AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Jun 2 2004, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Jun 2 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you even START to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, when it was Clinton that slashed intelligence and defense funding? Oh yeah, that's right, Clinton was a victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. My mistake that the Lewinsky scandal broke just as it was revealed that he had sold stripped down <b>stealth bomber</b> parts to China. Funny how that happens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Clinton did not "slash" defense funding. In fact, he created most of the machines of war being used in the current conflicts (I personally don't see this as a good thing for Clinton at all), his intelligence department in dealing with terrorism did a very good job. Nearly all of the Clinton staffers were clammoring to Bush to watch out for terrorism, but he cut their budgets and flat out ignored them most of the time.
You can't blame Clinton for this one, it apprently was one of the few things he was able to attend to between impeachment hearings and bomb orderings.
But really, it has yet to be shown to me how Kerry and Bush differ in policy. In nearly every aspect I see them sharing similar or literally the same policy. They both seem to be for increased spending, and I have no doubt that they both have received massive amounts from a variety of corporations. And one thing I noticed that struck me as odd, on the issue of homosexual marraige, you would think out of a gut reaction that Kerry, being the democrat, would be all for it. But it seems to me that he has gone very far out of his way to never actually say that he supports it. In all the things I've read on the subject, I've never heard a quote of him saying that straight out. Just seems to be an odd thing to me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 2 2004, 08:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 2 2004, 08:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A two-week-early warning isn't enough fore-notice, I suppose.
And yes... let me say is slowly, as it appears to be creating cognitive dissonance. If a political party realizes they have a <b>COMPLETE RAVING SMACKTARD</b> as their candidate, it is an individual's responsibility to vote against that person, even if they are the incumbent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll be sure to think about this as I vote Bush in November.
Could you at least give some reasons for your obivious personal hatred for Bush? I don't want to file you with "BUSH IS A NAZI" screwballs, but you have yet to give some good reasons, other then you really think he's stupid.
I won't be voting this election, mostly because I don't feel any canidate is worth my vote. Shouldn't that be how folks vote? Too many people will vote Kerry because he isn't bush, when in reality he is much like Bush, except for his engrish. Kerry isn't out to help the working man that democrats want to you to think. In fact I'm not sure that is Kerry's stance as he really never has one. Granted Bush has one and thats admirable, however its a stance I cannot tolerate. Nader has good intentions but who is to say he won't be the typical hypocrite we see in politics today.
You should vote for who you feel will get the job done. Not because "he isn't the other guy" thats pretty silly.
Seeing the big problems people have with discussing the candidates characters (and intelligence levels), I'd suggest to keep this discussion focussed on the hard policies, or as rule #3 states: Try to stay rational.
And yes... let me say is slowly, as it appears to be creating cognitive dissonance. If a political party realizes they have a <b>COMPLETE RAVING SMACKTARD</b> as their candidate, it is an individual's responsibility to vote against that person, even if they are the incumbent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll be sure to think about this as I vote Bush in November.
Could you at least give some reasons for your obivious personal hatred for Bush? I don't want to file you with "BUSH IS A NAZI" screwballs, but you have yet to give some good reasons, other then you really think he's stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, I've never said that bush is a nazi. I've said that he's a moron. That is the majority of my dislike for him... he's gone through life with a silver shovel in his mouth. He strikes me as the half-braindead yuppy tweeker who tried to run over guys at high school in the SUV daddy bought him because his family could afford it if he managed to drive straight.
The short answer is that I do not want someone who carries himself in public, private, and negotiations like he has an IQ smaller than his shoe size. The man doesn't even bother to learn the names of foreign dignitaries. He's referred to justices as 'honorable' when visiting them... and not in the respectful sense. More along the lines of using it as a first name. 'Honorable, could you grab that sandwich for me?'
Despite what many stick to, the fact is that Bush turned around the highest employment rate and budget surplus in over twenty years... into the lowest employment rate and largest defecit in FIFTY years. Some may say that the economy cannot change so quickly... but when store owners across the nation look up and see the special kid who tried to ride UNDER the short yellow bus as the leader of the nation, of course they're going to get scared, and the economy will fizzle. It would most likely be explained by a market analyst as a 'spontaneous lapse'.. but if you really look at when the crap started falling around our ears, it was less than four months after Bush took office, after people had a chance to realize 'oh, right.. he's not just pretending'.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 2 2004, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 2 2004, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It would most likely be explained by a market analyst as a 'spontaneous lapse'.. but if you really look at when the crap started falling around our ears, it was less than four months after Bush took office, after people had a chance to realize 'oh, right.. he's not just pretending'.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No I believe it was right after 9/11, things like that tend to have very negative effects on a nations economy. Also a president has very little to do with the economy, sure his policies affect it, but ultimately it is the people that control it.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited June 2004
And if we'd had a strong President who could find his posterior with both hands, the drop would not be as severe as it has... a dip, instead of a downward spiral into an illegal war.
As much as you might think otherwise... how shiny the figurehead is has a direct impact on the morale of the citizens.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited June 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jun 2 2004, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jun 2 2004, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Jun 2 2004, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Jun 2 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you even START to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, when it was Clinton that slashed intelligence and defense funding? Oh yeah, that's right, Clinton was a victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. My mistake that the Lewinsky scandal broke just as it was revealed that he had sold stripped down <b>stealth bomber</b> parts to China. Funny how that happens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Clinton did not "slash" defense funding. In fact, he created most of the machines of war being used in the current conflicts (I personally don't see this as a good thing for Clinton at all), his intelligence department in dealing with terrorism did a very good job. Nearly all of the Clinton staffers were clammoring to Bush to watch out for terrorism, but he cut their budgets and flat out ignored them most of the time.
