The US was not in any danger

Speculative.

The US Congress gave the authorizaton to "use force IF
NECESSARY" because they were told we were "in danger"

Which is the total descretion of the Executive Branch.

But you can't rebut any of the proven evidence that
NONE of Bushs reasons for wanting to attack Iraq were
truth.

First; You've provided no evidence of any "proven truth" that needs
rebuttal.

Secondly; "Bush's reasons" were acknowledged and accepted by
Congress:

The UN denied the authority

Where? Oh that's right...you don't provide evidence, just claims.

With the Authority of the UN, and within THEIR
guidelines.

Articles from the UN Charter previously provided.

The United states didn't enforce sanctions of it's own
making---it was enforcing UN sanctions

Yep...as part of a coalition of nations

It had no authority to make up it's own sanctions.

What United States "sanctions" are you referring to wrt Iraq?

The evidence that was presented was found flawed,
untrue, and without signifcant threat to anyone.

Gee...I can see now why you don't post evidence. I

"The Security Council refused to consider AUTHORIZING
and invasion"

There was no reason to "invade" anywhere. Coalition members enforced
the UN Security Council resolutions that had ALREADY passed.

Why would bush ask for authorization from them in the
FIRST place--if he "didn't need to"??

I don't recall Bush asking for UN "authorization", but he hoped for
cooperation.

the US doesn't require UN "authorization" in
fulfilling their treaty obligations., obligations that include
enforcement of resolutions already passed.

The parents (for my scenario) would be your mom and dad which
represent the UN Security Council (which would include the US), and
you would represent Iraq.

Your parents "agreed you would be punished for breaking the rule"....
(that'd be BOTH your mom and dad)...

..."and one of them said they'd enforce your punishment". (That'd be
your mom OR your dad)

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:


no. the people (majority rule in a republic) have voluntarily
given up some freedom in exchange for medicare.



My rights can't voluntarily be given up by someone else. To say
so implies that rights aren't inalienable.

What are you trying to justify here?



what inalienable right did the minority unjustly have to forfeit
thanks to medicare?



The right of choice.


that's broad enough to preclude a great number of laws on the books.
everything from zoning laws to dress codes to building codes to
energy efficiency standards to environmental regulations, and even
the military draft.

so we can rest this debate on the worthiness of medicare - or if you
prefer - whether our system of government as practiced by majority
rule routinely abridges inalienable rights.

For the latter, yes, it does, which makes it totalitarian.

The American system of government, the one held up as the model to the
world, is totalitarian??!! yes, i'd be happy to let the debate rest on
that one.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
The parents (for my scenario) would be your mom and dad which
represent the UN Security Council (which would include the US), and
you would represent Iraq.

Your parents "agreed you would be punished for breaking the rule"....
(that'd be BOTH your mom and dad)...

..."and one of them said they'd enforce your punishment". (That'd be
your mom OR your dad)

Not even close

The "mom and dad" never gave permission to use corporal
punishment to "enforce" their rules

"mom and dad" gave an order that for "disobedience"---a
specific set of rules would be enforced

NO WHERE in that Scenario did the "mom and dad" give
ANYONE permission to take a whip and beat the child for
imagined "disobedience"

You simply cannot conjure up ANY silly scenario to fit
a PROVEN set of failures of the BUSH adminstration in
the Attack on Iraq

Once again, absent ANY known, logic, or evidence that
Iraq was a "clear and present danger" to the United
states, why would an invasion of Iraq  be necessary to
jepoardize OUR troops and start a major war?

You can't find any, can't conjure up any---you trying
to justify what History cannot---is just showing
everyone what a tin-hat troll you are.