The majority it's always working, taking care of their children, studying or just waiting for a "leader". While the "minority" are: Community organizers, Unions, OWS, Communist, needless to say; they have the time and money from people like Soros, Hollywood activist among others.
The past 3 years, the sleeping giant is waking up.
Why is it that the minority often times supercedes the Majority? Is it because the squeeky wheels tend to get greased?
Drue-AFCL
2012/07/27 17:47:22
|
|
|||||
|
23 votes
|
|
64% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
36% | |||
Top Opinion
-
eliosc 2012/07/27 18:18:47
There are a very few who do it for the right reasons, but the number is so small we don't mention it.
I find it abhorrent...
But
An empty wagon makes the most noise.
Analyst, Ph.D.
The past 3 years, the sleeping giant is waking up.
As a sidebar, majority rule is not self-justifying. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" comes to mind. In order to be ethical, one must have principled theory as to what is within the purview of government, and therefore of what should forever remain unpolluted by it.
go all the way back to the American Revolution. How can you say you were
right about the Iraq war ? 500,000 lbs of yellow cake don't count and the
documented killings of the Kurds and the mass graves that have recently
been unearthed are nothing. I think the ONLY reason they " woke up "
( or flip flopped if you were on the OTHER side ) was because that
position became politically expediant and yes YOU are in the minority
and it appears to be a good fit.
I am right about the Iraq war as I believed Scott Ritter who wrote a book about how Iraq could not have any WMDs worth talking about. And he turned out to be right. Left over ordinances from the 1980s just don't count.
in their total were more than enough to warrant the removal of this tyrant .
I am a Christian but thank you for passing your judgement of me.
We tend to forget that Iraq had been less than honest about their wmd capabilities dating back to the early90s'. Hussein was internationally known
for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.
Here is how it all went down.
Following is a summary of the major events of the decision to pursue, then abandon, UN weapons inspections in Iraq.
-----------------------------...
-----------------------------...
2002
January 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush labels Iraq a member of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and North Korea. The president's speech is the first of many statements by top U.S. officials on the dangers posed by Iraq. Several of these officials question the ultimate worth of arms inspections and advocate the overthrow of I...
in their total were more than enough to warrant the removal of this tyrant .
I am a Christian but thank you for passing your judgement of me.
We tend to forget that Iraq had been less than honest about their wmd capabilities dating back to the early90s'. Hussein was internationally known
for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.
Here is how it all went down.
Following is a summary of the major events of the decision to pursue, then abandon, UN weapons inspections in Iraq.
-----------------------------...
-----------------------------...
2002
January 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush labels Iraq a member of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and North Korea. The president's speech is the first of many statements by top U.S. officials on the dangers posed by Iraq. Several of these officials question the ultimate worth of arms inspections and advocate the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as the only way to guarantee that Iraq will not develop weapons of mass destruction in the future.
March 7, 2002: Iraqi officials meet with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) Executive Chairman Hans Blix to discuss arms inspections for the first time since 1998. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or two subsequent ones that occur in May and July.
September 12, 2002: Amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions on disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will-a message that U.S. officials make more explicit the following week.
September 16, 2002: Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return "without conditions." Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.
November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441. The resolution declares that Iraq "remains in material breach" of past resolutions and gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" set out by Security Council resolutions stretching back to the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It also strengthens UNMOVIC's and the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) powers to conduct inspections throughout Iraq, specifying that Iraq must allow "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to "facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect." UN inspectors are given the authority to prohibit the movement of vehicles and aircraft around sites to be inspected and have the right to interview anyone they choose, without Iraqi officials present, in any location they wish. Additionally, the resolution overrides a 1998 memorandum of understanding between Baghdad and UN Secretary-General Annan that had placed special conditions on inspections of presidential sites to which Iraq had previously denied the inspectors access.
The resolution also warns that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with its disarmament obligations.
November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.
November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.
December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration is supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998.