You can't blame Clinton for this one, it apprently was one of the few things he was able to attend to between impeachment hearings and bomb orderings.
But really, it has yet to be shown to me how Kerry and Bush differ in policy. In nearly every aspect I see them sharing similar or literally the same policy. They both seem to be for increased spending, and I have no doubt that they both have received massive amounts from a variety of corporations. And one thing I noticed that struck me as odd, on the issue of homosexual marraige, you would think out of a gut reaction that Kerry, being the democrat, would be all for it. But it seems to me that he has gone very far out of his way to never actually say that he supports it. In all the things I've read on the subject, I've never heard a quote of him saying that straight out. Just seems to be an odd thing to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, you all might be interested to know that all of the structural changes that Bush put into effect after 9/11 were actually ideas of the Clinton administration that were developed in the last month of his term. The plan was given to the Bush administration and subsequently ignored, that is, until after 9/11. <a href='http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.htm' target='_blank'>source.</a> So yes I do think you can blame Bush for 9/11.
He has also spent 27% of his term on vacation.<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15546-2003Aug2?language=printer' target='_blank'>source</a>. On basic principles I don't think someone who uses so little of his time as president should be given another go at it.
I'm one of those anyone-but-Bush people. If Kerry were identical to Bush I still would vote for him. We need a change in power. I think everyone can agree that the current administration has been abnormally rash. The only cure for that is to replace them. I don't even want to imagine a Bush administraton emboldened by an election success.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 2 2004, 08:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 2 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> illegal war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Always find that phrase interesting.
Is there really a "legal" war? Is there "legal" murder? Is the death penalty "legal murder"? So the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder? So it's legal if it's state sanctioned? So war is legal if it's state sanctioned? So all wars are legal?
Is there really a "legal" war? Is there "legal" murder? Is the death penalty "legal murder"? So the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder? So it's legal if it's state sanctioned? So war is legal if it's state sanctioned? So all wars are legal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using that kind of logic I should be able to come over to your house fire a bullet right into your skull and take your wife/gf.
This world isn't completely insane because we have rules. Since America is part of the UN(if you don't know what that is, its the United Nations), they have to get a large majority of the vote of the UN to go to war. This war wasn't sanctioned by the UN meaning it was illegal. America illegally went to war with Iraq and there is nothing that you can say that can disprove that fact.
And there hasn't been any good reasons why we have invaded Iraq(because thats what we did, we INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION which was part of the UN, the same UN we were a part of). Thousands and thousands of Iraqi's died for no reason along with the almost thousand American soldiers that have been lost in this pointless war.
This was probably one of Bush's biggest mistakes in office and even if this was the only wrong thing he has done in office, it should still be more than enough for you to vote for someone else in November. I don't even wanna know who Bush will attack next if he is reelected.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually, I'm more referring to the fact that Bush declared war without Senate approval. He received that approval afterward (if-you-don't-vote-for-this-you're-unpatriotic), but what he had done at the time was an act of treason.
The problem is, I refer to him as a moron given his actions. His words are just icing on the pie, as he might put it... because as we all know, it's getting difficult to put food on your family.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 3 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 3 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Using that kind of logic I should be able to come over to your house fire a bullet right into your skull and take your wife/gf.
This world isn't completely insane because we have rules. Since America is part of the UN(if you don't know what that is, its the United Nations), they have to get a large majority of the vote of the UN to go to war. This war wasn't sanctioned by the UN meaning it was illegal. America illegally went to war with Iraq and there is nothing that you can say that can disprove that fact.
And there hasn't been any good reasons why we have invaded Iraq(because thats what we did, we INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION which was part of the UN, the same UN we were a part of). Thousands and thousands of Iraqi's died for no reason along with the almost thousand American soldiers that have been lost in this pointless war.
This was probably one of Bush's biggest mistakes in office and even if this was the only wrong thing he has done in office, it should still be more than enough for you to vote for someone else in November. I don't even wanna know who Bush will attack next if he is reelected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Enough of this illegal war business people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the facts. Since 1945 there have been over 60 major wars and deadly armed conflicts involving almost all UN members, including the permanent five. How many of these wars would be considered "legally and morally justified" because multilateralism was upheld and the United Nations reached consensus to wage those wars? Of the 60, only two were "legal and moral" in the insane sense that no veto was cast by a permanent member of the UN Security Council. They are the Korean War of the 1950s (the Resolution was passed while the Russian delegate was in the CR!); and the Persian Gulf War of 1990<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonise over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny and genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. Thats what I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without UN or international approval - and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, topppled one of the worst human-rights violators without UN approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean-Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism.
Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened - without a UN mandate - to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoced once more in 2001 after the US-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hang on - those wars were illegal right. So why didnt I hear you "RULES ARE RULES!" people bleating then? Which one of you are heading on the "Re-instate Jean-Bedel Bokassa NOW" campaign trail? The silence is deafening.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, this war is legal March 19 2003 By Greg Hunt
Military conflict in Iraq will have the full legitimacy of international law. I make this statement as someone who is a multilateralist by nature. I believe in international law and was a strong advocate for Australian participation in the International Criminal Court. I have worked for the United Nations in Geneva chronicling the abuses that occurred during the Bosnian conflict and I was Australia's chief electoral observer in Cambodia during the 1998 elections.
