# Lets talk about the soldiers.



## KelJu (Nov 9, 2006)

Decker said:


> Honor the past vets by fixing today's clusterfuck that will create tomorrow's disabled vets, war widows etc.
> 
> No one in Iraq is fighting for my benefit.  That's comforting illusion but only Bush has threatened my freedoms, not Iraq.
> 
> ...




This is an excellent most, but it doesn't really belong in the other thread. 
I agree with Decker a 100%, and I get the feeling that a lot of people were jumping his shit because they don't agree with his ideology.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 9, 2006)

> No one in Iraq is fighting for my benefit.  That's comforting illusion but only Bush has threatened my freedoms, not Iraq.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 9, 2006)

KelJu said:


> This is an excellent most, but it doesn't really belong in the other thread.
> I agree with Decker a 100%, and I get the feeling that a lot of people were jumping his shit because they don't agree with his ideology.


Decker is (and always has been) quite passionate about his anti-Bush / Anti-Iraq War position.  He makes good agruements and, sometimes, presses the envelope way outside the lines to stirr responses.

He's a lawyer.  He's good at that shit.  Although I don't feel comfortable addressing him in 3rd person (sorry Deck) he deserves better than that.

While I don't agree with his assessment that the war is "Criminal" or "Illegal" I can certainly appreciate the arguement.

Where I complete seperate ways with his recent posts is in his assessment that all soldiers in Iraq are criminals because they refuse to disobey orders.  His recent statements seem to imply that all combat soldiers in Iraq should rebel against their command and refuse to participate otherwise, they should all be tried and executed in a Geneva War Tribunal.  This ideology is simply ludicrous.

What happenes next time if we are actually fighting a war Decker (or anyone) might actually agree with and soldiers take it apon themselves to simply refuse to fight because they don't want to?


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 9, 2006)

Furthermore.....

This whole Anti-Iraq war sentiment seems to have an embedded message that implies all our soldiers are doing over there is killing innocent civillians and burning villages.  That is total bullshit and everyone should know it.

In another thread it was mentioned that the veterans of WW1 and WW2 were to be highly respected and honored.

While I couldn't agree more I'm curious how the public today would respond if we engaged the war in Iraq with the same strategy and tactics used in those two great wars.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 9, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Furthermore.....
> 
> This whole Anti-Iraq war sentiment seems to have an embedded message that implies all our soldiers are doing over there is killing innocent civillians and burning villages.  That is total bullshit and everyone should know it.
> 
> ...




 I never said that, and I don't believe that. I have many friends that went to Afghanistan and Iraq. They told me how appreciative so many of the people were that were there. They also told me about the fucked up shit they saw.  I could write 3 pages on just the stories they told me, but you guys have already heard that stuff over and over so I won't go there. 

The main point I am trying to get across was that pointing obvious faults in our military doesn???t mean we don???t support it. I think of the US and the military as one organism. I also think of my country as a black sheep brother. I love it and support it, but I would not agree with it when he was doing stupid shit that would get itself in more trouble. 

Since everyone likes to say ???The troops are there in Iraq fighting for our freedom???. I say this: we should keep up the good fight against our corrupt politicians who do not give a shit about our troops. Lets fight for them. Don???t just agree blindly. George Bush doesn???t give a rat???s fucking ass about Joe Blow Jarhead getting shot in Baghdad. He doesn???t. This whole thing is nothing more than a chess game to him, and his troops are the chess pieces.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 9, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Furthermore.....
> 
> This whole Anti-Iraq war sentiment seems to have an embedded message that implies all our soldiers are doing over there is killing innocent civillians and burning villages.  That is total bullshit and everyone should know it.
> 
> ...



I don't think that, I just don't think anything good is being done over there, however that is not the troops fault, they are just doing their duty.


----------



## Decker (Nov 9, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Furthermore.....
> 
> This whole Anti-Iraq war sentiment seems to have an embedded message that implies all our soldiers are doing over there is killing innocent civillians and burning villages. That is total bullshit and everyone should know it.


There are about 50,000 dead iraqis that would disagree with you, if they were alive to argue.  But they are not.  And the only reason they are dead is b/c Bush jumped the gun on WMD inspections and ordered an illegal invasion.  Sour fruit from a corrupt tree.

This is a dicy topic.  I'm debating.  Witmaster and I just happen to disagree.

Here's where I go to lighten up a bit:
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=322041

http://www.farts.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2006)

Decker said:


> There are about 50,000 dead iraqis that would disagree with you, if they were alive to argue.  But they are not.  And the only reason they are dead is b/c Bush jumped the gun on WMD inspections and ordered an illegal invasion.  Sour fruit from a corrupt tree.
> 
> This is a dicy topic.  I'm debating.  Witmaster and I just happen to disagree.
> 
> ...


HA  HA

*Early usage*

 A well known usage of the fart in Middle English occurs in Chaucer's "Miller's Tale" (one of the _Canterbury Tales_). In the tale (which is told by a bawdy miller as a group of pilgrims travel to Canterbury), the character Nicholas hangs his buttocks out of a window and farts in the face of his rival Absolom, who is instead expecting a kiss. Absolom is humiliated by this gesture. Nicholas then attempts to repeat the prank, and Absolom then sears Nicholas's rear with a red-hot poker.


This Alison answered; "Who is there
That knocketh so? I warrant him a thief."
"Nay, nay," quoth he, "God wot, my sweete lefe,
I am thine Absolon, my own darling.
Of gold," quoth he, "I have thee brought a ring,
My mother gave it me, so God me save!
Full fine it is, and thereto well y-grave:
This will I give to thee, if thou me kiss."
Now Nicholas was risen up to piss,
And thought he would amenden all the jape;
He shoulde kiss his erse ere that he scape:
And up the window did he hastily,
And out his erse he put full privily
Over the buttock, to the haunche bone.
And therewith spake this clerk, this Absolon,
"*Speak, sweete bird, I know not where thou art."
This Nicholas anon let fly a **fart,*
As great as it had been a thunder dent;
That with the stroke he was well nigh y-blent;
But he was ready with his iron hot,
And Nicholas amid the erse he smote.
Off went the skin an handbreadth all about.
The hote culter burned so his toutv,
That for the smart he weened he would die;
As he were wood, for woe he gan to cry,​


----------



## KelJu (Nov 9, 2006)

http://www.farts.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1




Rob, we need a fart forum. I was lughing for 5 minutes while reading stuff from that.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 9, 2006)

Prince said:


> I don't think that, *I just don't think anything good is being done over there*, however that is not the troops fault, they are just doing their duty.


And I think you and many others are desperately and sadly misinformed of all that goes on over there.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 9, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> He's a lawyer.


Huh? I never knew that, he seems so nice?


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Huh? I never knew that, he seems so nice?


Yea... he befriends you... earns your trust.... lures you out into the street with good booze and then laughs with delight when you get by the passing bus

He then offers you his business card with a pledge to represent you in your lawsuit against the bus company.

Yea.... he's good.


----------



## fufu (Nov 9, 2006)

My best friend is in the infantry.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 9, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Yea... he befriends you... earns your trust.... lures you out into the street with good booze and then laughs with delight when you get by the passing bus
> 
> He then offers you his business card with a pledge to represent you in your lawsuit against the bus company.
> 
> Yea.... he's good.


----------



## Decker (Nov 10, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Yea... he befriends you... earns your trust.... lures you out into the street with good booze and then laughs with delight when you get by the passing bus
> 
> He then offers you his business card with a pledge to represent you in your lawsuit against the bus company.


You say that as if there's something wrong with it.

A man's got to earn a living. 

Now let's go 'cross the street for a drink.

I'm buying.


----------



## Decker (Nov 10, 2006)

KelJu said:


> http://www.farts.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you notice all the women that post at farts.com? 

Astonishing.

It took me months to acclimate my wife to the ways of the fart. I seduced her to the dark side.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 10, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> And I think you and many others are desperately and sadly misinformed of all that goes on over there.



I agree, our government has led us to believe that we are actually doing good over there.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 10, 2006)

Prince said:


> I agree, our government has led us to believe that we are actually doing good over there.


And people are so blinded by their wholesale acceptance of Anti-war rhetoric that they refuse to see anything otherwise.  Prior to the election all you ever heard on the news about Iraq was the up-to-date death toll of American casualties.  Sad... but that's all seems to be of interest to the media and the viewing public.  Sure.. it's fine to be "anti-war".  Whats tragic is that the continuing efforts and accomplishments of our people over there are widely ignored because people refuse to believe that anything good could possibly come of this.

Yes, it is all too true and tragic that there are bad things happening in Iraq.  But, have you ever stopped to consider the testimonies of service men and women who have positive things to report?

Sure... you can blame the government for attempting to  "brainwash" the public into believing in this war.  I suppose that makes it easier to dismiss the efforts of our forces as being "no good at all".


----------



## Arnold (Nov 10, 2006)

No, because I think it is wrong (stupid and ignorant) to invade a country, overthrow their leader and impose our type of government, beliefs, values, etc.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 10, 2006)

Prince said:


> No, because I think it is wrong (stupid and ignorant) to invade a country, overthrow their leader and impose our type of government, beliefs, values, etc.


True.  But.. as memory recalls.... it was Saddam who first invaded Kuwait and then refused to comply with the U.N. Resolutions required by the Cease-Fire agreement.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 10, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> True.  But.. as memory recalls.... it was Saddam who first invaded Kuwait and then refused to comply with the U.N. Resolutions required by the Cease-Fire agreement.



so, two wrongs make a right, or that gave us the right to do what we did?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

Prince said:


> so, two wrongs make a right, or that gave us the right to do what we did?



We were called in by the UN and the Kuwaitis.
We went to war with Iraq.
We ceased fire with the agreement that Iraq cease all hostiles and allow the inspectors in with unfettered access.
Iraq did not meet the conditions of the cease fire.
We finished the war.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## largepkg (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> We were called in by the UN and the Kuwaitis.
> We went to war with Iraq.
> We ceased fire with the agreement that Iraq cease all hostiles and allow the inspectors in with unfettered access.
> Iraq did not meet the conditions of the cease fire.
> ...




Because he's a pacifist and hates war.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

largepkg said:


> Because he's a pacifist and hates war.



