What part of UN Resolution 1441 escapes you?

Certainly not this part, which seems to have escaped you...

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case.

Lastly, according to the rules of war, captured ununiformed enemy combatants can be executed post haste.

Really, than why the need for Gitmo? Why not just execute everyone held there?

we should have declared war on Jihad terrorist religious institutes and every nation that supports them.

Even though it was one particular group that was behind 9/11? And to declare such a war would require a large number of soldiers...I assume you are ready to sign up...

If radical Islamic jihadists declare war on us, do we have to recognize them as a state before we can declare war on them?

Essentially, yes, otherwise we can't identify territory and resources as belonging to them.

Mind you, seeing as we now only recognize acts of man-made distasterists, I suppose it is a moot point.

You did read his entire post, didn't you, Bitsy? You did notice the disjointed rambling, right?

What I noticed is that you ignored the point on 1441. Far from being disjointed, his comment there was spot on, and you ignored it.

Hillary Clinton Appoints Special Representative to Muslim Communities - Secretary of State's web site 25 jun 2009.

Yes, and we also have a "war" on drugs. Fancy names and titles aside, we don't have any political relationship with "drugs" or "Muslim communities".

Hillary Clinton Appoints Special Representative to Muslim Communities - Secretary of State's web site 25 jun 2009.

we should have declared war on Jihad terrorist religious institutes and every nation that supports them.

We can't change our political relationship with religious institutions because we never had a political relationship with them to begin with.

We should have declared war on Afghanistan. We should have declared war on Iraq. We didn't. Who then, are you (or Eric) proposing that we declare war on now?

we should have declared war on Jihad terrorist religious institutes and every nation that supports them. But instead we cut most of them slack, and look were we are now.....

lol, UN resalutions are meaningless to those who support them being the only action we ever take.

It's because they like lots of tuff talk untill it's time to back it up....

Indeed, we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...quite stupid...

Well, a lot of Arabs died, and that make some folks feel as if we had done some book balancing for 9/11, even if the Arabs in this country did not have a damn thing to do with the attack on our country. A lot of armchair warriors got to watch us blow things up on TV, which no doubt made them feel a bit more like the real men who do the real fighting. Halliburton made a TON of money. To this day, some people think the Iraq war was just groovy.

UN Resolution 1441 is wingnut ideology?
Gee... I'll have to notify the folks in Turtle Bay.

You did read his entire post, didn't you, Bitsy? You did notice the disjointed rambling, right?

If you think that is wing nut ideology, Eric you prove your ignorance of history. However, I suspect your ignorance knows no bounds. All I have to say to you is F**k off. Have your daddy instruct you on which direction is up.

Seems I've hit a tender spot here. Usually happens when one requires two premises from the wingnut instead of his preferred one premise>conclusion form.

ou can always count on Zelsdorf to bring out Wingnut ideology in all its glory

UN Resolution 1441 is wingnut ideology?
Gee... I'll have to notify the folks in Turtle Bay.

Authorization to Use Military Force

A declaration of war is a change in our political relationship with another state. The AUMF was a resource allocation, not a political declaration.

We should have declared war on Afghanistan. We should have declared war on Iraq. We didn't. Who then, are you (or Eric) proposing that we declare war on now?

Interested party. What part of UN Resolution 1441 escapes you? The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just as Cap and Trade has nothing to do with global warming. Real science is based upon evidence, not computer modeling. There is no global warming. Seems Saddam Hussein (same last name as the President's middle name) had some material he could not account for. Most of the worlds intel services believed he had a stockpile of WMD. The director of the U.S. CIA informed the President of the United States Saddam had WMD If you cannot believe your own top spy, who can you believe. Lastly, according to the rules of war, captured ununiformed enemy combatants can be executed post haste.

And there you have it, folks. You can always count on Zelsdorf to bring out Wingnut ideology in all its glory. I am, however, a little concerned that you're slipping, Zelsy. I mean, you didn't even bring up Obama's birth certificate. Usually you're at least good for that.

Someday there'll be an entire museum exhibit devoted Wingnuttia. (Chronologically, however, the exhibit would have to come before the Stone Age exhibit.)