In each case I saw the tragic human consequences of a failure to uphold international law and the decisions of the UN. Now, in Iraq, we are witness to the same violation of international law and Security Council decisions.
There are three requirements if Security Council members the United States, Britain and Spain are to lead an international coalition to enforce the council's resolutions on Iraq.
First, there must be a clear and unequivocal duty on Iraq to comply with council resolutions. Second, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of that duty. Third, there must be a legitimate and continuing authority for enforcing those actions. All are present.
The first element, Iraq's duty to comply with international law, has been reaffirmed through 17 Security Council resolutions over 12 years. This duty began with resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, which authorised use of "all necessary means" to force Iraq to quit Kuwait and importantly "to restore international peace and security in the area".
After operation Desert Storm forced Iraq from Kuwait, the Security Council authorised a ceasefire under resolution 687 on April 3, 1991. The ceasefire was conditional on Iraq destroying or removing all its chemical and biological weapons. This condition was reaffirmed in resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002.
Critically, resolution 1441 declares Iraq "in material breach" of its obligations, offers "one final opportunity" to comply fully - not partially - and threatens "serious consequences" if it continued to violate its obligations. The term "serious consequences" is the same enforcement provision that underpinned Desert Storm.
So, Iraq's duty to disarm is continuing and absolute.
The second element is the question of breach. Again, the Security Council has repeatedly found Iraq in breach of its obligations to disarm and has authorised the use of force on many occasions.
Since November, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted some co-operation, but he has repeatedly affirmed that Iraq has chemical and biological stores, missing anthrax and VX nerve gas supplies, and active development programs. So the Security Council itself has concluded that Iraq remains in fundamental breach of its obligations.
This breach has been compounded by Saddam Hussein's clear and unchallenged support for at least three active terrorist groups: the Abu Nidal Organisation, the Mujahideen e-Kharq and the PLF.
The third and most difficult question is who can legitimately enforce resolution 1441. Previous enforcement has followed a declaration of material breach, but has not specified the means. On all occasions it has been led by the US acting in accordance with Security Council resolutions.
In this particular case it has been asserted there may be duty and material breach but that US-led action would be unilateral and therefore illegitimate. This is false. In February, US Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman identified 26 countries that had already given access, basing and over-flight rights for action against Iraq. A further 18 had given contingent approval for such co-operation. So a minimum of 44 countries have provisionally agreed to participate in an enforcement operation.
Of course, it would be preferable to have a further resolution for purposes of unanimity. Such a resolution would be the best way of avoiding conflict. But Australia, Britain, Spain and the US have exhausted every avenue to achieve the moral support of an 18th resolution. However, France, while calling for UN solidarity, has at the same time categorically ruled out any further resolution authorising force. It has blocked the very avenue down which it wants the world to travel.
Make no mistake though, full authority to enforce resolution 1441 already exists.
Saddam has been under an express UN Security Council duty for more than a decade to terminate his chemical and biological programs. He has been found to be in material breach of that duty by maintaining an active chemical and biological weapons program. Moreover, his regime's active support for terrorism remains in breach of Security Council demands.
Above all else, moral legitimacy is stripped away by the fact that Saddam runs perhaps the most oppressive remaining regime in the world.
In all those circumstances, there is clear legitimacy for enforcement of Security Council resolutions by a coalition comprising more than 40 countries and that is led by three members of the Security Council. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, and when using quotes to ridicule people - one can never walk by without remembering the immortal words of the French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure."
To damn right - the Americans twice went to war and saved the French, and it turned out to be a failure after all.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 3 2004, 10:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 3 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine01, notice. I did not say INTERNATIONALLY illegal. No UN approval does not make it an illegal war.
<b>Bush declared war without receiving Senate approval. THAT is an act of treason, under US law.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you will notice I quoted Jim not you - but I'll guess I'll have to go and try to find out more about this Senate approval business.
I spend 4 days a week in Bush hatin' central, and I've never heard that one before.....
EDIT I cant seem to find too much about Bush's shocking declaration of War without Senate approval. In fact, his great friends in the Green's party seem to have missed it also, from what I'm reading of their reports over the war.
I thought George started this war to fight terrorism and find WMD's which could be launched in 45 minutes, or something along those lines. A year later and i'm wondering why people are disputing whether he invaded Iraq legally or illegally. He has not found any WMD's, and instead he is 'freeing' the people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it. Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to me that he has other agenda's and that to me means he is outright lying to everyone (being either really smart or really stupid). It seems the days when lying was frowned upon in the government are over.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited June 2004
Homeland Security Act signed in (Nov 25, 2002) (Full mobilization of armed forces soon after) <a href='http://www.rationalrevolution.net/homeland_security_act.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rationalrevolution.net/homeland_security_act.htm</a>
Bush declares war (Oct 5, 2002) Bombing strikes on Afghanistan begin (Oct 7, 2002) <a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml</a>
Senate vote approves war (Oct 11, 2002) <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/</a>
Whitehouse.gov altered to remove older senate records, 'correct' dates/times, and reword presidential statements so no record would exist (January-<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->, 2003-<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->) <a href='http://news.com.com/2009-1023-250743.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2009-1023-250743.html</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Calpundit and Atrios, among others, recently pointed out some strange doings at the White House website: Someone made changes to a file that keeps search engines from indexing a huge number of directories with information on Iraq.