The resolution requires the declaration to be "currently accurate, full, and complete," but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.
December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.
2003
February 5, 2003: Powell briefs the Security Council in an effort to persuade members that Iraq is subverting the inspections process. He publicly presents intelligence for the first time to support Washington's claim that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and interfering with inspections. France, China, and Russia are not persuaded and support continued inspections.
February 24, 2003: The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor a new Security Council resolution saying "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it by Resolution 1441."
The same day, Russia and France submit a memorandum stating that military force should be a "last resort" and that force should not yet be used because there is "no evidence" that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. The memorandum also says, however, that "inspections…cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." It further adds that Baghdad's cooperation, although improving, is not "yet fully satisfactory."
The memorandum proposes that the inspectors submit a program of work that lists and clearly defines specific disarmament tasks. Such a report is already required under Resolution 1284, which created UNMOVIC in 1999.
The memorandum also suggests "further measures to strengthen inspections," including increasing staff and bolstering technical capabilities. Additionally, it proposes a new timeline mandating regular reporting to the Security Council about inspectors' progress, as well as a progress report to be submitted 120 days after the program of work is adopted.
Neither measure is adopted.
March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.
The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor another resolution stating that Iraq "will have failed" to comply with Resolution 1441 unless Baghdad cooperates with its disarmament obligations by March 17. The draft resolution implies that the council members would take military action if Iraq failed to meet the deadline.
March 17, 2003: After U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to build support for the new resolution fail, the United States decides not to seek a vote on it-a reversal of Bush's March 6 statement that the United States would push for a Security Council vote on the resolution, regardless of whether it was expected to pass.
Annan announces that UN weapons inspectors will be withdrawn from the country.
Bush announces that Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or the United States will initiate military action.
March 18, 2003: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors leave Iraq.
March 19, 2003: The United States commences military action. The United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland provide troops to the U.S.-led invasion.
May 1, 2003: Bush declares an end to "major combat operations." U.S. forces had not discovered any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction since entering the country.
Sometimes your intelligence is not as accurate as you would like it to
be but the concensus was such that the actions taken were supported
by the majority. When you become the leader of the free world we'll
see if your priorities change and you decide it better to be safe than
sorry when you are responsible for the lives of millions of Americans.
By the way you would make a GREAT armchair general, quarterback
or president.
Shame we no longer have a free press but a press controlled either by big government or big corporations. A free press would have blown the propaganda apart from day one.
Growing up I can always remember hearing " the majority rules " and as I got
a little older I heard " when in Rome , do as the Romans do " . Now it seems to
be just the opposite. If one person is offended by something then whatever
is the source of offense is either ceased or modified to the point whereby the
offended feel comfortable. When many of the illegal immigrants come here
the act of assimilation is rejected and replaced with attempts to change our
culture to better resemble their own. My belief is that " political correctness"
has delivered us to the point where we can no longer be honest and frank
about issues without offending that " one " person or group and therefore
we cannot get past the first stage of opening an honest dialogue about anything.
I can assure you of two things, the people of this nation will never get to vote in a nation wide election on the two issues that our government uses to keep us enthralled. Abortion and Taxation one because they would then have to publically ignore the outcome and two if every American refused to go to the polls to vote in protest of the choices given to us we would still awaken to a new President irregardless of our wishes. You see since the formation of the Electorial College the power to elect our President really lies there with the professional politicitians who we all know ignore the majority of the people they represent to vote in their best interests. We have given away the keys to the kingdom and they will never give them back without a fight, the question is do we have the courage of our forefathers?
certainly not our elected officials THEY ARE THE PROBLEM, the minority doesn't want any change unless it involves more control for them and the political parties,
and if God's still there he ain't listening! It is going to get louder and bloodier and
I am quite sure more violent before they listen or we tear them down and regain control of our nation and our lives. Nations rise and fall, civilizations rise to greatness and fall to its own corruption history proves this time and again, you are seeing the crumbling and hearing the cries of ours.