Red Vs Blue:

*Church*: [Frank has arrived too late to save Tex's life] First of all, great job on the Tex, man. Mission accomplished. Secondly, the way that we need you to assist is to help us kill all the Reds.
*Frank DuFresne*: Well, even if my orders didn't prohibit me from doing that, I still wouldn't. I joined the army as a conscientious objector.
*Tucker*: Consci... who?
*Frank DuFresne*: I'm a pacifist.
*Caboose*: ...You're a thing that babies suck on?
*Tucker*: No, dude, that's a pedophile.
*Church*: Tucker, I think he means a pacifier.
*Tucker*: Oh, yeah. Right. Man, I was totally thinking about something else.
*Church*: That's real classy, Tucker.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> We were called in by the UN and the Kuwaitis.
> We went to war with Iraq.
> We ceased fire with the agreement that Iraq cease all hostiles and allow the inspectors in with unfettered access.
> Iraq did not meet the conditions of the cease fire.
> ...



gee thanks, and here all this time I thought it was about oil and power.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

Prince said:


> gee thanks, and here all this time I thought it was about oil and power.



It _*must *_be about the oil.  I mean, look how much the price of oil has dropped since 2000. 

But don't let the facts get in your way.


----------



## Decker (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> We were called in by the UN and the Kuwaitis.
> We went to war with Iraq.
> We ceased fire with the agreement that Iraq cease all hostiles and allow the inspectors in with unfettered access.
> Iraq did not meet the conditions of the cease fire.
> ...


Iraq was a like a recalcitrant child but the fact is, is that Iraq did comply. 

Bush was given authority to use force. He misused that authority by attacking before the weapon's inspectors finished the job of inspecting Iraq for evidence of WMDs.

We haven't finished any war. 

Bush wanted the invasion for many reasons I'd guess. The main, and most recent, iteration is that the US was going to bomb Iraq into a new democracy in direct opposition to 5000 years of Iraqi ethnic and religious differences. Somehow, counting the votes of these cultural aliens was supposed transform them into peaceful, quasi-american populists.

The very idea is hopelessly idealistic.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

Decker said:


> Iraq was a like a recalcitrant child but the fact is, is that Iraq did comply.



Just because you'd like to believe so, doesn't make it so.  He only really complied just as we were about to attack.  To little, to late.



Decker said:


> Bush was given authority to use force. He misused that authority by attacking before the weapon's inspectors finished the job of inspecting Iraq for evidence of WMDs.



We didn't need anyone's approval to attack.  After we went to war, it was always our right to finish it.  

Also, they inspectors couldn't do the job even after a decade.  10 years is long enough.



Decker said:


> We haven't finished any war.



By the standard of the good ol' days, it is.  Personally, I don't agree with the pansy ideology that we have to help rebuild after we beat the shit out of an enemy.  We should simply show up, destroy as much as we need to (or want to), smoke 'em if you got 'em, and then go home.



Decker said:


> Bush wanted the invasion for many reasons I'd guess. The main, and most recent, iteration is that the US was going to bomb Iraq into a new democracy in direct opposition to 5000 years of Iraqi ethnic and religious differences. Somehow, counting the votes of these cultural aliens was supposed transform them into peaceful, quasi-american populists.
> 
> The very idea is hopelessly idealistic.



I agree with you on this.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 10, 2006)

Prince said:


> so, two wrongs make a right, or that gave us the right to do what we did?


Ok... well let's break this down into more simple terms.....


You have two sons.  One is obviously stronger and far more powerful than the other.

One day.. the stronger son, without provocation, starts kicking the living shit out of the weaker.  This bloody ass-kicking continues despite the cries of others around to stop.

Finally... you intervene to stop the stronger brother's attack.  You then tell the offending brother than unless he agrees to say he's sorry, you'll give him a spanking.


Hours... days... and weeks go by and nothing changes.  the stronger brother refuses to comply with your requirements and defiantly thumbs his nose at you.  He knows you'll never follow through with your promise of punishment.

What do you do?


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> By the standard of the good ol' days, it is. Personally, I don't agree with the pansy ideology that we have to help rebuild after we beat the shit out of an enemy. We should simply show up, destroy as much as we need to (or want to), smoke 'em if you got 'em, and then go home.


Man i always said if we could fight this war the way we did back in WWII this shit would have been over years ago.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> What do you do?



You realize that you're not man enough to ever have children, so you let someone else handle it because it's not your problem?


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> You realize that you're not man enough to ever have children, so you let someone else handle it because it's not your problem?


----------



## Decker (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Just because you'd like to believe so, doesn't make it so. He only really complied just as we were about to attack. To little, to late.


Too little and too late to whom? Certainly not to the UN. 

"Resolution 1441 declares that Iraq ???remains in material breach??? of past resolutions but explains that the council had decided to ???afford Iraq???a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.??? "

Compliance is compliance even if it is not timely. The alternative of rushing into war got us the mess we are in presently.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/international/20021117_iraq_HISTORY/for_iraq_HISTORY_03.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_12/iraq_dec02.asp



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> We didn't need anyone's approval to attack. After we went to war, it was always our right to finish it.


Not true. The first war and the latest war were mandated by the UN. The US was the main player, but it was still legally subordinate to the grant of authority extended by the UN.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Also, they inspectors couldn't do the job even after a decade. 10 years is long enough.


How do you figure? The Inspectors came to the conclusion that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Who was right? GW Bush or the Weapons Inspectors. You know the answer.




			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> By the standard of the good ol' days, it is. Personally, I don't agree with the pansy ideology that we have to help rebuild after we beat the shit out of an enemy. We should simply show up, destroy as much as we need to (or want to), smoke 'em if you got 'em, and then go home......


We helped Germany rebuild after WWII. It makes longterm sense to help your enemy rebuild and reacclimate to being an ally rather than an enemy.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

Decker said:


> Too little and too late to whom? Certainly not to the UN.



The UN is a joke.  They didn't think that a decade was enough time.



Decker said:


> Compliance is compliance even if it is not timely.



Saddam only complied in so much as he was forced to with physical attacks.  He never fully complied.  He only _promised _to after the US geared up to finish the war.  


 


Decker said:


> Not true. The first war and the latest war were mandated by the UN. The US was the main player, but it was still legally subordinate to the grant of authority extended by the UN.



The UN didn't mandate crap.  They pretend that they do, but such is not the case.  They had no way to stop Iraq and called in the only country that would have bothered to do so.

Also, there was only on war.  Not two, just one.  They were two engagements of one war.  After the US was called in to fight the war, they were the ones that could decide how it should end.  The US isn't a military force to be used by the UN.  They are a sovereign country that decided to fight.  After they were called in, it wasn't the UN's choice what would happen.  They couldn't command, they could ask.





Decker said:


> How do you figure? The Inspectors came to the conclusion that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
> 
> Who was right? GW Bush or the Weapons Inspectors. You know the answer.



Bullshit.  Up until Bush was ready to finish the war, they were saying that they didn't know if he had them.

Besides (God, I'm going to enjoy this): If they _*knew *_that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, then _why did they need more time_?




Decker said:


> We helped Germany rebuild after WWII. It makes longterm sense to help your enemy rebuild and reacclimate to being an ally rather than an enemy.



German is a western country.  The only non-western country that we've ever helped that made any difference was Japan.  The rest of the world simply will not benefit long-term from such an action.

I mean, where's the great reconstruction of Vietnam?  Korea?


----------



## Decker (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> ....Saddam only complied in so much as he was forced to with physical attacks. He never fully complied. He only _promised _to after the US geared up to finish the war.


I think you are correct in this statement. The sabre rattling helped. But Bush went too far and broke the law. 





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> The UN didn't mandate crap. They pretend that they do, but such is not the case. They had no way to stop Iraq and called in the only country that would have bothered to do so.


The UN did provide the authority to go to attack Iraq. That's an incontrovertible fact. 


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Also, there was only on war. Not two, just one. They were two engagements of one war. After the US was called in to fight the war, they were the ones that could decide how it should end. The US isn't a military force to be used by the UN. They are a sovereign country that decided to fight. After they were called in, it wasn't the UN's choice what would happen. They couldn't command, they could ask.


Technically there was no war at all b/c congress authorized no declaration of war. However, if we look at the War Powers Resolution of '73, the argument can be made that the president can attack countries only by consulting with Congress. The caveat is is that if Congress does not formally declare war within 90 days of the original authorization, the deal's off. How long have we been in Iraq?
(an aside, if the War Powers Resolution is ever addressed by the supreme court, any self-respecting original intent justice should find it to be unconstitutional)

The US is member of the UN. We chose to be there. Our sovereignty has nothing to do with our participation in that respect. 





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Bullshit. Up until Bush was ready to finish the war, they were saying that they didn't know if he had them.


Absolutely false. The weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of the alleged manufacture or maintenance of WMDs in any of the places they looked--they had free reign--and Bush, out of nowhere, said get out of Iraq, the US will bomb in 3 days. Sounds like Bush took matters into his own hands and misused his authority...again. 

Read Blix's testimony: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/

Read his latest pronouncements:
"If you sentence someone to death or you sentence someone to war, you'd better have some evidence," Blix tells NPR's Bob Edwards. "And we didn't feel there was evidence..."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1767468



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Besides (God, I'm going to enjoy this): If they _*knew *_that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, then _why did they need more time_?


B/c attack was on the line. The WMD inspectors knew about the places they searched. Bush abruptly stopped the search opting for invasion instead. It was clear that the presence of WMDs did not mean a thing the GWB.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> German is a western country. The only non-western country that we've ever helped that made any difference was Japan. The rest of the world simply will not benefit long-term from such an action.
> 
> I mean, where's the great reconstruction of Vietnam? Korea?


We didn't win those wars. We lost to Viet Nam and Korea ended like Viet Nam. The underlying principle of helping the vanquished is still the right thing to do.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

You must have written that in a test editor and pasted it into the response box because, when I hit "quote", there are no line breaks and there's no way in hell I'm going to clean it up. 

Bush ended the war, which was our right the moment we went into combat.

Yeah, the UN "authorized" it the same way I'd authorize the police to save me during an attempt on my life.

Whether not the US formally declares war in an internal sense, is not the business of anyone outside of its borders.  We told the UN that we'd go to war for them and, at the point, the control of the situation was no longer theirs.

Go check the dates when Blix (the  political piece of shit that he is) made his statements.  And that includes the rest of the inspectors and the UN.  None of them made those claims until _after _the US went into the second battle.  It was all after the fact.

"B/c attack was on the line."

I knew that you'd say this because it's the only chance you had for a rebuttal.  But it's a crock.  Show me one report from the UN prior to the US' declaration to finish the war that says that they knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs.  You won't, because you can't.  No such document exists.  Nice try though...or not.  