The pages themselves still exist on the White House website and are accessible from the site's own search engine. But Google results, for example, no longer would included any pages within those directories. As to the motivation behind these changes, the prevailing theory was that Google's cache had caught an instance of White House revisionism not too long ago; by blocking search engine spiders, changes on the official website would be that much harder to track. (At the time this seemed rather plausible, considering that the White House site has a track record of increasing inaccessibility, and the administration has a reputation for secrecy.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/politics/0310sinister_doings_at_whitehousegov.html' target='_blank'>http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/politi...tehousegov.html</a>
<a href='http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002813.html' target='_blank'>White House 'Historical Revisionisms'</a> (aka: Huh?! I didn't say THAT!)
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited June 2004
Funny how shooting an innocent bystander in the head is seen as 'protecting the country', then. Or blowing their families to bits. But the nation was **** and they did need to do something to say 'WE'RE ANGRY ABOUT THIS!!!'. That or I guess that the bully has to show they can kick butt to try and scare the other kids off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funny how shooting an innocent bystander in the head is seen as 'protecting the country', then. Or blowing their families to bits. But the nation was **** and they did need to do something to say 'WE'RE ANGRY ABOUT THIS!!!'. That or I guess that the bully has to show they can kick butt to try and scare the other kids off.
...wait. Doesn't that make *us* the terrorists? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In war there are always mistakes and the soldiers that kill without provocation or good reason should be punished. Certainly, Bush has yet to condone the killing of civilians. You are being overly critical because you hate Bush so much. Certainly there have always been civilian deaths, but the US government has done all it can to avoid killing civilians. Also, it is far more difficult to not kill civilians when the enemy hides with the civilians and does not wear a uniform. Even the most severe hawks in the country do not condone the killing of civilians and believe that if all possible the killing of the innocent should be avoided. There are no nametags that civilians and terrorists wear. If a terrorist opens fire with his ak-47 on US Marines, the marines return fire, and a civilian is hit, who is to blame?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The US government for having invaded a foreign country with no provocation (on the part of the country) nor hard evidence to try to chase down 'terrorists'.
Actually, according to my handy dandy "Government Notebook" the President can wage war for 60 days without Senate approval. Even then, he can get a 30 day extension from... I think it's the Senate too. Maybe. In my book it says "Limit: 60 days + 30 if he's nice." Who "he" is refering to exactly, i'm not sure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US government for having invaded a foreign country with no provocation (on the part of the country) nor hard evidence to try to chase down 'terrorists'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. I feel that it would be the terrorist's fault for trying to shoot the marine while using civilians as shields.
--Edit--
Heyyyy, wait a minute. Let's make that scenario a little more specific because I think you think he was refering to Iraq. What if the marines over in the Phillipines (completely legal to be over there) get shot at, return fire, and kill a civilian?
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 3 2004, 08:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 3 2004, 08:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Funny how shooting an innocent bystander in the head is seen as 'protecting the country', then. Or blowing their families to bits. But the nation was **** and they did need to do something to say 'WE'RE ANGRY ABOUT THIS!!!'. That or I guess that the bully has to show they can kick butt to try and scare the other kids off.
...wait. Doesn't that make *us* the terrorists? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep, it's also funny how haters of bush won't acknoledge that these civilian's lives are better off being shot at by our invading forces than living under a despotic regime where the death tolls are closing in on record numbers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 3 2004, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 3 2004, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yep, it's also funny how haters of bush won't acknoledge that these civilian's lives are better off being shot at by our invading forces than living under a despotic regime where the death tolls are closing in on record numbers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's just hold our judgment until the new government is in place, shall we? This administration's high level members don't exactly have a great track record for installing/supporting/monitoring foreign governments (remember, Saddam was one of their golden boys during the <i>heyday</i> of his 'despotic regime').
This is not to say that they can't pull this one off; simply that it's a bit premature to sing the praises of a non-existent government relative to the evil one we <i>formerly</i> supported.
But given the Chalabi fiasco and the prison debacle, we ain't exactly off to a brilliant start.
Edit: And it's a bit arrogant of us to come in, and each time we screw up, say, 'Hey! You guys should kiss our boots, because we aren't as evil as the guy we removed for being evil!'
As has been said before, I think we should hold ourselves to a <i>slightly</i> higher standard than Saddam Hussein.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 3 2004, 07:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 3 2004, 07:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Talesin, the congress gave the president full permission to use force "to protect the USA from any terrorist threat", or words to that effect.
In other words, he didn't need approval for Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere where he can say a terrorist threat exists.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nice thats actually pretty smart. "Hey there are terorrists in.... (insert_country_that_has_something_we_want_here)!"
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Jun 3 2004, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Jun 3 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nice thats actually pretty smart. "Hey there are terorrists in.... (insert_country_that_has_something_we_want_here)!"
Its really getting to be an ugly world :| <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, because we have benefited <i>sooooo</i> much from Iraq. Just admit we did a good thing by removing Saddam, and if we happen to get oil for it, all the better.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 2 2004, 10:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 2 2004, 10:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Jun 2 2004, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Jun 2 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 2 2004, 08:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 2 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> illegal war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Always find that phrase interesting.
