[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Iraq's violation of UN resolutions IS between Iraq and The United States.

No, it's not. Iraq signed a ceasefire with the UN. It's completely up to the UN membership to enforce that treaty. Not only do I oppose the UN and it's one world government aspirations, I oppose any involvement by the US government in UN treaties with other countries.

We are the only credible force in the UN and they have descended into corrupt chaos that we are not bound by. Kofi's and the UN's hands were so dirty with the prostitution of Iraq that any perceived credibility that they had was lost long ago.

That's the way the UN, and it's predessor the League of Nations, has always been. Indeed, since both were the dreams of various socialists worldwide, it's not difficult to know why the UN is so muddled up.

We are not bound to abide by the UN.

The current, and past, US governments like the fig leaf the UN provides; and use it routinely for whatever it's pleasure d'jour is. If you want to use the UN, abiding by the UN Charter (a treaty) is a must.

They are not our government.

That's correct. However, since you want a UN-Iraq treaty to be enforced by the US government, Resolution 1441 I believe, then you'd be in full support of the UN and all of its warts.

Either you want the UN, or not, there's no in between.

The Founders NEVER envisioned our national security or sovereignty to be handed over to a collection of foreign dictators and other socialist scumbags;

Well, actually Hamilton did, but as I've stated, he was a criminal scumbag. Aaron Burr is one of my personal heros.

although the Constitution has been MISINTERPRETED to read that it has (something you formerly were against, but your pendulum seems to swing in favor of for this particular issue), it hasn't. The Founders did not envision this perversion of the Constitution, and you and I both know it...So save your wishy-washy schizophrenic interpretation of the Constitution for someone more gullible.

It's not my interpretation, M-dose, it's the federal government interpretation. I refer you to Marbury vs. Madison and then McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) for further evidence of the federal government expanding it's powers on its own.

Bush broke no Constitutional mandate or law. I don't care how many far-right nobodys or communist websites say it. We are not bound by the UN's corrupt dictates (forgive the pun). Our President is invested with wartime powers, by the Constitution, with the approval of the Senate, under the procedures set forth in the FISA rulings.

No, the president has no specific increase in power during a war. His limits remain the same, war or no war.

Saddam was harboring and funding international terrorists, terrorists involved with 9-11.

No, that's a lie. There has been absolutely no credible evidence of involvement by the Iraqi's in the terrorist attacks against America. Terrorist attacks against other nations aren't relevant or applicable under US law.

These terrorists not only had a safe-haven in Iraq, but they had a willing accomplice (Saddam Hussein) who would love nothing more than to anonymously detonate a nook-u-lur bomb in the US or Israel...Al qaeda had a track record of being able to deliver an effective long range throw...BINGO!!!...Justification.

So Al Qaeda has intercontinent ballistic missiles, better call your guy in the White House with this new information.

In fact, beyond what we know about the criminals involved in 9/11; we know little about any conspiracy by others to aid them. The government in Arabia is a prime suspect in the funding of those on the aircraft in 2001; yet the Bush'ists have done nothing about that. Further, there's abundant evidence of at least peripheral Israeli involvement, about which not only has Bush done nothing, he's sheltered Israeli spy's in Washington.

Pat, buddy, you are walking arm-in-arm with the anti-American communists in liberal drag, does that not concern you in the slightest?

Yeah, well, when I'm done with them, I'll cast their sweating bodies aside.

The problem here is that you see black and white, and no other colors. You think you're a conservative, yet you advocate a wide range of internationalist (communist) views; particularly that of international military adventurism.

You like to claim that those that oppose Bush's swelling of government; and demand for smaller government, as dupe's of the left; yet when I point out how socialist Bush actually is, you make apologies for that (at best) or simply press on with your no holds barred support for this most corrupt administration.