My point about rebuilding is that, if it's not a western country, it's a complete waste.   There's no way in hell you can bring civility to a third-world nation.


----------



## Decker (Nov 10, 2006)

I hate to say it, but what's a test editor? If you're referring to the Blix quote, I did cut and paste it from the link.

You're oversimplifying the 'goto war' line of reasoning. If Bush doesn't have adequate grounds for attacking Iraq legally, that is the basis of a war crimes charge. Preventive War is still a war crime. That's a major reason the UN's blessing was required. You may despise the UN but the legal infrastructure is there and we have to deal with it.

The UN may not know anything. However, the UN inspectors were finding no WMDs. In other words, your distinction is without merit. I showed you the Hans Blix testimony. If that is not going to persuade you of what they knew, I don't know what will. All the inspectors, to a man, found zero evidence of WMDS and that was directly contradicting Bush's reasons for invasion.

Your opinion of rebuilding 3rd world countries is unfortunate. I take it that you disagreed with Colin Powell's assesment of invading Iraq--"you break it, you bought it."

Have a great weekend DOMS. It's snowing/raining here in Milwaukee and I have to go pick up my wife from work. It never ends.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

Decker said:


> I hate to say it, but what's a test editor? If you're referring to the Blix quote, I did cut and paste it from the link.


Hardy-har-har. 



Decker said:


> You're oversimplifying the 'goto war' line of reasoning.



I'm not.  It is quite simple.  The UN asked us to go to war.  That's "asked", not commanded.  The US agreed to.  Once we did that, the war, and all decisions pertaining to it, were ours to make, not the UNs.  Otherwise, where are the UN sanctions against the US?  Huh?



Decker said:


> The UN may not know anything. However, the UN inspectors were finding no WMDs.



It's funny how you can say this, seeing that they never had full access, and even complained that Saddam was giving them the run-around. 



Decker said:


> In other words, your distinction is without merit. I showed you the Hans Blix testimony.



And, pray tell, when was that testimony given?    (You so deserve this emoticon).



Decker said:


> Your opinion of rebuilding 3rd world countries is unfortunate. I take it that you disagreed with Colin Powell's assesment of invading Iraq--"you break it, you bought it."



I most certainly disagree with it.  It was broken when we got there.



Decker said:


> ave a great weekend DOMS. It's snowing/raining here in Milwaukee and I have to go pick up my wife from work. It never ends.



You too man!  It's kinda nice here.  It's in the 40s, but with a clear sky and no wind.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 10, 2006)

HAHAHA!....................It was 80 here today!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

dg806 said:


> HAHAHA!....................It was 80 here today!!!!!!!!!



You suck.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 10, 2006)

dg806 said:


> HAHAHA!....................It was 80 here today!!!!!!!!!


We had that yesterday.  Cold fron rolled through earlier.  It's now hovering around in the 40's.

No matter.  I'm still golfing tomorrow


----------



## maniclion (Nov 10, 2006)

dg806 said:


> HAHAHA!....................It was 80 here today!!!!!!!!!


Damn thats freezing, we got down to 84 today, I had to turn off my AC in the car and roll down the windows....


----------



## cman (Nov 10, 2006)

KelJu said:


> This is an excellent most, but it doesn't really belong in the other thread.
> I agree with Decker a 100%, and I get the feeling that a lot of people were jumping his shit because they don't agree with his ideology.


So we should have just rolled over one more time, piss on the sailors on the cole heh? Who cares about 911, who cares about the stuff we have satalite photos of him smuggling in to syria. We should have let him finnish and start ww3 by bombing Israel, like he said he would. Put your head back in the sand, and blame bush. I heard on cnn that he sent katrina to New orleans. Then made all those degenerates get boob jobs with the govornment money.


----------



## cman (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> You must have written that in a test editor and pasted it into the response box because, when I hit "quote", there are no line breaks and there's no way in hell I'm going to clean it up.
> 
> Bush ended the war, which was our right the moment we went into combat.
> 
> ...


 


Well said. Bush had the same info everyone else did. People sit here and armchair quarterback. I remember him telling congress if you are not in this for the long haul vote no. They found empty wmd mobile labs, im sure they had those and never intended on using them. The whole 911 was made possible by that pussy clinton, firing the 1200 operatives we had inside groups like alqueda. The terrorists want the dems in controle here, so who are they afraid of? when dems are in charge you can kill kill kill americans and they just say"lets talk about this in a civil manner." Bill put us in a ressesion and we were finally pulling out of it and cnn brainwashed america voted in a tax hiking bunch of pussies. If you remember the first q asked of bush while clinton was still in. "Are you upset that Pres clinton is handing you a country that has gone into a ressesion?"


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

cman said:


> Well said. Bush had the same info everyone else did. People sit here and armchair quarterback. I remember him telling congress if you are not in this for the long haul vote no. They found empty wmd mobile labs, im sure they had those and never intended on using them. The whole 911 was made possible by that pussy clinton, firing the 1200 operatives we had inside groups like alqueda. *The terrorists want the dems in controle here, so who are they afraid of? when dems are in charge you can kill kill kill americans and they just say"lets talk about this in a civil manner." *Bill put us in a ressesion and we were finally pulling out of it and cnn brainwashed america voted in a tax hiking bunch of pussies. If you remember the first q asked of bush while clinton was still in. "Are you upset that Pres clinton is handing you a country that has gone into a ressesion?"



So very, very true.

And not only do they try to armchair it, they also do it with hindsight.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 10, 2006)

The men in the military deserve our respect.

The _Civilian[_ leaders that put them in harm's way for the sake of power and money do not deserve respect.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> So very, very true.
> 
> And not only do they try to armchair it, they also do it with hindsight.



Didn't someone already make the point that msot of the recent wars were fought under a democratic president??


----------



## goandykid (Nov 10, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> The men in the military deserve our respect.
> 
> The _Civilian[_ leaders that put them in harm's way for the sake of power and money do not deserve respect.



And didn't you write cheerily about their death a few months ago?

Why teh change?


----------



## goandykid (Nov 10, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> *Jarhed:*
> 
> Why did all these people die?
> 
> ...




.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Didn't someone already make the point that msot of the recent wars were fought under a democratic president??


I must have missed that.  But, as always, don't let the facts get in the way.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2006)

goandykid said:


> .


Ouch...

Good memory.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Ouch...
> 
> Good memory.



Don't mean to sound childish, but it still angers me. Snafu sounds like an intelligent person but I don't appreciate his hypocrisy when it comes to our troops.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 10, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I must have missed that.  But, as always, don't let the facts get in the way.



How can I argue w/ a man w/ an avatar like that.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 11, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Didn't someone already make the point that msot of the recent wars were fought under a democratic president??


They were started by Dems, then if the Dems stayed in power they won them...when the Repubs took over in between or started one they ended up getting whooped and had to back out Korea,Vietnam or quit halfway through or had no plan for what to do after winning Iraq I and II...


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 11, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Don't mean to sound childish, but it still angers me. Snafu sounds like an intelligent person but I don't appreciate his hypocrisy when it comes to our troops.


Yea, he's one of my favorites


----------



## goandykid (Nov 11, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Yea, he's one of my favorites


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 12, 2006)

Yes,

I did make mean statements.  But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the _civilians_ in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.

It's isn't the military's fault.  The military leaders like Gen. Shinseki, Spider Marks, Adm. Vern Clark did the right thing: they told the truth.

They were pushed asided.

I stand to be corrected.

The military are the good men and women.

it's the _civilain politicians and bureaucrats_ that are bad.

I still, must live with my emotional statements, because I did post them.

But it was not, and is not, how I truly feel.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 12, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> Yes,
> 
> I did make mean statements. But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the _civilians_ in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.
> 
> ...


I forgive.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 12, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> Yes,
> 
> I did make mean statements. But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the _civilians_ in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.
> 
> ...


Damn dude...

If you would have just said that a couple months ago I'd have saved a fortune in Voo Doo dolls.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 12, 2006)

No one in Iraq is fighting for your benefit?  Thats what I love about America.  Any loud-mouth can get on a platform and promote any ill-informed agenda that they please.

I wouldn't expect you to support the war.  Democrats, as a per se rule, only support military intervention if it in no way could promote national security or the economy.  We can scream all fucking day about the genocide in Darfur.  DARFUR DARFUR, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!!!!  But if a conservative overthrows a dictator who killed 50,000 kurds (thats called genocide, in case you didn't know) there will be hell to pay, especially if by doing so we also set up a government that might one day be the starting point for stability in a perpetually instable region.  Shit, I have an idea, why don't we send some troops to Somalia in a "humanitarian" effort that everyone knows could not possibly provide us any benefit.  Then, when we actually get into a hostile conflict, we will retreat a leave our dead soldiers to be dragged naked through the streets by the very people who were oh-so-deserving of our generousity.  Or maybe, when we get caught up in a sex and perjury scandal, we can tactically bomb an asprin factory.  Thats a great fucking idea, now everyone in the middle east won't get relief from their headaches!  Thanks Clinton!


----------



## goandykid (Nov 12, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> Yes,
> 
> I did make mean statements.  But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the _civilians_ in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 12, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> Yes,
> 
> I did make mean statements.  But those statements were out of my reaction to reading about what was happening to everyone in Iraq, because of lies, greed, and the quest for power the _civilians_ in DoD like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dough Feith, Armitage, and many others.
> 
> ...




*Very Respectful!!!*


 


IMO, you own'd this thread.


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 12, 2006)

And no shit eh, I just found out Decker's a lawyer.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 12, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> No one in Iraq is fighting for your benefit?  Thats what I love about America.  *Any loud-mouth can get on a platform and promote any ill-informed agenda that they please.*



Yup, George W. Bush.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 13, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> Yup, George W. Bush.



That is so intelligent I just shit my pants.  God Damn how did you get so smart.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Hardy-har-har.


Cut the sass, I am wounded by your meanness.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm not. It is quite simple. The UN asked us to go to war. That's "asked", not commanded. The US agreed to. Once we did that, the war, and all decisions pertaining to it, were ours to make, not the UNs. Otherwise, where are the UN sanctions against the US? Huh?