Is there really a "legal" war? Is there "legal" murder? Is the death penalty "legal murder"? So the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder? So it's legal if it's state sanctioned? So war is legal if it's state sanctioned? So all wars are legal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using that kind of logic I should be able to come over to your house fire a bullet right into your skull and take your wife/gf. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Congradulations for missing my point, which is that the idea of a "legal war" as opposed to an "illegal war" is ridiculous in the first place. Since no international law really condones war, and as already stated it doesn't require the Senate's approval for the president to declare war, there isn't ever a time when war is legal, and by "legal" I mean "approved". And if it's never legal, it can never be illegal. It's just war; you may think it's inherently bad or good, but it <u>can't</u> be legal or illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 3 2004, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 3 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In other words, he didn't need approval for Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere where he can say a terrorist threat exists.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is too big to let it slip by.
Where exactely did you get the impression that there was any kind of secure hints at terroristic activity carried out from Iraq? I'm sure I don't have to link you to the stories about Powell quoting a <i>failed</i> students paper on the topic in front of the UN again, nor should I have to recite that bin Laden explicitely stated his disagreement with the atheistic leader of the stalinistic Ba'ath party on numerous occasions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 3 2004, 03:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 3 2004, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 3 2004, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 3 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In other words, he didn't need approval for Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere where he can say a terrorist threat exists.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is too big to let it slip by.
Where exactely did you get the impression that there was any kind of secure hints at terroristic activity carried out from Iraq? I'm sure I don't have to link you to the stories about Powell quoting a <i>failed</i> students paper on the topic in front of the UN again, nor should I have to recite that bin Laden explicitely stated his disagreement with the atheistic leader of the stalinistic Ba'ath party on numerous occasions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You miss my point - that is Bush has the right to declare a war on any nation he says to be holding terrorists, as Congress gave him power to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's just hold our judgment until the new government is in place, shall we? This administration's high level members don't exactly have a great track record for installing/supporting/monitoring foreign governments (remember, Saddam was one of their golden boys during the heyday of his 'despotic regime'). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice try taking all of this out of context. Communism was considered a greater evil than a tyrant in a small 3rd world nation. Think about it for a second: we can take away from any dicatator what we gave them, or even remove them from power; we could not remove communism from anywhere without war on equal grounds. Every third world dictator knew that they had to either be pro-Soviet or pro-American, otherwise they risked both sides trying to take them down, instead of just one.
We armed the Taliban because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and stopping Communism was more important at the time than anything Afghanistan could do.
Comments
Clinton did not "slash" defense funding. In fact, he created most of the machines of war being used in the current conflicts (I personally don't see this as a good thing for Clinton at all), his intelligence department in dealing with terrorism did a very good job. Nearly all of the Clinton staffers were clammoring to Bush to watch out for terrorism, but he cut their budgets and flat out ignored them most of the time.
You can't blame Clinton for this one, it apprently was one of the few things he was able to attend to between impeachment hearings and bomb orderings.
But really, it has yet to be shown to me how Kerry and Bush differ in policy. In nearly every aspect I see them sharing similar or literally the same policy. They both seem to be for increased spending, and I have no doubt that they both have received massive amounts from a variety of corporations. And one thing I noticed that struck me as odd, on the issue of homosexual marraige, you would think out of a gut reaction that Kerry, being the democrat, would be all for it. But it seems to me that he has gone very far out of his way to never actually say that he supports it. In all the things I've read on the subject, I've never heard a quote of him saying that straight out. Just seems to be an odd thing to me.
And yes... let me say is slowly, as it appears to be creating cognitive dissonance. If a political party realizes they have a <b>COMPLETE RAVING SMACKTARD</b> as their candidate, it is an individual's responsibility to vote against that person, even if they are the incumbent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll be sure to think about this as I vote Bush in November.
Could you at least give some reasons for your obivious personal hatred for Bush?
I don't want to file you with "BUSH IS A NAZI" screwballs, but you have yet to give some good reasons, other then you really think he's stupid.
You should vote for who you feel will get the job done. Not because "he isn't the other guy" thats pretty silly.
And yes... let me say is slowly, as it appears to be creating cognitive dissonance. If a political party realizes they have a <b>COMPLETE RAVING SMACKTARD</b> as their candidate, it is an individual's responsibility to vote against that person, even if they are the incumbent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll be sure to think about this as I vote Bush in November.
Could you at least give some reasons for your obivious personal hatred for Bush?
I don't want to file you with "BUSH IS A NAZI" screwballs, but you have yet to give some good reasons, other then you really think he's stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I've never said that bush is a nazi. I've said that he's a moron. That is the majority of my dislike for him... he's gone through life with a silver shovel in his mouth. He strikes me as the half-braindead yuppy tweeker who tried to run over guys at high school in the SUV daddy bought him because his family could afford it if he managed to drive straight.
The short answer is that I do not want someone who carries himself in public, private, and negotiations like he has an IQ smaller than his shoe size. The man doesn't even bother to learn the names of foreign dignitaries. He's referred to justices as 'honorable' when visiting them... and not in the respectful sense. More along the lines of using it as a first name. 'Honorable, could you grab that sandwich for me?'
Despite what many stick to, the fact is that Bush turned around the highest employment rate and budget surplus in over twenty years... into the lowest employment rate and largest defecit in FIFTY years. Some may say that the economy cannot change so quickly... but when store owners across the nation look up and see the special kid who tried to ride UNDER the short yellow bus as the leader of the nation, of course they're going to get scared, and the economy will fizzle.
It would most likely be explained by a market analyst as a 'spontaneous lapse'.. but if you really look at when the crap started falling around our ears, it was less than four months after Bush took office, after people had a chance to realize 'oh, right.. he's not just pretending'.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I believe it was right after 9/11, things like that tend to have very negative effects on a nations economy. Also a president has very little to do with the economy, sure his policies affect it, but ultimately it is the people that control it.
