is not illegal.

Pay attention.

I am not attacking your views on the war. I am attacking your dishonesty. There are plenty of terms you could use to express your disgust, and those would be entirely justified. But to call the war illegal makes you a liar, especially now that you know what constitues legality. You're telling people that it is a criminal war because people lied, and in criticizing the war, you're lying about what it is! In other words, you're using lies to convince people that Bush lied.

My only argument is that the war is legal. And it is. You cannot prove that it isn't, because every legal procedure was followed, and all the votes needed to pass it were cast. Lying about the criminality of the war blows your credibility, especially if your primary accusation is that all those people were liars!

Mike, I stand corrected. As mandated by Congress, the war is legal. It's my own fault. What I meant was it is MORALLY illegal. A few years ago, my dad sold a rental house he had. The people gave a down payment. Later, they decided they wanted to get out and invest in something else. So they lied through their teeth so as not to be able to qaulify for the loan. My dad (after firing his attorney) was told by their attorney that ethically he was right, but that legally he was wrong. Luckily he was able to pull something along the lines of what what Obama proposes -force Corportae leader's hands by first uniting the American people behind him - and walk away with most of the downpaymnet in a settlement out of court. I meant morally illegal. I know, I know, you don't believe it. That's fine.

[Ghost]

COngress has nothing to do with it. Congress votes if they want to go to war, at that point it is legal within the constitution but not within international law. they have to go to the UN and get approval.

[Ghost]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Here we are:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

[Liberty]

Doesn't change the truth. You're misquoting again and failing to research what you're saying before you pop off about things. McCain never said what you accused him of saying, and instead of being a big enough man to say, "Damn. I guess I was wrong," you just bowl on like you didn't just try to slime the guy.

Where's your own integrity here? I've shown on at least two occasions in the last ten minutes that what you have said is patently false. I have PROVEN that you were wrong, and I've done so empirically. And you aren't even willing to acknowledge your own mistakes? Your answer is to throw some more unsupported mud at McCain?

Poor.

Damn. I guess I was wrong about the quote.

[Ghost]

Its above, tahts the leader of the United Nations saying the UN says its illegal. That makes it illegal. It doesnt get clearer than that.

[Liberty]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Here we are:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Ghost, Mike is right on this one. Doesn't justify the lying and criminal behavior that justified it, including setting things up so the UN was no longer a factor. It's nothing new, the twisting, coercian, setting up of things so some can have their way by legal means.

I'm saddened he'd argue legality at the expense of the ethics that were violated, the lives that continue to be lost. Saddned as I really like the guy.

[Ghost]

Ghost, Mike is right on this one. Doesn't justify the lying and criminal behavior that justified it, including setting things up so the UN was no longer a factor. It's nothing new, the twisting, coercian, setting up of things so some can have their way by legal means.

I'm saddened he'd argue legality at the expense of the ethics that were violated, the lives that continue to be lost. Saddned as I really like the guy.

I dont see how he is right. The UN says its illegal. Congress has nothing to do with this.
Does anyone understand you have to have UN authorization to do this.

[Liberty]

Is a made-up term. It can be morally unacceptable, reprehensible, or whatever, but as yet, there are no statutes that govern morality. What the people did you your father is called fraud. It's immoral AND illegal. If this war is a fraud because Bush lied, then it could indeed be immoral, but it is not illegal.

Made up term - that's your arguement? If this war is a fraud because Bush lied, hunh? Talk about strange logic.

[Ghost]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

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 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


Regardless of asking for evidence, the UN has said its illegal.

[Tant01]

Pardon my intrusion as I tend to shy away from political debate but the UN is an idealistic bag of hot air. An inflated puppet supported by the authority of it's member nations. It is loud and tactful but has no teeth. It is a scared little puppy with her tail between her legs...

Just my opinion...


The term "peacekeeping" is not found in the United Nations Charter and defies simple definition. Dag Hammarskjöld, the second UN Secretary-General, referred to it as belonging to "Chapter Six and a Half" of the Charter, placing it between traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully, such as negotiation and mediation under Chapter VI, and more forceful action as authorized under Chapter VII.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/

[Liberty]

Yes, Liberty. "Morally illegal" is a term without meaning. Since you are fond of using the dictionary, allow me: (the following excerpted from Merriam Webster online)

These exclude definitions that are irrelevant to the discussion.



Now,



Please illustrate to me how the law legislates morals, especially and specfically those regarding the exercise of Articles 1 and 2 of the US Constitution. There are no legal provisions, and so morals are not "according to or authorized by law."

Your term is an attempt to draw a parallel to a sort of behavior you think lends more weight to your argument (criminal and illegal dealings) instead of just calling it what it is or stating an opinion. When you do this, you're using dialectic to make points rather than using sound reason and logic. Like I said, there are plenty of perfectly defensible ways to make your point about how wrong you think the war is without falsely labelling it illegal.

Like your attempts to confuse your "liking the guy" with my arguments for accuracy, this is a bogus and propagandist tack. You're trying to make me a bad guy because I'm asking you to be accurate in your statements and because I'm not letting you slide with sensationalism. We have not been discussing the morality or ethics of the war. Because of your statements, we've been discussing the legality of the war. I'm more than happy to discuss the ethics and morals separately if you like, but before we do that, I want to make sure you're actually paying attention to what you say. Thus far, you have made several claims that turned out to be false andunresearched. You've padded arguments with sensationalised statements for effect, and you've been completely unwilling to address points that you bring up after I have answered them.

Look back at the point about the economy, for example. Everyone bitched and whined that McCain was inferior on the economy than Obama. What happened as soon as I posted McCain's economic policies, record, and explanations of all of it? The same group (and it wasn't just Ghost) that called McCain out on the economy switched topics instead of addressing my points. Is that what I can xpect on this one too? Am I going to spend hours researching and typing responses to you about McCain's moral and ethical positions on war only to have you pull a bait and switch so you don't have to talk about why I'm right? Because believe me, Liberty (and Ghost, and Arieson, and anyone and everyone else that wants to take this on) I welcome the opportunity to talk about McCain's ethical and moral positions on war compared with others.

Whatever, twist it anyway you like. Yu now very well, if we go moral on this issue you left cold in in your tracks.

[jubaji]

WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Now, now mike, thats not how it works. Its all about the UN. That be the rules.

LOL! The distorted world view of idealistic but impotent Europeans is pretty darn funny sometimes!!!