· Under fundamental international law, military force is permissible only in self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

· Here is the resolution???look at the reasons for authorization???(a) #1 and #2:

*SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. *
*(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- *
*(1)** defend** the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and *
*(2)** enforce** all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. *

Further: AS U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."
http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htm
In short, Iraq was no threat to the US???no WMDs and the initiation of the attack by Bush was in violation of Res. 1441 which did not have triggers for an automatic attack. So you can see clearly that by invading Iraq before WMDs were found, Bush broke the law.

Here???s a short 2 page explanation why the invasion is illegal: http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0212lawyers.pdf


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> It's funny how you can say this, seeing that they never had full access, and even complained that Saddam was giving them the run-around.


Read just the first paragraph of this Congressional Report on the investigations. In summary, we attacked Iraq to remove WMDs, except the inspectors turned up no legitimate WMDs. Yes, Blix said that historically the inspections were a tug of war w/ Hussein, but Bush???s saber rattling instilled a new sense of compliance w/ the Iraqi leader resulting in substantive and procedural access. http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL31671_20030328.pdf


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> And, pray tell, when was that testimony given?  (You so deserve this emoticon).


You have your facts wrong again. Blix testified in 2003 about 2002 investigations. His 2002 Journal (march 7) comments on how good the Iraqi cooperation was with the inspections. Any way you slice it, Hussein did comply with the inspectors.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> I most certainly disagree with it. It was broken when we got there.


No. We bombed the country to shit and Bush handed out all those gravy reconstruction contracts to supporters that were financed by the Oil revenues of Iraq. Oh, wait a moment that is incorrect, the US taxpayer picked up the bill.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> No one in Iraq is fighting for your benefit? Thats what I love about America. Any loud-mouth can get on a platform and promote any ill-informed agenda that they please.
> 
> I wouldn't expect you to support the war. Democrats, as a per se rule, only support military intervention if it in no way could promote national security or the economy. We can scream all fucking day about the genocide in Darfur. DARFUR DARFUR, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!!!! But if a conservative overthrows a dictator who killed 50,000 kurds (thats called genocide, in case you didn't know) there will be hell to pay, especially if by doing so we also set up a government that might one day be the starting point for stability in a perpetually instable region. Shit, I have an idea, why don't we send some troops to Somalia in a "humanitarian" effort that everyone knows could not possibly provide us any benefit. Then, when we actually get into a hostile conflict, we will retreat a leave our dead soldiers to be dragged naked through the streets by the very people who were oh-so-deserving of our generousity. Or maybe, when we get caught up in a sex and perjury scandal, we can tactically bomb an asprin factory. Thats a great fucking idea, now everyone in the middle east won't get relief from their headaches! Thanks Clinton!


Rant all you like. I've shown that the invasion is illegal. Would you care to show me otherwise. Or are you engaging in the designed hysteria emblematic of some war supporters? Your argument goes something like this: "Iraq is meteor of death and destruction and it's headed right at the US. We must attack to save ourselves. Proof and legality be damned" 

But then I am ignorant of so much. Please explain to me how the invasion of Iraq was a pressing national security issue for the US back in 2002.

You mentioned (benefitting) the economy as a reason for invasion. Whatever happened to Free Markets and Iraq's rights to its own national resources? Or is the idea of free markets just one of convenience when it means slashing wages and busting unions?


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> Cut the sass, I am wounded by your meanness.
> · Under fundamental international law, military force is permissible only in self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council.
> 
> · Here is the resolution???look at the reasons for authorization???(a) #1 and #2:
> ...



*DECKER'ownzzzddd
X A Million*


----------



## ZECH (Nov 13, 2006)

Remember,
Freedom is *NEVER* free!


----------



## ZECH (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.
The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it. 
Hell just give them them 10 more years of talk and sanctions. That will certainly do it.
It has worked in North Korea hasn't it??


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> <bullshit about 1441>



What a crock.  1441 was drafted in 2002.  The US went to war with Iraq in 1990.  You'll notice a time difference of, oh, about a decade.  Who cares if the UN felt like draftING shit over 10 years later.  It doesn't change the fact that the UN can't do shit on its own and called for the US to fight a war for them back 1990.  

The _very moment_ we engaged in that war, the fate of it was the US' to decide.  Take, for instance, the cessation of hostilities in 1991.  Who decided to do that? What is the Kuwaitis?  No.  Was it the UN?  No.  It was the US.  We so thoroughly ravage the Iraqi forces that we felt we should give them a chance to end it without further bloodshed. 

They failed to adhere to our demands, so the resumption of that war was, again, the US' to make, not the UN's.

What you're doing is a bit of slight of hand.  "Oh, look over here!  Look at 1441!  Forget that the US is the one in control of that war!"  





Decker said:


> You have your facts wrong again. Blix testified in 2003 about 2002 investigations. His 2002 Journal (march 7) comments on how good the Iraqi cooperation was with the inspections. Any way you slice it, Hussein did comply with the inspectors.



Wait, didn't you say in an earlier post that Blix only said that Iraq complied to stop the impending US attack?  Hmm?  So which is it? Did Blix really have absolute proof that Iraq didn't have any WMDs?  In which case, you lied in an earlier post.  Or did he just say that to try to stop the war?  In which case, you're lying now.




Decker said:


> No. We bombed the country to shit and Bush handed out all those gravy reconstruction contracts to supporters that were financed by the Oil revenues of Iraq. Oh, wait a moment that is incorrect, the US taxpayer picked up the bill.



The country was shit when we got there and we are (the US and hence the taxpayers) building it up.  Which is a waste of money.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> *DECKER'ownzzzddd
> X A Million *


*= 0*


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Remember,
> Freedom is *NEVER* free!


I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the founders memorialized the basic recipe for maintaining freedom in our US Constitution. 

I always wonder if GW Bush ever read the constitution.

[SIZE=+1]"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"[/SIZE] http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

My money is on the point that he hasn't read it.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
> Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
> The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.
> The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it.
> ...



No shit.  If we really, I mean *really*, broke the a law, where's the formal, *written*, accusation?  Where's the punishment?  Where are the sanctions?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the founders memorialized the basic recipe for maintaining freedom in our US Constitution.
> 
> I always wonder if GW Bush ever read the constitution.
> 
> ...



Not that I put it past Bush to say something like that, but I find it interesting that the page you linked to was nothing more than a repeating of another page on another site, both of which fail to substantiate the supposed quotes.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> What a crock. 1441 was drafted in 2002. The US went to war with Iraq in 1990. You'll notice a time difference of, oh, about a decade. Who cares if the UN felt like drafted shit over 10 years later. It doesn't change the fact that the UN can't do shit on its own and called for the US to fight a war for them back 1990.


The UN is collection of sovereignties and not a sovereign entity unto itself. The US is a willing member of the UN and not an antagonist....supposedly.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> The _very moment_ we engaged in that war, the fate of it was the US' to decide. Take, for instance, the cessation of hostilities in 1991. Who decided to do that? What is the Kuwaitis? No. Was it the UN? No. It was the US. We so thoroughly ravage the Iraqi forces that we felt we should give them a chance to end it without further bloodshed.


Strategy and tactics are not incumbent on the UN's grant of authority. There's no doubt the US was a major player in both Gulf Wars and it set the strategy and tactics---that includes making the determination that the war is over. 



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> They failed to adhere to our demands, so the resumption of that war was, again, the US' to make, not the UN's.


Maybe you should inform the US Government and the United Nations that they are doing it wrong.

What is the history of the Iraq war?:

''A U.N. ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990. It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> What you're doing is a bit of slight of hand. "Oh, look over here! Look at 1441! Forget that the US is the one in control of that war!"


What you're doing is not understanding the fundamental structure of both US foreign relations and rules of order for legal military engagement. 


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Wait, didn't you say in an earlier post that Blix only said that Iraq complied to stop the impending US attack? Hmm? So which is it? Did Blix really have absolute proof that Iraq didn't have any WMDs? In which case, you lied in an earlier post. Or did he just say that to try to stop the war? In which case, you're lying now.


You are not making sense. Blix and co. had proof that Iraq did not have the WMDs the US was predicating it's invasion rationale on--Not "absolute" proof b/c Bush's illegal invasion drove the inspectors out of Iraq before they could complete their inspections. I've been pretty consistent in pointing that fact out.

Blix didn't say that Iraq complied to stop the impending US attack--I did.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> The country was shit when we got there and we are (the US and hence the taxpayers) building it up. Which is a waste of money.


So the Iraqis bombed their own water/sewage systems, started a civil war, sold off Iraqi infrastructure to opportunistic foreigners, and generally shit-canned their own country while the US was a virginal benefactor? Nope.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Not that I put it past Bush to say something like that, but I find it interesting that the page you linked to was nothing more than a repeating of another page on another site, both of which fail to substantiate the supposed quotes.


That was merely emblematic of my question, "I wonder if Bush ever read the constitution?"  I'm not asserting it as gospel, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.  That's why I posed the question--it was rhetorical--illegal invasion, illegal spying, illegal torture.  Come on, that's too easy.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
> Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
> The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.
> The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it.
> ...


Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.

You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment.  Like it or not, the US is a member.


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.
> 
> You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment.  Like it or not, the US is a member.



one question.

so is there a punishment in place if a country in the UN uses unjustified force? in this case the US?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> The UN is collection of sovereignties and not a sovereign entity unto itself. The US is a willing member of the UN and not an antagonist....supposedly.
> 
> Strategy and tactics are not incumbent on the UN's grant of authority. There's no doubt the US was a major player in both Gulf Wars and it set the strategy and tactics---that includes making the determination that the war is over.



The US in a member, but not a lackey, of the UN.  The can't command the US into battle.  They also cannot command the US once it has engage is a war.  

Like I've said before, once the US was asked by the UN to fight the Iraqis, the decision of how it would end was the US', not the UN's.  This is _exactly _what the US government said back in 2002.

For some odd reason, you seem to think that the UN is in charge of the US.





Decker said:


> Maybe you should inform the US Government and the United Nations that they are doing it wrong.




You're incorrect, the US is doing it the right way.  They take the UN's requests under advisement and not as commands.




Decker said:


> What you're doing is not understanding the fundamental structure of both US foreign relations and rules of order for legal military engagement.



What's not to understand?  The UN, the toothless organization that it is, cried out for the help of the US. They asked us to put lives and large sums of money on the line to fight a battle for them.  We did, but of our own accord and not as a tool of the UN.  They can ask the US to fight for them, but once lives are on the line, they can't dictate what happens after.



Decker said:


> You are not making sense. Blix and co. had proof that Iraq did not have the WMDs the US was predicating it's invasion rationale on--Not "absolute" proof b/c Bush's illegal invasion drove the inspectors out of Iraq before they could complete their inspections. I've been pretty consistent in pointing that fact out.



