Follow the money, Daiwa.  Follow the money.

Who profited off of Iraq? 

Are they the same people who supported the politicians who made those decisions?

Are they the same companies that were headed up by these politicians, and/or have decades long family ties to them?

Do you you think all of this is a coincidence?

How informed or naive are you about the way the world really works?

Excalpius, someone profited off each war forever. It's human nature to try to make well of, or in least an improvment over last time.

Of course, it doesn't make it right.

Politicians that make decisions only when it benefits themselves should be removed from office, but it is diffult to prove such thing happened sometimes.

Your arrogant condescension, not to mention the way you weasle & change subjects, wore thin a looooong time ago.

POst Facto Mandates.  That was all you had. If you check my link (still there), you will see there was no mandate prior to the bombing,.

YOu see none because you dont want to.  There is evidence on both sides to show the equivalency.  You are just chosing to ignore it - not refute it - ignore it because it does not fit into your world view - tunnelled as it is.

Now who is running to semantics?  There was 1 gulf war.  There was never a peace treaty signed, just an temporary end to hostilities.  Again you are being a war monger (not a pacifist) and cherry picking your battles.  Cherry picking is fine if you are honest about it and so far you have not been.

YOu can repeat that until you are blue in the face.  But it shows that you either did not read your links, do not understand what you read, or are just lying about it.  I have refuted your assertions (not your links since they never supported your assertions), and yet you myopically cling to your one note mantra (I expect a lot of that with the new messiah).

YOu can try to refute facts, but you will not succeed.  And repeating a non-sequitir does not mean you are right, only one of hte above. 

The funny thing about the idiocy of that statement is born out by the facts.  The Chinese supported Gore, not Bush. WIth the illegal contributions in repayment for the the Loral sellout.  But then if you really do follow the money, you find it in the precious hands of the Europeans - those that love peace as long as they get their piece - of the action.

China - and who did they donate to?  Gore, Clinton and Obama.  So you are saying this was all a democrat conspiracy?  I am not even that moonbeam about their slime (the former 2 - the latter to be seen).

Actually the former is kind of funny.  Like Charlie Chaplin playing the little dictator.  The latter he does not seem to be tiring of, but then just keep the subject at hand.  He will try to change it or dismiss it, but anyone reading the thread can see through that dodge.  Unfortunate for him, this forum is not filled with sheep - those are over at du.org and the rest of the lunatic left sites.

If thats what you wanna believe. I need not to bother joining this "discussion" since there are enough people already tolerating your dodgeball style posting. I have to say though, you have done a great job making it seem like you got everyone against the ropes and that no one can touch your genius, of course you can thank your dodgeball skills for that.

Agreed.  But some men START wars for profit while they are in office and some do not.

Here is NATO's own page on Kosovo, including links to the relevant UN Security Council resolution(s).  And regardless of how you want to skew or interpret the facts, the point is simply made that the world as a whole has supported NATO's actions in Kosovo (before, during, and after) but not the US's recent actions in Iraq (before, during, or, I predict, after we leave).

Even the MSM and Wikipedia know the difference, link, even if you don't.

Regardless, you know PRECISELY what my position is because I've made it crystal clear.  If YOU want to semantically state my position as "Excalpius supported the first phase of Dr Guy's own personal definition of the Gulf War (re: before the 'end of hostilities' under Bush Sr) in order to liberate Kuwait, but not the re-engagement of hostilities under Bush Jr. in order to provide trillions in war graft to Big Oil, Big Defense, and Cheney's company Halliburton", so be it. 

But it doesn't change my position whatsoever.  Neither how I've stated it nor how it is intended to be understood. 

You undercut your credibility, such as it is, when you suggest that those are gold-standard sources in your eyes.

How does the Chinese attempting to contribute to a LOSING campaign (which is illegal, was discovered, and has been rectified) have to do with the past 8 years of the WINNING candidate's obvious graft amounting to TRILLIONS? 

The French and the Russians selfishly and corruptly tried to BLOCK us from going into Iraq, because they had secured secret backdoor oil deals with Saddam.  So your amazingly inciteful point here is that there are some corrupt politicians in other countries too?! 

I'm shocked, Shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you. 

In what world would anyone take the phrase "Even the..." as me stating they are the "gold standard"?

My point was that even THESE sources dismiss his IRRELEVANT point outright. 

What would YOU consider a gold standard source on what we call each of the two Gulf Wars, and pray-tell what does any of this have to do with my point whatsoever?!

Do either of you have any POINTS to make?  Or are you just going to keep shooting spitballs?  

Foreign governments, companies, and nationals are forbidden from contributing to American Presidential campaigns.  When they've tried, they've been caught and the funds have been returned.

This forum is unthreaded so I am often answering four or five people at a time.  I apologize if that is confusing any of you.

YOu just dont get it.  Do you know what "post facto" means?  I call your attention to the following (again from your website):

NATO launched an air campaign, Operation Allied Force, in March 1999

And from the UN resolution:

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting,
on 10 June 1999

Now, for most people, March does come before June.  How is it in your world?

And for most people, I will call your attention to the part about "Security Council".  Made up of 12 member nations.  12 Nations decided.  Iraq had over 40.  So who has the bigger mandate?

Thank you for proving my point.

Wikipedia has been shown, by a court of law, not to be authoratative.  And the MSM?  Yea, like journalists know what the hell they are talking about?  Shall I now go to dictionary.com and give you a definition of what a cease fire is?  Or do you care to show that you dont know what you are talking about AGAIN?

