BF2S Forums Colin Powell endorse Obama

Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states:
The Purposes of the United Nations are

To maintain international peace and security, 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.

Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]

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.

FEOS wrote:

Pictures weren't made up. Signals intercepts weren't made up.

But your argument that the intel was fabricated or didn't support the conclusion that he had an active program is farcical.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-28 04:52:45)

FEOS wrote:

Please point out where it says a signatory gives up their sovereign rights as a nation when signing.

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.

You imply a malice of forethought where none exists and you have no proof of such...or even circumstantial evidence of such.

The way Saddam was behaving WRT UN inspection cooperation, the only "proof" that a WMD program existed would be the use of said weapons.

Since when has incontrovertible proof been a requirement for anything? That's not even a requirement in a court of law, ffs.

specops10-4 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

I really wish people would stop saying Obama's got it on lock

So would I. I'm getting sick of it, because it's simply not true. Anything can happen.

Cockiness, if anything, will kill voter turnout.

I assume that was you who gave me the karma, but other than making an insult, I really don't think I made an ass out of myself as much as you did.  If you don't understand I guess I will have to refresh your memory...

Poseidon wrote:

Nothing really matters at this point, but it's nice to see. I'm sure it'll pull in a few vets, if anything.

Poseidon wrote:

I just use RCP, and he's been within the 6-9 point range for about 2 weeks now.

I'm sure it'll help. What I meant to say was that he'll still be leading when the day is done. Will it help increase his lead? Probably by a little bit, sure. I'm sure it'll pull some undecided votes in.

McCain however...well...

I think he'll be pulling a Brett Favre/Hillary Clinton soon.

http://cdn.faniq.com/images/blog/brett% … crying.JPG

I'm an Obama supporter as well, but its people like YOU who might kill voter turn out.  I really don't want to have a "flame war", but this kind of stuff really annoys me.

specops10-4 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

McCain however...well...

I think he'll be pulling a Brett Favre/Hillary Clinton soon.

Do I really have to point it out again...

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-31 05:08:15)

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

usmarine wrote:

they better pass #6 in ohio or i will kill someone.  /fact

Why do you care so much if two guys (or girls) want to get married? I mean, personally, I think it's fucked up and gross too. But that isn't going to stop me from thinking that they should be able to do what they want

*turns this topic into gay marriage topic*

As I see it, marriage is just something that happens between two consenting adults

Braddock wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

usmarine wrote:

they better pass #6 in ohio or i will kill someone.  /fact

Why do you care so much if two guys (or girls) want to get married? I mean, personally, I think it's fucked up and gross too. But that isn't going to stop me from thinking that they should be able to do what they want

*turns this topic into gay marriage topic*

As I see it, marriage is just something that happens between two consenting adults

I reckon that anyone who vehemently opposes same sex marriage is, deep down, not comfortable with their own sexuality.

Dilbert wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you're saying you can't point out where a signatory gives up their sovereign rights as a nation. Got it.

Its not stated, it implicitly obvious.

Dilbert wrote:

And you don't give up your sovereign rights, if you're attacked you're free to defend yourself, otherwise deal with it through the UNSC.
Invading foreigh countries because you feel like it is not a sovereign right.

Dilbert wrote:

Still, its funny you talking about 'sovereignty' considering how many countries' sovereignty the US is meddling with right now.

Dilbert wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, there's not. At least not outside of your own tinfoil-hat "theories".

Yes there is, and they're not tin foil hat theories.

Dilbert wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Or evidence showing sanitization of sites immediately prior to inspectors showing up. Oh...but those facts are inconvenient, aren't they?

Except as we know there was nothing to sanitise.

Dilbert wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The satellite photos aren't fuzzy and the signals intercepts aren't garbled.

The stuff Powell presented was pretty fuzzy and garbled TBH

Dilbert wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's not incontrovertible, now is it?

I asked for 'proved' as in 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' you brought in incontrovertible.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the US is the only country in the world doing that right now, isn't it?
If you're there at the request of that country's government, it's not "meddling".

Yes, the US is the only country meddling.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq. I don't remember you being invited in.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Being there at the request of the puppet govt you've put in place isn't quite the same.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So ask yourself the question: why would they be sanitizing the sites then? The answer is quite apparent: They either had or thought they had something that needed to be handled that way.

Who says they sanitised anything? There was nothing to be sanitised. Maybe they were just driving trucks around.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The signatures associated with WMD handling are unique and completely distinct from conventional weapons handling. It's not like they can be confused with something else.

Well you guys got confused.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not really. And Powell stated up front that what was being presented was not the sum total of the intel available, but merely a sample. A sample that we felt comfortable releasing publicly...which means it wasn't reflective of the true nature of our sources and methods.

Bollocks, that was the best you had. Subsequent enquiries and investigations didn't turn up anything else.
Why would Powell have been uncomfortable showing anything else.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Back then, at the time of the UN presentation, it was generally accepted that Saddam had some kind of WMD program.

Not by Russia or Germany, I'm not sure about China.
And it was generally agreed invasion was NOT the answer.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, there's not. Yes, they are.

They're not theories, they are indisputable facts based on cutting edge analysis of the available intel from solid dependable sources.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But being told when to leave by that "puppet" is, right?

Thats just dodging the point.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still the Iraqis seem to have had enough of you, and are trying to nail you down a good deal.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7698509.stm

Dilbert_X wrote:

And it was nowhere close to the best we had. Nor was it anywhere close to the best the other countries who were watching had.

Then please point to some examples. Why wasn't 'better' intel presented?
The US might have steered a vote throught UNSC. Why present less than the best?

Dilbert_X wrote:

They disagreed with the proposed corrective action, not the behavior that needed to be corrected.

Nope, Russia for one didn't believe the WMD thing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Considering they've been disputed (and disproven) repeatedly, you can't really characterize them as "indisputable". Nor are they based on "cutting edge analysis of the available intel from solid dependable sources".

No U