Why were there inspectors in Iraq if they already *knew *that he didn't have WMDs?  If they already *knew *they he didn't have WMDs, then why keep inspecting for them? And why did they ask for more time if they already _*knew *_the answer?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> That was merely emblematic of my question, "I wonder if Bush ever read the constitution?"  I'm not asserting it as gospel, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.  That's why I posed the question--it was rhetorical--illegal invasion, illegal spying, illegal torture.  Come on, that's too easy.



Yet you posted to a site that made serious allegations and bolstered your side of the argument.

Oh look, a web page where someone said that lawyers eat babies!  Decker, how could you?!


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.
> 
> You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment.  Like it or not, the US is a member.



Okay, for the sake of this argument, I'll give it to you: The US broke international law regarding the use of war.  The US wiling went against some international law and thousands died for it.

Okay?  Good?  Spot on? Ikaga desu?

Now, where's the written decree of this clear cut criminal activity?  Where's the trial?  Where's the sentencing?  Where's the jail time?


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.




So now the president's authority is "granted to him" by the UN?  What a fucking joke.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the founders memorialized the basic recipe for maintaining freedom in our US Constitution.
> 
> I always wonder if GW Bush ever read the constitution.
> 
> ...





Your posts are starting to resemble Zulu's, that guy who would post all the pictures of the KKK and call everyone on the forum a limp-dicked, flat-assed white boy.

And using third-classed internet sites as a source tells everyone all they need to know about the merits of your argument.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> The US in a member, but not a lackey, of the UN. The can't command the US into battle. They also cannot command the US once it has engage is a war.


No one's making these assertions that you are addressing. 



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Like I've said before, once the US was asked by the UN to fight the Iraqis, the decision of how it would end was the US', not the UN's. This is _exactly _what the US government said back in 2002.


No. The conclusion of battle is what the US can decide. The keeping of the peace after Iraq's surrender was managed by the UN pursuant to UN directives....i.e., the US can't do whatever the hell it wants to do. The US had to follow UN management.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> For some odd reason, you seem to think that the UN is in charge of the US.


For some strange reason, you refuse to acknowledge that the US is a member of the UN. 


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> You're incorrect, the US is doing it the right way. They take the UN's requests under advisement and not as commands.


Absolutely wrong. The US dances to the UN's tune b/c there was no legal "self-defense from attack" reason for attacking Iraq. Iraq didn't attack us. So we sought a different avenue and relied on tortured reasoning that the grant of UN authority from the first Iraq war was still valid for the US to do as it pleases. Wrong.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> What's not to understand? The UN, the toothless organization that it is, cried out for the help of the US. They asked us to put lives and large sums of money on the line to fight a battle for them. We did, but of our own accord and not as a tool of the UN. They can ask the US to fight for them, but once lives are on the line, they can't dictate what happens after.


Yes it can. And let's admit a fact, Bush wanted that war more than anyone. He created a special office in the Pentagon to shape and select "facts" that painted a picture at odds with reality.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Why were there inspectors in Iraq if they already *knew *that he didn't have WMDs? If they already *knew *they he didn't have WMDs, then why keep inspecting for them? And why did they ask for more time if they already _*knew *_the answer?


You are playing with language. They knew that there were no WMDs in the places they inspected. They did not finish their inspections b/c of the invasion. They asked for more time, but since Bush saw his last legal justification for invasion crumbling before his eyes, he attacked, driving the inspectors out of Iraq.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Before I respond to your last past, please respond to my (twice asked) question regarding lack of formal charges against the US for war crimes.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Before I respond to your last past, please respond to my (twice asked) question regarding lack of formal charges against the US for war crimes.


You would have to ask the UN or whatever international body has jurisdiction in the matter. I know the EU has imposed economic sanctions on the US for unrelated matters, so it can be done.

I happen to stand with the vast majority of legal experts in this country and abroad that have concluded what I have concluded--that the invasion is illegal.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/


http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b58.htm

Same goes for wiretapping, torture, and the new law that defines enemy combatants as anyone Bush views as an enemy. Why have none of those unconstitutional actions been addressed in the courts?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> You would have to ask the UN or whatever international body has jurisdiction in the matter. I know the EU has imposed economic sanctions on the US for unrelated matters, so it can be done.
> 
> I happen to stand with the vast majority of legal experts in this country and abroad that have concluded what I have concluded--that the invasion is illegal.
> 
> ...



Okay, so let me make sure that I fully understand this: By international law, the US is guilty of war crimes in a clear cut fashion.  In such a way that someone could say, again, in a very clear cut way, that the US has performed an action that is in violation of a very particular piece of international law.  Yet there has been no formal charges leveled against the US?

If it's such a cut and dried case, where's the easy conviction? Or, at least, the formal accusation?

They haven't because the US hasn't violated any law.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Okay, so let me make sure that I fully understand this: By international law, the US is guilty of war crimes in a clear cut fashion. In such a way that someone could say, again, in a very clear cut way, that the US has performed an action that is in violation of a very particular piece of international law. Yet there has been no formal charges leveled against the US?
> 
> If it's such a cut and dried case, where's the easy conviction? Or, at least, the formal accusation?
> 
> They haven't because the US hasn't violated any law.


So the conclusion of the legal community means nothing to you.  That's fine.  I mean what do lawyers know about the law?  

But as I said in my last post, look at all the other constitutional transgressions perpetrated by Bush that went unnoticed.

And if it makes you feel any better sir, Clinton's bombing of Kosovo was likely a war crime too.  Did you see any prosecution of Clinton for that?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> So the conclusion of the legal community means nothing to you.  That's fine.  I mean what do lawyers know about the law?



There are also lawyers who say that Bush hasn't done anthing illegal.  But _*they *_have an agenda.



Decker said:


> But as I said in my last post, look at all the other constitutional transgressions perpetrated by Bush that went unnoticed.



But, again, where is the easy conviction?  But I was also talking about international law.



Decker said:


> And if it makes you feel any better sir, Clinton's bombing of Kosovo was likely a war crime too.  Did you see any prosecution of Clinton for that?



I didn't care.  Nor did much of anyone else in the US.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> Your posts are starting to resemble Zulu's, that guy who would post all the pictures of the KKK and call everyone on the forum a limp-dicked, flat-assed white boy.
> 
> And using third-classed internet sites as a source tells everyone all they need to know about the merits of your argument.


In all my time on this forum, I think I have posted 4 or 5 pictures. The opinion expressed in the post was my own. The picture came from a yahoo search. I guess that means nothing to you.

If you read my post containing the picture, you'd know what I was saying. You see the picture, you become defensive, you liken me to a flaming racist re style of argumentation. 

Do you feel better about yourself now?

Did you get that out of your system?

Oh yes, the merits of my argument are persuasive but you'll never know b/c:

Your reading comprehension takes a backseat to your vindictive prejudice and
Partisan politics mean more to you than bona fide deliberation
In spite of those things, I still think there's hope.


----------



## brogers (Nov 13, 2006)

pull out the troops..... and send in the:





preferably several thousand of them


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

brogers said:


> pull out the troops..... and send in the:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've got my vote.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> There are also lawyers who say that Bush hasn't done anthing illegal. But _*they *_have an agenda.


I disagree. Every argument I hear from the opposition is not a legal argument. Here's what I mean: The world is better off w/out Hussein in power; We removed a tyrant; We've given democracy a chance. etc. etc.

You have made absolutely no arguments for why the invasion is legal. You talk about attendant circumstances--where are the charges for this, why isn't Bush in jail then---but you make no substantive legal counterargument.

I showed you the Congressional grant of authority, resolution 1441 and how Bush violated both of those.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> But, again, where is the easy conviction? But I was also talking about international law.


Articulating charges is all I have done. There is no slamdunk easy conviction in any court...especially one where the president of the US is the main defendant.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> I didn't care. Nor did much of anyone else in the US.


I see. But you do see my point, don't you?


----------



## ZECH (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> Just think about it for one moment. If international law, the kind embodied in the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, dictates that use of force is justified only in self defense or in conjunction with UN resolutions and Bush attacks a country with no justification under either requirement, then we have an illegal use of force. Bush abused the authority granted to him by Congress and the UN when he attacked Iraq before the inspections were completed.
> 
> You might hate the UN, but you're letting your prejudice cloud your judgment.  Like it or not, the US is a member.



Decker first let me say that my last post or any future post in no way is meant as a slam to you personally.
Now, the Geneva convention has nothing to do with use of force. It is only relevent to the treatment of prisoners of war. 
IMO, the time Iraq was given and kept asking for was the time they needed to get the WMD's out of the country. He used gas before.......so we knew he had it. I think Albob posted one time that showed sat photos of convoys streaming into Syria. We know these things just didn't mysteriously disappear. I think Saddam knew what the consequences would be if he used them(that answers the question someone asked on why they weren't used). He never thought he would get caught. He was going to stay in power(he still thinks he is going to come back into power today) and bring these back in at a future point.
Yes Congress did authorize the war. So how did he abuse it?
Yes the US is a member of the UN, but where does it say we have to abide by what they say? Is it not just guidelines to go by. When they do nothing(which is all the time.....they are nothing but talk), we must act.
OK, If and when we get out of Iraq, what do we do with Al-Qaeda and their training camps. Do we let them train and grow until they attack us again?


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 13, 2006)

The conspiracy theorist on this board is calling me partisan.  HA!

Decker, you are citing the slums of the internet in support of your argument.  Its obvious you have an engrained hatred for Bush, by your pictures of him with nuclear explosions and headstones in the background.

With 20/20 hindsight, the war wasn't necessary.  The truth remains that EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs, I could cite you the quotes from the Clintons, Kerrys, etc., but I don't think thats necessary.  In fact, he did have chemical WMDs, though this isn't what we suspected.  Now you are trying to use EVERYONE's mistake for your political gain, and thats bullshit.  Everyone thought Saddam had those weapons because thats what Saddam wanted everyone to think.  He wouldn't comply with the UN weapons inspectors, so your argument about "let the UN finish its job" is horseshit.  Im sorry you, and all the rest of the liberals, have no greater cause to stand up for than Iraq.  Really, its kind of pathetic.  Im sorry you don't have the fortitude to stick it out for three or four measly years, but thats why people like you aren't in charge of the military.  This is no Vietnam war, there is no draft, and nowhere close to 60,000 US personel have been killed.  Your nastalgic war-bitching is both tired and annoying.  We are over there, whether it was a mistake or not, and the job needs to be finished.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 13, 2006)

As far as your international laws, I couldn't give a shit less and neither should anyone else.