As much as you might think otherwise... how shiny the figurehead is has a direct impact on the morale of the citizens.
Clinton did not "slash" defense funding. In fact, he created most of the machines of war being used in the current conflicts (I personally don't see this as a good thing for Clinton at all), his intelligence department in dealing with terrorism did a very good job. Nearly all of the Clinton staffers were clammoring to Bush to watch out for terrorism, but he cut their budgets and flat out ignored them most of the time.
You can't blame Clinton for this one, it apprently was one of the few things he was able to attend to between impeachment hearings and bomb orderings.
But really, it has yet to be shown to me how Kerry and Bush differ in policy. In nearly every aspect I see them sharing similar or literally the same policy. They both seem to be for increased spending, and I have no doubt that they both have received massive amounts from a variety of corporations. And one thing I noticed that struck me as odd, on the issue of homosexual marraige, you would think out of a gut reaction that Kerry, being the democrat, would be all for it. But it seems to me that he has gone very far out of his way to never actually say that he supports it. In all the things I've read on the subject, I've never heard a quote of him saying that straight out. Just seems to be an odd thing to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you all might be interested to know that all of the structural changes that Bush put into effect after 9/11 were actually ideas of the Clinton administration that were developed in the last month of his term. The plan was given to the Bush administration and subsequently ignored, that is, until after 9/11. <a href='http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.htm' target='_blank'>source.</a>
So yes I do think you can blame Bush for 9/11.
He has also spent 27% of his term on vacation.<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15546-2003Aug2?language=printer' target='_blank'>source</a>.
On basic principles I don't think someone who uses so little of his time as president should be given another go at it.
I'm one of those anyone-but-Bush people. If Kerry were identical to Bush I still would vote for him. We need a change in power. I think everyone can agree that the current administration has been abnormally rash. The only cure for that is to replace them. I don't even want to imagine a Bush administraton emboldened by an election success.
Always find that phrase interesting.
Is there really a "legal" war?
Is there "legal" murder?
Is the death penalty "legal murder"?
So the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder?
So it's legal if it's state sanctioned?
So war is legal if it's state sanctioned?
So all wars are legal?
Always find that phrase interesting.
Is there really a "legal" war?
Is there "legal" murder?
Is the death penalty "legal murder"?
So the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder?
So it's legal if it's state sanctioned?
So war is legal if it's state sanctioned?
So all wars are legal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using that kind of logic I should be able to come over to your house fire a bullet right into your skull and take your wife/gf.
This world isn't completely insane because we have rules. Since America is part of the UN(if you don't know what that is, its the United Nations), they have to get a large majority of the vote of the UN to go to war. This war wasn't sanctioned by the UN meaning it was illegal. America illegally went to war with Iraq and there is nothing that you can say that can disprove that fact.
And there hasn't been any good reasons why we have invaded Iraq(because thats what we did, we INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION which was part of the UN, the same UN we were a part of). Thousands and thousands of Iraqi's died for no reason along with the almost thousand American soldiers that have been lost in this pointless war.
This was probably one of Bush's biggest mistakes in office and even if this was the only wrong thing he has done in office, it should still be more than enough for you to vote for someone else in November. I don't even wanna know who Bush will attack next if he is reelected.
The problem is, I refer to him as a moron given his actions. His words are just icing on the pie, as he might put it... because as we all know, it's getting difficult to put food on your family.
This world isn't completely insane because we have rules. Since America is part of the UN(if you don't know what that is, its the United Nations), they have to get a large majority of the vote of the UN to go to war. This war wasn't sanctioned by the UN meaning it was illegal. America illegally went to war with Iraq and there is nothing that you can say that can disprove that fact.
And there hasn't been any good reasons why we have invaded Iraq(because thats what we did, we INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION which was part of the UN, the same UN we were a part of). Thousands and thousands of Iraqi's died for no reason along with the almost thousand American soldiers that have been lost in this pointless war.
This was probably one of Bush's biggest mistakes in office and even if this was the only wrong thing he has done in office, it should still be more than enough for you to vote for someone else in November. I don't even wanna know who Bush will attack next if he is reelected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Enough of this illegal war business people.
<a href='http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/sep/29/opi_commentary1-1.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the facts. Since 1945 there have been over 60 major wars and deadly armed conflicts involving almost all UN members, including the permanent five. How many of these wars would be considered "legally and morally justified" because multilateralism was upheld and the United Nations reached consensus to wage those wars? Of the 60, only two were "legal and moral" in the insane sense that no veto was cast by a permanent member of the UN Security Council. They are the Korean War of the 1950s (the Resolution was passed while the Russian delegate was in the CR!); and the Persian Gulf War of 1990<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonise over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny and genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. Thats what I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without UN or international approval - and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, topppled one of the worst human-rights violators without UN approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean-Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism.
Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened - without a UN mandate - to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoced once more in 2001 after the US-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But hang on - those wars were illegal right. So why didnt I hear you "RULES ARE RULES!" people bleating then? Which one of you are heading on the "Re-instate Jean-Bedel Bokassa NOW" campaign trail? The silence is deafening.
