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.

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. 

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.

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

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

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?!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'm assuming you mean 'withstand' ....

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