Why don't you get elected president, and then when Iran or North Korea is aiming a nuclear warhead at us, you can book a conference room at the UN to have a pow-wow and sing Kumbiya while the country is obliterated.  At least then we would be legal, right?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> You have made absolutely no arguments for why the invasion is legal. You talk about attendant circumstances--where are the charges for this, why isn't Bush in jail then---but you make no substantive legal counterargument.



Yes I did present a rebuttal. 1441 was written _11 god damn years_ after the fact.  It's like writing a new law that says that jay walking is punishable by life in prison and retroactively enforcing it.  The UN wrote 1441 because that's all they do.  They write documents and spout off.  Show me a legal document written back in 1990 that stipulates that the UN can tell the US when to, and when not to, attack.  Come on, cough it up!



Decker said:


> I showed you the Congressional grant of authority, resolution 1441 and how Bush violated both of those.



And for that point, I conceeded that Bush (and thereby, the US) performed some illegal act.  Now where the hell is the convictions if it's so clear cut?  Oh, that's right, you don't know why.  Well hell, I think I won the last powerball lotto, but no one is giving me my prize.  



Decker said:


> There is no slamdunk easy conviction in any court...especially one where the president of the US is the main defendant.



Then where are the initial proceedings?  Where are the formal charges?  Convicting someone is a far cry from simply filing some papers.    It's been four years!



Decker said:


> I see. But you do see my point, don't you?



In regards to defeating Iraq?  No, I don't.  From the very moment we engaged Iraq back in 1990, it's been the right of the US to defeat the Iraqis.  Not from 2002, but from 1990.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> As far as your international laws, I couldn't give a shit less and neither should anyone else?



A goodly part of International law is simply to make the greater powers answer to the lesser ones.

And something I've said before, "International Law is like professional wrestling, it's all fake and only children believe in it."


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Decker first let me say that my last post or any future post in no way is meant as a slam to you personally.
> Now, the Geneva convention has nothing to do with use of force. It is only relevent to the treatment of prisoners of war.
> IMO, the time Iraq was given and kept asking for was the time they needed to get the WMD's out of the country. He used gas before.......so we knew he had it. I think Albob posted one time that showed sat photos of convoys streaming into Syria. We know these things just didn't mysteriously disappear. I think Saddam knew what the consequences would be if he used them(that answers the question someone asked on why they weren't used). He never thought he would get caught. He was going to stay in power(he still thinks he is going to come back into power today) and bring these back in at a future point.
> Yes Congress did authorize the war. So how did he abuse it?
> ...


No problem. Re the Geneva convention, you???re right. I was reaching for the Nuremberg holdings but all I could come up with was Geneva. I was trying to pinpoint the rules for war???no such thing as preventive war etc. I knew that Geneva violations by Hussein was proffered as one reason for invasion but it???s inappropriate for the point I was trying to make. Thanks for pointing that out.

I do agree with you that Iraq was in defiance of UN resolutions. The weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and are world class scientists. I don???t pretend to understand how they investigate wmds. But the people that worked on UNSCOM and the IAEA knew in 1998 that Hussein???s WMDs were history and his capacity for production was crippled. The WMD Inspectors were merely verifying those conclusions with the inspections of 2002.

But let???s look at the validity of the inspections themselves. The US, under Bush I, said publicly that the sanctions against Iraq would continue until Iraq fully complies with investigations. The US also said that even if Hussein complies fully with inspections, the sanctions would continue. Clinton continued that policy. There's obviously some dissonance there.  It???s not just GW Bush, it???s also Clinton and Bush I that are culpable for many things. Why? The real reason was obviously regime change. Anyway, the culpability for Iraq reaches back years, not just to GWB.

Under the UN Charter and Nuremberg holdings, to legally use force, a country must be attacked, face imminent attack, or threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. Which of those did Iraq engage in? 

The lynchpin was the WMD rationale. Bush exceeded his grant of authority by not permitting the inspectors to finish their jobs inspecting. Instead, he engaged in preventive war???strictly outlawed by the Nuremburg holdings.

The UN does have problems. But the US is a willing member which avails itself of the UN Charter and the bylaws. In short, the US must play by the rules it helped write in creating the UN.

What do we do with Al Qaeda? We treat it like an international police problem???using sound policework and infiltration. The military is the wrong vehicle for taking these people down.


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> The conspiracy theorist on this board is calling me partisan. HA!
> 
> Decker, you are citing the slums of the internet in support of your argument. Its obvious you have an engrained hatred for Bush, by your pictures of him with nuclear explosions and headstones in the background.
> 
> With 20/20 hindsight, the war wasn't necessary. The truth remains that EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs, I could cite you the quotes from the Clintons, Kerrys, etc., but I don't think thats necessary. In fact, he did have chemical WMDs, though this isn't what we suspected. Now you are trying to use EVERYONE's mistake for your political gain, and thats bullshit. Everyone thought Saddam had those weapons because thats what Saddam wanted everyone to think. He wouldn't comply with the UN weapons inspectors, so your argument about "let the UN finish its job" is horseshit. Im sorry you, and all the rest of the liberals, have no greater cause to stand up for than Iraq. Really, its kind of pathetic. Im sorry you don't have the fortitude to stick it out for three or four measly years, but thats why people like you aren't in charge of the military. This is no Vietnam war, there is no draft, and nowhere close to 60,000 US personel have been killed. Your nastalgic war-bitching is both tired and annoying. We are over there, whether it was a mistake or not, and the job needs to be finished.


Here's an interview with Weapons inspector Scott Ritter (whom incidentally believes that Clinton should stand trial for his role in Iraq policy)
*MR. RITTER:* "Well, of course he told us. Look, let's be honest, the Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings in WMD, and they didn't do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program, they failed to declare a biological weapons programs, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities. Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran but also to focus on Israel. What he didn't count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly, by June 1991, we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons programs, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door, flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so he could tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. 
They blew up all their weapons and buried them in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth. And by 1992 they were compelled again, because of the tenacity of the inspectors, to come clean. People ask why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them, but the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, *there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.* 
And furthermore, *the CIA knew this, the British intelligence knew this, Israeli intelligence knew this, German intelligence, the whole world knew this.* They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed because nobody could say that, but they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding WMD had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it, and that *Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction."*
-interview over

It was Rumsfeld and Bush that created the special Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon that fed all the Bullshit cherry-picked "evidence" about Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> In all my time on this forum, I think I have posted 4 or 5 pictures. The opinion expressed in the post was my own. The picture came from a yahoo search. I guess that means nothing to you.
> 
> If you read my post containing the picture, you'd know what I was saying. You see the picture, you become defensive, you liken me to a flaming racist re style of argumentation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Decker (Nov 13, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Yes I did present a rebuttal. 1441 was written _11 god damn years_ after the fact. It's like writing a new law that says that jay walking is punishable by life in prison and retroactively enforcing it. The UN wrote 1441 because that's all they do. They write documents and spout off. Show me a legal document written back in 1990 that stipulates that the UN can tell the US when to, and when not to, attack. Come on, cough it up!


"Throughout the now more than decade-long dispute over Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 687 which ended the 1991 Gulf War, a majority of both the Security Council- and *a majority of its permanent members*- have consistently *argued that it is for the Security Council as a whole, and not individual states such as the U.S. or Britain, to decide how to enforce its resolutions...."* http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0212lawyers_body.html
The US was outvoted and must play ball according to UN rules re Iraq resolutions.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> And for that point, I conceeded that Bush (and thereby, the US) performed some illegal act. Now where the hell is the convictions if it's so clear cut? Oh, that's right, you don't know why. Well hell, I think I won the last powerball lotto, but no one is giving me my prize.


That is funny. I'm not being facetious. But articulated charges are a long way from indicting the president and his cohorts let alone convictions. This isn't a jaywalking ticket were discussing after all.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Then where are the initial proceedings? Where are the formal charges? Convicting someone is a far cry from simply filing some papers. It's been four years!


See above.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> In regards to defeating Iraq? No, I don't. From the very moment we engaged Iraq back in 1990, it's been the right of the US to defeat the Iraqis. Not from 2002, but from 1990.


See above re how the rules of procedure work in the UN.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 13, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Decker, what law do you keep referring to that is broken??
> Where is this law written? Who inforces this law?
> *The UN is a piece of shit which we should never be a part of. I hope someone will sponsor a bill to remove us from the UN.*
> The UN would never ever authorize any such thing and Bush knew it.
> ...


 

You should personaly how much of a waste of money it is. I see part of it......


----------



## brogers (Nov 13, 2006)

Regarding the UN:  The Chavez/Ahmeidinejad incident should clear any doubt that it is digustingly out-of-touch and should be dissolved.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 13, 2006)

Decker said:


> The US was outvoted and must play ball according to UN rules re Iraq resolutions.


 
Why must the US? They can vote all they want, but that still doesn't tell me why the US *must*. The word that your looking for is "should". Like I said before, there is no international law that can dictate the US couldn't finish the war with Iraq. Even if you could point to a solid, non-retroactive, piece of documentation that said so, it still doesn't mean squat. Ulitmately, the US only has to answer to itself. The UN simply isn't a governing body. It's little more than a bunch of old biddies sitting around trying to tell people what to do when they themselves are a monumental screw up.

You really need to stop using the word "must" in relation to the UN and the US.

And as for you, the quote, and its associated link, you miss the point _yet again_. The UN called in the US to take care of Iraq back in 1990. That was a perfectly legal reason for the US to go to war. What you, and the people you linked to, are trying to do is split one war into two. There is only one US / Iraq war. Just look at the end of the first conflict. The US stopped attacking (note that they didn't say 'end the war') if Iraq did what they wanted them to. Iraq didn't, so the US (in a war they were called in on by the UN) finished the war (or at least continued it). The US _did not_ need a reason to start a war, because they weren't. The simply finished the war they had started over a decade before.

You're simply trying to perform a sleight of hand. Which didn't work.





Decker said:


> That is funny. I'm not being facetious. But articulated charges are a long way from indicting the president and his cohorts let alone convictions. This isn't a jaywalking ticket were discussing after all.See above.