<a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770373.html?oneclick=true' target='_blank'>argh opposing opinion</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, this war is legal
March 19 2003
By Greg Hunt
Military conflict in Iraq will have the full legitimacy of international law. I make this statement as someone who is a multilateralist by nature. I believe in international law and was a strong advocate for Australian participation in the International Criminal Court. I have worked for the United Nations in Geneva chronicling the abuses that occurred during the Bosnian conflict and I was Australia's chief electoral observer in Cambodia during the 1998 elections.
In each case I saw the tragic human consequences of a failure to uphold international law and the decisions of the UN. Now, in Iraq, we are witness to the same violation of international law and Security Council decisions.
There are three requirements if Security Council members the United States, Britain and Spain are to lead an international coalition to enforce the council's resolutions on Iraq.
First, there must be a clear and unequivocal duty on Iraq to comply with council resolutions. Second, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of that duty. Third, there must be a legitimate and continuing authority for enforcing those actions. All are present.
The first element, Iraq's duty to comply with international law, has been reaffirmed through 17 Security Council resolutions over 12 years. This duty began with resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, which authorised use of "all necessary means" to force Iraq to quit Kuwait and importantly "to restore international peace and security in the area".
After operation Desert Storm forced Iraq from Kuwait, the Security Council authorised a ceasefire under resolution 687 on April 3, 1991. The ceasefire was conditional on Iraq destroying or removing all its chemical and biological weapons. This condition was reaffirmed in resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002.
Critically, resolution 1441 declares Iraq "in material breach" of its obligations, offers "one final opportunity" to comply fully - not partially - and threatens "serious consequences" if it continued to violate its obligations. The term "serious consequences" is the same enforcement provision that underpinned Desert Storm.
So, Iraq's duty to disarm is continuing and absolute.
The second element is the question of breach. Again, the Security Council has repeatedly found Iraq in breach of its obligations to disarm and has authorised the use of force on many occasions.
Since November, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted some co-operation, but he has repeatedly affirmed that Iraq has chemical and biological stores, missing anthrax and VX nerve gas supplies, and active development programs. So the Security Council itself has concluded that Iraq remains in fundamental breach of its obligations.
This breach has been compounded by Saddam Hussein's clear and unchallenged support for at least three active terrorist groups: the Abu Nidal Organisation, the Mujahideen e-Kharq and the PLF.
The third and most difficult question is who can legitimately enforce resolution 1441. Previous enforcement has followed a declaration of material breach, but has not specified the means. On all occasions it has been led by the US acting in accordance with Security Council resolutions.
In this particular case it has been asserted there may be duty and material breach but that US-led action would be unilateral and therefore illegitimate. This is false. In February, US Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman identified 26 countries that had already given access, basing and over-flight rights for action against Iraq. A further 18 had given contingent approval for such co-operation. So a minimum of 44 countries have provisionally agreed to participate in an enforcement operation.
Of course, it would be preferable to have a further resolution for purposes of unanimity. Such a resolution would be the best way of avoiding conflict. But Australia, Britain, Spain and the US have exhausted every avenue to achieve the moral support of an 18th resolution. However, France, while calling for UN solidarity, has at the same time categorically ruled out any further resolution authorising force. It has blocked the very avenue down which it wants the world to travel.
Make no mistake though, full authority to enforce resolution 1441 already exists.
Saddam has been under an express UN Security Council duty for more than a decade to terminate his chemical and biological programs. He has been found to be in material breach of that duty by maintaining an active chemical and biological weapons program. Moreover, his regime's active support for terrorism remains in breach of Security Council demands.
Above all else, moral legitimacy is stripped away by the fact that Saddam runs perhaps the most oppressive remaining regime in the world.
In all those circumstances, there is clear legitimacy for enforcement of Security Council resolutions by a coalition comprising more than 40 countries and that is led by three members of the Security Council.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, and when using quotes to ridicule people - one can never walk by without remembering the immortal words of the French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure."
To damn right - the Americans twice went to war and saved the French, and it turned out to be a failure after all.
<b>Bush declared war without receiving Senate approval. THAT is an act of treason, under US law.</b>
<b>Bush declared war without receiving Senate approval. THAT is an act of treason, under US law.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you will notice I quoted Jim not you - but I'll guess I'll have to go and try to find out more about this Senate approval business.
I spend 4 days a week in Bush hatin' central, and I've never heard that one before.....
EDIT I cant seem to find too much about Bush's shocking declaration of War without Senate approval. In fact, his great friends in the Green's party seem to have missed it also, from what I'm reading of their reports over the war.
Anyone have a link?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to me that he has other agenda's and that to me means he is outright lying to everyone (being either really smart or really stupid). It seems the days when lying was frowned upon in the government are over.
<a href='http://www.rationalrevolution.net/homeland_security_act.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rationalrevolution.net/homeland_security_act.htm</a>
Bush declares war (Oct 5, 2002)
Bombing strikes on Afghanistan begin (Oct 7, 2002)
<a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml</a>
Senate vote approves war (Oct 11, 2002)
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/</a>
Whitehouse.gov altered to remove older senate records, 'correct' dates/times, and reword presidential statements so no record would exist (January-<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->, 2003-<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<a href='http://news.com.com/2009-1023-250743.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2009-1023-250743.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Calpundit and Atrios, among others, recently pointed out some strange doings at the White House website: Someone made changes to a file that keeps search engines from indexing a huge number of directories with information on Iraq.