Clearly you have made nothign crystal or clear as the above attests to.  Unless you are now writing your own authoratative dictionary that you will then mandate be used by the rest of the world.

Regardless, you are not a pacifist.  A pacifist does not believe in war.  You do.  Wars conforming to your own misinformation (see above), but wars nonetheless.

Gore was never indicted.  It has not been rectified.

Source?  Opinions do not need any, but you are stating a fact.  So facts please.

You said follow the money, not I. I just followed it.  Why do you make light of your own challenge?

Prove it.  SHow us the indictments and convictions of Obama's campaign staff.  You throw a lot of "facts" around, but you seem to have very little to show for your assertions.  And referencing a link 20 pages ago on another subject is not proof of anything but your own lack of proof.

With you, it's the only logical & worthwhile option.

Not really, everytime you post, you do it for us.

Hey, I believe in fighting fire with fire. You throw spitballs, I throw spitballs, you fail to make points, I fail to make points. I'm trying to be fair here, isn't that why you voted for Obama?

Why would Gore be indicted for the Chinese sending an illegal check?!  I could send YOU an illegal check and send you to jail that way then.  The whole point of the Chinese issue was to improve the vetting of donations in ALL elections, which has been done - as we saw in this election.

Sources - Contracts awarded to Halliburton, Cheney's former company.  Record oil profits off of record oil prices.  Etc.  I don't think I'll need to provide links to such obvious and widely available information do I?

I covered this above regarding Gore, and now you're onto Obama...the LEAST corrupt man we've apparently ever had run for the White House. Nice try.

But there is a HUGE difference between SOLICITING donations from known foreign nationals to being sent a random check (like the $25 Obama's Auntie sent him).  You can't stop someone from sending a check.  You can only try and catch it before it's cashed (since they were getting thousands of these daily) and then refund the ones that inadvertantly slip through.

Either way, shouldn't you be livid about the REAL corruption represented by hundreds of thousands of dollars of LOBBYIST contributions to each sitting Senators and Congressmen, instead of worrying about Autie Obama's Christmas cash? 

Oh I get it alright.  I just don't think this matters at all to my POINT.  Just because the final UN paperwork wasn't ratified until a couple of months later doesn't mean that EVERYONE (except the Serbian scumbags) wasn't in agreement on what had to happen in Kosovo and who had to do it and when.  They'd been debating this for YEARS as the serbs just kept killing.  So the Spring came and...boom.  Goodbye fascists.

But NO ONE has ever ratified our second invasion into Iraq, have they?  In fact, they're STILL protesting it around the world.

Regardless, as I have said repeatedly, this is IRRELEVANT to my point about which conflicts I have felt were justified and which were not.  I've stated my opinion repeatedly and rather than accept this as my position, you've resorted to nothing but badgering insults and irrelevant semantic arguments.

And while I'm glad you've final decided to cite some actual information here, I only provided that information to educate YOU about your gross mischaracterization of my positions and OPINIONS.

I would have to say that 100% of the Security Council voting yes for action in Kosovo is a FAR bigger "mandate" than NO ONE voting for the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Why you continue to maintain that we were justified in invading Iraq in 2003 because we were authorized to do so in order to libertate Kuwait in the first Gulf War is beyond me.  Even the Bush administration knew that wouldn't fly and so pursued their own NEW resolution for the 2003 action - as discussed here...

So even the ADMINISTRATION felt there were two distinct Gulf War conflicts requiring separate authorization from the UN.  When it was obvious they didn't have that mandate, they withdrew the resolution and went into Iraq on their own accord anyway. And that's why we're in the situation we find ourselves today.

The peer-reviewed SUMMARIES may not be, but its SOURCES are far more likely to be withstand (ed.) legal examination.  And that is what I keep pointing you to.  The summaries just happen to match my opinions in some cases and should be weighed accordingly.

Is there anyone in this world you'd find an authoritative source on anything, especially if they don't agree with your position?

REAL MSM journalists (NOT infotainment like Fox News) cite their sources, so again, I ask you, what would YOU cite as authoritative?  Because all the info I have provided, even the stuff you are quoting back, still has its roots in authoritative documentation.

And whether you agree with my positions or opinions or not, at least mine are based on the real world, not some imaginary land where a scumbag butcher like Slobodan is supposed to get my sympathy. 

Not...gonna...happen.

The free world is glad he's gone and so am I. 

Even self-avowed pacifists believe we need to call the police from time to time.

So if you want to claim I am not a "black or white" pacifist, so be it.  The world is a complex place, and I'm better educated than to make such over-reaching gross generalizations.

Every post you've made can be summarized as "No, you are!"  

Emphasis mine.  No, the administration, in order to appease certain domestic critics, more than likely you among them, sought a new resolution.  They were already justified in proceeding with GW2 (really, a resumption of GW1) on the basis of Iraq's violation(s) of the armistice.  Your subtle assertion of a requirement to obtain authorization from the UN to achieve legitimacy is completely bogus - no such requirement exists.  Although you appear to be unhappy with the notion, the US has no obligation to subjugate its foreign policy to the (non-existent) authority of the UN.  The UN is a vehicle for diplomatic persuasion (such that it occurs there = not much), nothing more.

I'd amplify that to say that you're an expert in over-reaching gross generalizations.  Be proud (not that you have any ego issues).

I'm assuming you mean 'withstand' .... JAFOCHECK

[ya ain't the only eddykated person 'ere, ya no] ...;)

Thank you sirree!  Fixed.

You betcha!