 
Of course it's not a jay walking ticket, but it does show how to try to blow off the real fact that no charges have been leveled because they don't have a case.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 13, 2006)

Validity of the inspections? Oh please. Scott Ritter is one of the biggest critics of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. So you know he would say there was no WMD's. I do like this statement from him though.....

"I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program"

This was after he got blocked from inspection sites and kicked out of Iraq in Jan 1998 and accused of being a spy for the CIA.

Now, wonder why he was denied access to the sites? Bingo, they didn't want him to see what they had.
When the United States and the UN Security Council failed to take action against Iraq for their ongoing failure to cooperate fully with inspectors (a breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154), Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

He was against the "domino effect" which was basically the US foreign policy stategy which attempted to stop other coutries moving toward communism instead of American based capitalism. (Known as Containment)

Another interesting fact is this statement made by Ritter on Oct 21 2005.
"based upon the information given to me, and it's 100% accurate, that in October 2004, the President of the United States ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran as of June 2005. That means, have all the resources in place so that if the President orders it, the bombing can begin. It doesn't mean that the bombing is going begin in June"

He also stated that war with Iran is going to happen. "We just don't know when, but it's going to happen"
In an interview with Amy Goodman broadcast on Democracy Now! on October 16, 2006, Ritter again reaffirmed the U.S.'s state of undeclared war vis-à-vis Iran.


----------



## Decker (Nov 14, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Why must the US? They can vote all they want, but that still doesn't tell me why the US *must*. The word that your looking for is "should". Like I said before, there is no international law that can dictate the US couldn't finish the war with Iraq. Even if you could point to a solid, non-retroactive, piece of documentation that said so, it still doesn't mean squat. Ulitmately, the US only has to answer to itself. The UN simply isn't a governing body. It's little more than a bunch of old biddies sitting around trying to tell people what to do when they themselves are a monumental screw up.
> 
> You really need to stop using the word "must" in relation to the UN and the US.


The US can only attack another country (this goes for the 1990s war as well as the present):

a)In self defense, or

b)pursuant to the principles of the UN Charter (keeping the peace)

Iraq did not attack the US, so a) is out. So, for the US to attack Iraq legally, (and GWB wanted the attack more than anyone--that's why he cherrypicked and misrepresented evidence of Iraq's WMDs)--the only option it had was to do according to UN directives...that leaves b).

Since the UN procedure for determining when/how use of force was to be implemented, that took any unilateral action by the US or Britain off the table.

It is evident that the US MUST follow UN directives if it wants to attack Iraq...which it did. 



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> And as for you, the quote, and its associated link, you miss the point _yet again_. The UN called in the US to take care of Iraq back in 1990. That was a perfectly legal reason for the US to go to war. What you, and the people you linked to, are trying to do is split one war into two. There is only one US / Iraq war. Just look at the end of the first conflict. The US stopped attacking (note that they didn't say 'end the war') if Iraq did what they wanted them to. Iraq didn't, so the US (in a war they were called in on by the UN) finished the war (or at least continued it). The US _did not_ need a reason to start a war, because they weren't. The simply finished the war they had started over a decade before.
> 
> You're simply trying to perform a sleight of hand. Which didn't work.


If I am wrong, then I suggest you call GW Bush and John Bolton and tell them your take on procedural and substantive aspects of the UN Charter.

The US did not simply finish the war started in the 1990s. The US and Kuwait asked the UN to convene and pass a resolution to resolve the conflict. (Bush, any Bush, jumps when an oil rich Arab command so). So you are mistaken as to the facts at the start of the war just as you are mistaken as to the facts regarding the operation of the UN. Bush I asks the UN to authorize by resolution, the attack on Iraq.  The UN, by vote, manage the terms of the surrender.  The UN decides if use of force is appropriate (by vote).  What is so difficult to understand? 

And now you say the US can ignore the UN. That's simply wrong. Not only that, your suggestions for US action are illegal.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Of course it's not a jay walking ticket, but it does show how to try to blow off the real fact that no charges have been leveled because they don't have a case.


You're engaging in a logical fallacy. Just because charges have not been made does not mean that they cannot be made.


----------



## Decker (Nov 14, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Validity of the inspections? Oh please. Scott Ritter is one of the biggest critics of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. So you know he would say there was no WMD's. I do like this statement from him though.....
> 
> "I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program"


So you do agree with Scott Ritter. Of course he's a critic. Read some of his writings. The man is a straight shooter. He goes out of his way to lay the blame for the US's Iraq policy at the feet of Bush, Clinton and Bush II--he makes a rather compelling case for the impeachment of all three.



			
				dg806 said:
			
		

> This was after he got blocked from inspection sites and kicked out of Iraq in Jan 1998 and accused of being a spy for the CIA.
> 
> Now, wonder why he was denied access to the sites? Bingo, they didn't want him to see what they had. When the United States and the UN Security Council failed to take action against Iraq for their ongoing failure to cooperate fully with inspectors (a breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154), Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998
> 
> ...


I see nothing else in your comments about Ritter that I have a problem with except for the reason that Hussein kicked out the inspectors. Clinton continued the Bush policy of sanctions without the possibility of abatement.

The UN resolution 687 directed that, upon completion of inspections (among other things), the sanctions would be lifted. Both Bushs and Clinton ignored that directive instead saying that as long as Hussein is in power, the sanctions continue.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 14, 2006)

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

If they were failing to disarm Iraq, wouldn't that mean he knew they had something?


----------



## Decker (Nov 14, 2006)

dg806 said:


> On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."
> 
> If they were failing to disarm Iraq, wouldn't that mean he knew they had something?


Possibly. According to Ritter, 90-95% of Iraq's WMD capacity was eliminated prior to 1999. 100% of the nuclear capacity was eliminated. Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program at all. 

Ritter's beef with Clinton/US was that he disagreed w/ the sanctions policy and thought that the US should resort to more diplomatic means of integrating Iraq into the Western way. 

The US was pushing the sanctions to expedite Iraq's compliance while removing the carrot of equating full compliance with a suspension of those sanctions. That was a violation of UN resolution by the US and Ritter knew that.

How can we ask Iraq to comply if we can't? Some people don't care about these sort of complexities, but the reality is there.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 14, 2006)

Decker said:


> The US was pushing the sanctions to expedite Iraq's compliance while removing the carrot of equating full compliance with a suspension of those sanctions. That was a violation of UN resolution by the US and Ritter knew that.



I guess according to you, the US has never complied with a UN resolution? Why don't they kick us out


----------



## Decker (Nov 14, 2006)

dg806 said:


> I guess according to you, the US has never complied with a UN resolution? Why don't they kick us out


That's a good punchline--can I use it?  

I think our list of noncompliance is as long as Israel's.

I swear, it seems at times that any semblance of legal viability between the UN and it's resolutions is coincidental.

But we could say the same thing about the world court.  The US is on its docket for war crimes when Reagan had a nicaruagan harbor sewn with landmines.

There's such a disparate composition of what's loosely defined as US interests that, when it comes to foreign relations, we've given up on the rule of law in favor might is right.  Lip service is paid to 'legality' but that's it.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 14, 2006)

is anyone else completely lsot by this thread.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 14, 2006)

I would pay to see these guys debate in person.

I have to admit I  need to print this stuff so that I can read it later when I have more time.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 14, 2006)

After you print it and read it, can you summarize it and explain it for the rest of common society?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 14, 2006)

goandykid said:


> After you print it and read it, can you summarize it and explain it for the rest of common society?


 

I hope I can!


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 14, 2006)

goandykid said:


> is anyone else completely lsot by this thread.



not really.

but this is the best thread since Forman left though.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 14, 2006)

Agreed, it would have been shit on long ago.


However, I still miss the occasional offhand comment from his peanut gallery self.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 14, 2006)

Decker said:


> The US did not simply finish the war started in the 1990s. The US and Kuwait asked the UN to convene and pass a resolution to resolve the conflict. (Bush, any Bush, jumps when an oil rich Arab command so). So you are mistaken as to the facts at the start of the war just as you are mistaken as to the facts regarding the operation of the UN. Bush I asks the UN to authorize by resolution, the attack on Iraq. The UN, by vote, manage the terms of the surrender. The UN decides if use of force is appropriate (by vote). What is so difficult to understand?



I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're ignoring a certain, important, fact: At no time was the US under the command of the UN.  Not for a single moment.

You have yet to produce a single document, written before the fact, that stipulates that the UN could decide when the war was over.   You have also failed to produce anything in regards to the US saying that the war was over back in 1991.  Until you do, you position is...faulty; to say the least.



Decker said:


> And now you say the US can ignore the UN. That's simply wrong.



You mean it's wrong to ignore the UN, who are a bunch of absoluting corrupt politicians who are trying to use the UN to force their will upon the significantly strong US?    Sure, whatever.



Decker said:


> Not only that, your suggestions for US action are illegal.


What are you referring to?




Decker said:


> You're engaging in a logical fallacy. Just because charges have not been made does not mean that they cannot be made.



After fours years?  Hahahahaha.  If it was so clear cut, which you've said (and failed to provide any proof) it is, they'd have done it by now.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 15, 2006)

Decker said:


> That's a good punchline--can I use it?



Sure!
You know, as much as I hate the UN for their non actions in times when we need to act, it's their continued assault on gun rights in this country that I really hate. If they don't like our gun laws, stay the hell out. They have no right what so ever in trying to pursuade the whole world to disarm!


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're ignoring a certain, important, fact: At no time was the US under the command of the UN. Not for a single moment.
> 
> You have yet to produce a single document, written before the fact, that stipulates that the UN could decide when the war was over. You have also failed to produce anything in regards to the US saying that the war was over back in 1991. Until you do, you position is...faulty; to say the least.


See resolution 678 and my explanation





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> You mean it's wrong to ignore the UN, who are a bunch of absoluting corrupt politicians who are trying to use the UN to force their will upon the significantly strong US?  Sure, whatever.


Yeah, I know it's easy to laugh. Did you think that civilizing the US (through the establishment of the rule of law) in the days of Manifest Destiny was a hoot too? It's an arduous process. 





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> What are you referring to?


Any semblance of law is still better than lawlessness. That is what you advocate. I cannot accept that


The UN gave the US authorization to legally attack Iraq back in ???91. http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
Here it is in its entirety:
*RESOLUTION 678 (1990)*


Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990​ 
The Security Council, 
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990. 
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council, 
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security, 
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, 
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, 
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so; 
2. *Authorizes Member States* co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, *to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area*; 
3. *Requests* *all States* to provide *appropriate support for the actions undertaken* in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution; 
4. *Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed *on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution; 
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. 