The pages themselves still exist on the White House website and are accessible from the site's own search engine. But Google results, for example, no longer would included any pages within those directories. As to the motivation behind these changes, the prevailing theory was that Google's cache had caught an instance of White House revisionism not too long ago; by blocking search engine spiders, changes on the official website would be that much harder to track. (At the time this seemed rather plausible, considering that the White House site has a track record of increasing inaccessibility, and the administration has a reputation for secrecy.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/politics/0310sinister_doings_at_whitehousegov.html' target='_blank'>http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/politi...tehousegov.html</a>
<a href='http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002813.html' target='_blank'>White House 'Historical Revisionisms'</a> (aka: Huh?! I didn't say THAT!)
In other words, he didn't need approval for Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere where he can say a terrorist threat exists.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once.
That or I guess that the bully has to show they can kick butt to try and scare the other kids off.
...wait. Doesn't that make *us* the terrorists?
That or I guess that the bully has to show they can kick butt to try and scare the other kids off.
...wait. Doesn't that make *us* the terrorists? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In war there are always mistakes and the soldiers that kill without provocation or good reason should be punished. Certainly, Bush has yet to condone the killing of civilians. You are being overly critical because you hate Bush so much. Certainly there have always been civilian deaths, but the US government has done all it can to avoid killing civilians. Also, it is far more difficult to not kill civilians when the enemy hides with the civilians and does not wear a uniform. Even the most severe hawks in the country do not condone the killing of civilians and believe that if all possible the killing of the innocent should be avoided. There are no nametags that civilians and terrorists wear. If a terrorist opens fire with his ak-47 on US Marines, the marines return fire, and a civilian is hit, who is to blame?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US government for having invaded a foreign country with no provocation (on the part of the country) nor hard evidence to try to chase down 'terrorists'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. I feel that it would be the terrorist's fault for trying to shoot the marine while using civilians as shields.
--Edit--
Heyyyy, wait a minute. Let's make that scenario a little more specific because I think you think he was refering to Iraq.
What if the marines over in the Phillipines (completely legal to be over there) get shot at, return fire, and kill a civilian?
That or I guess that the bully has to show they can kick butt to try and scare the other kids off.
...wait. Doesn't that make *us* the terrorists? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, it's also funny how haters of bush won't acknoledge that these civilian's lives are better off being shot at by our invading forces than living under a despotic regime where the death tolls are closing in on record numbers.
Let's just hold our judgment until the new government is in place, shall we? This administration's high level members don't exactly have a great track record for installing/supporting/monitoring foreign governments (remember, Saddam was one of their golden boys during the <i>heyday</i> of his 'despotic regime').
This is not to say that they can't pull this one off; simply that it's a bit premature to sing the praises of a non-existent government relative to the evil one we <i>formerly</i> supported.
But given the Chalabi fiasco and the prison debacle, we ain't exactly off to a brilliant start.
Edit: And it's a bit arrogant of us to come in, and each time we screw up, say, 'Hey! You guys should kiss our boots, because we aren't as evil as the guy we removed for being evil!'
As has been said before, I think we should hold ourselves to a <i>slightly</i> higher standard than Saddam Hussein.
In other words, he didn't need approval for Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere where he can say a terrorist threat exists.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice thats actually pretty smart. "Hey there are terorrists in.... (insert_country_that_has_something_we_want_here)!"
Its really getting to be an ugly world :|
Its really getting to be an ugly world :| <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, because we have benefited <i>sooooo</i> much from Iraq. Just admit we did a good thing by removing Saddam, and if we happen to get oil for it, all the better.
Always find that phrase interesting.
Is there really a "legal" war?
Is there "legal" murder?
Is the death penalty "legal murder"?
So the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder?
So it's legal if it's state sanctioned?
So war is legal if it's state sanctioned?
So all wars are legal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using that kind of logic I should be able to come over to your house fire a bullet right into your skull and take your wife/gf. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congradulations for missing my point, which is that the idea of a "legal war" as opposed to an "illegal war" is ridiculous in the first place. Since no international law really condones war, and as already stated it doesn't require the Senate's approval for the president to declare war, there isn't ever a time when war is legal, and by "legal" I mean "approved". And if it's never legal, it can never be illegal.
It's just war; you may think it's inherently bad or good, but it <u>can't</u> be legal or illegal.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is too big to let it slip by.
Where exactely did you get the impression that there was any kind of secure hints at terroristic activity carried out from Iraq? I'm sure I don't have to link you to the stories about Powell quoting a <i>failed</i> students paper on the topic in front of the UN again, nor should I have to recite that bin Laden explicitely stated his disagreement with the atheistic leader of the stalinistic Ba'ath party on numerous occasions.
Bush, being the rather sincere person he is, never abused this power once. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is too big to let it slip by.
Where exactely did you get the impression that there was any kind of secure hints at terroristic activity carried out from Iraq? I'm sure I don't have to link you to the stories about Powell quoting a <i>failed</i> students paper on the topic in front of the UN again, nor should I have to recite that bin Laden explicitely stated his disagreement with the atheistic leader of the stalinistic Ba'ath party on numerous occasions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You miss my point - that is Bush has the right to declare a war on any nation he says to be holding terrorists, as Congress gave him power to do so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice try taking all of this out of context. Communism was considered a greater evil than a tyrant in a small 3rd world nation. Think about it for a second: we can take away from any dicatator what we gave them, or even remove them from power; we could not remove communism from anywhere without war on equal grounds. Every third world dictator knew that they had to either be pro-Soviet or pro-American, otherwise they risked both sides trying to take them down, instead of just one.
We armed the Taliban because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and stopping Communism was more important at the time than anything Afghanistan could do.