But what does this mean: *5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.*

Here is what it means:

?????? "seized of the matter" - diplomatic-speak for "asserting that it holds the reins over this activity." Unless the Security Council explicitly authorized a policy of "regime change", the Security Council would still remain nominally in charge of setting the limits of what the use of force was directed toward. The use of force might legally be limited to the disarmament of Iraq.???
Source: Crimes of War

See, the UN authorized the force and left the details of execution (???all necessary means???) to the member states to decide. I am not saying that the UN had absolute control of how the US et al. executed the invasion. I am saying that the UN opened the door and the US stepped through. The US had to keep the UN apprised of actions taken. Once the war is over (no more battle???Hussein gives up), the UN sets the terms of the surrender http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm That's why # 5. is important b/c it reserves that right to the Security Council.

As a practical matter, here is the underlying rationale for all the niceties of UN resolutions: regime change. The US wanted Hussein out of power. The US urged the UN to impose sanctions against Iraq. The UN could not condition those sanctions on "regime change" rationale b/c the Security Council did not permit it. Instead the sanctions were predicated on past resolutions and took the following form: Iraq allows the inspections and the sanctions will be lifted. Then the US turned around and said (in violation of the UN resolution authorizing the sanctions) even if Iraq complies with the inspections, the sanctions will continue until Hussein abdicates his ruling authority.

Iraq???s compliance with inspections was not absolute but it was substantial. UNSCOM destroyed most, if not all, of Iraq???s weapons and weapons programs. Around 1998, it was revealed the UNSCOM was spying for the US and Israel by turning information about Hussein//Iraqi command and his//its whereabouts, to those 2 countries, i.e., that information is not info about weapons or weapons programs but is relevant to a plot to overthrow the regime (which is US policy for Iraq). The US bullshitted about Iraq???s total noncompliance and engaged in illegal bombings of the country (desert fox).

Hussein was left with no options: follow the terms of the surrender laid out in res.687 and your country will be sanctioned, disobey the terms of the surrender and your country will still be sanctioned. Whatever Hussein did, the US would sanction/bomb/cajole Hussein out of power. The US does get its way eventually doesn???t it?


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Sure!
> You know, as much as I hate the UN for their non actions in times when we need to act, it's their continued assault on gun rights in this country that I really hate. If they don't like our gun laws, stay the hell out. They have no right what so ever in trying to pursuade the whole world to disarm!


Thanks--my brother will love that joke. 

It does sicken me that the UN is marginalized. But remember, the US is not only a member but a creator. We can fix this thing but it takes political will and time.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 15, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Sure!
> You know, as much as I hate the UN for their non actions in times when we need to act, it's their continued assault on gun rights in this country that I really hate. If they don't like our gun laws, stay the hell out. They have no right what so ever in trying to pursuade the whole world to disarm!



That is the damn truth.  The anti-gun movement is scary as hell, both because it is so ignorant and because it is so powerful.  The UN refers to civilian small arms, such as pistols, as "weapons of mass destruction," and supports global disarmorment.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 15, 2006)

Anyway, in my opinion anyone who thinks the US should abide by the UN is a crackpot.  Move to England or Switzerland.


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> Anyway, in my opinion anyone who thinks the US should abide by the UN is a crackpot. Move to England or Switzerland.


So Winston Churchhill, FDR and all of the presidents that followed were crackpots?  

So it's to hell with the rule of law and any attempt at international law or diplomacy.

Can you see why that view is not even an option?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 15, 2006)

Decker said:


> See resolution 678 and my explanation



678 has everything to do with making Iraq comply and nothing to do with be able to tell the US when it should, and should not, attack.  Nice try though.



Decker said:


> Yeah, I know it's easy to laugh. Did you think that civilizing the US (through the establishment of the rule of law) in the days of Manifest Destiny was a hoot too? It's an arduous process.



Being "civilized" had nothing to with stopping Manifest Destiny.  It was simply the people of the time looking at the rest of the Americas and say "What the hell were we thinking?  Who'd want that crap?"  They already has the best that the Americas had to offer.





Decker said:


> Any semblance of law is still better than lawlessness. That is what you advocate. I cannot accept that



Are you serious?  The Mafia had the semblance of being good for the people.  Hitler had a semblance of being a man looking out for the people.   

The UN only looks the part. 




Decker said:


> The UN gave the US authorization to legally attack Iraq *back in ???91*.


It's funny that you should write this, seeing that the US attacked *in 1990*.   As always, your quotes are _after the fact_.

Also, once the US went to battle, it was never the UN's, or anyone else's, place to tell them what to do.  The US put American lives, and large sums of money, on the line.  No one can command the US into battle and no one can command the US to stop.  You can ask, but you can't demand.


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2006)

DOMS said:


> 678 has everything to do with making Iraq comply and nothing to do with be able to tell the US when it should, and should not, attack. Nice try though.


You're right and wrong. How does 678 make Iraq comply? By the UN member countries using"...Any Means Necessary..." to make it happen.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Being "civilized" had nothing to with stopping Manifest Destiny. It was simply the people of the time looking at the rest of the Americas and say "What the hell were we thinking? Who'd want that crap?" They already has the best that the Americas had to offer.


Manifest Destiny was not stopped. Manifest Destiny was the necessary move of the US population from the east coast to the west coast back in the 19th century. The period that Ben Cartwright helped bring law to the old west. 





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Are you serious? The Mafia had the semblance of being good for the people. Hitler had a semblance of being a man looking out for the people.
> 
> The UN only looks the part.


Right. Jettison all aspirations to creating a system of international law simply b/c the US doesn't want to finish the noble task it started in creating the UN b/c a bunch of crooks bullshitted their way into the whitehouse and started a war based on lies and deceptions. 

Now that I see it in print, I understand your point of view.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> It's funny that you should write this, seeing that the US attacked *in 1990*. As always, your quotes are _after the fact_.


You didn't even read the resolution did you? I accidentally typed 1991, but check the date of the resolution--1990--look at this too:
*Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions* 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Also, once the US went to battle, it was never the UN's, or anyone else's, place to tell them what to do. The US put American lives, and large sums of money, on the line. No one can command the US into battle and no one can command the US to stop. You can ask, but you can't demand.


Are you even reading my posts anymore? reread my post and point out where I say that the UN told the US how to fight the war. The US *asked the UN* for permission to attack Iraq. That's a fact. It was up to the UN members (US included) to win the battle pursuant to the grant of authority and oversight of the UN security council. The UN sec. council also set the terms of the cease fire. Read resolution 687--which I linked--and it's obvious.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 15, 2006)

Decker said:


> You're right and wrong.



You're only half right.  There is nothing in that resolution that stipulates that the UN can dictate the actions of the US military.  None.




Decker said:


> Manifest Destiny was not stopped.



Manifest Destiny was a doctrine of taking over all of the Americas, not just the present day US.





Decker said:


> Jettison all aspirations to creating a system of international law simply b/c the US doesn't want to finish the noble task it started in creating the UN b/c a bunch of crooks bullshitted their way into the whitehouse and started a war based on lies and deceptions.



So, let me get this straight, you don't like the US government because it's full of crooks and thieves, but you like the UN, even though it's full of crooks and thieves.  

The US didn't single-handedly create the UN.  Also, the UN was created to replace the flawed League of Nations.  The UN has failed to do most of the flaws that it was designed to.  I get it though, you think that just because it's *international *body, that somehow it's better than the US.  I mean, there's no way an _international _body could become corrupt and fail (*pssst*, _League of Nations_).

You're detached idealism is showing.





Decker said:


> You didn't even read the resolution did you? I accidentally typed 1991,
> <snipped for brevity>



And please point out which of those many resolutions stipulates that the UN can command the US when to stop fighting.



Decker said:


> Are you even reading my posts anymore? reread my post and point out where I say that the UN told the US how to fight the war. The US *asked the UN* for permission to attack Iraq. That's a fact. It was up to the UN members (US included) to win the battle pursuant to the grant of authority and oversight of the UN security council. The UN sec. council also set the terms of the cease fire. Read resolution 687--which I linked--and it's obvious.



I read 678, and no where in it does it say that the UN can tell the US when to stop.  It does tell Iraq to get out of _Kuwait_, tell _Iraq _what it can and can't do, mandates a bit of financial business regarding _Iraq_, and tell _Iraq _to play nicely when at war.

How does any of that apply to the US?


----------



## Decker (Nov 15, 2006)

DOMS said:


> You're only half right. There is nothing in that resolution that stipulates that the UN can dictate the actions of the US military. None.


If you've read my responses, I am rather adamant about the assertion that the tactics for victory are left to the US. "any means necessary" means any means necessary and is the grant of authority from the UN to the member states to attack Iraq. That's it. I can't explain it any more plainly.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Manifest Destiny was a doctrine of taking over all of the Americas, not just the present day US.


19th century america is when and where the term Manifest Destiny was born--it was coined in the 1800s.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> So, let me get this straight, you don't like the US government because it's full of crooks and thieves, but you like the UN, even though it's full of crooks and thieves.


Your little smiley faces are getting to me. You mischaracterize my position. The heroic in life is the reach for the goal, the ideal. We all fall short yet we try anyways. The US government is older and much more established than the international legal infrastructure of the UN. I expect more out of our government. I expect the UN to flesh out it's glaring problems. I expect both legal entities to aspire to maintain legal order and due process.

What's the alternative? I'll tell you. No law...might makes right. Remember this, life is fickle...today the US is on top. Tomorrow never knows. (JWL)





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> The US didn't single-handedly create the UN. Also, the UN was created to replace the flawed League of Nations. The UN has failed to do most of the flaws that it was designed to. I get it though, you think that just because it's *international *body, that somehow it's better than the US. I mean, there's no way an _international _body could become corrupt and fail (*pssst*, _League of Nations_).
> 
> You're detached idealism is showing.


The UN is not perfect, but it's the best international organ for law that we have at the moment. It is not better than the US b/c it is not like the US. The US is a member of the UN b/c somebody recognized that American law has limitations in dealing with foreign affairs. The UN was established to permit the finding of an international consensus on issues of keeping the peace.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> And please point out which of those many resolutions stipulates that the UN can command the US when to stop fighting.


For the love of god DOMS, I've said repeatedly that the battle tactics are up to the US--"any means necessary"--but it's a matter of historical fact that the UN has set the terms of the cease fire with Res. 687--GW Bush predicated his whole push to war in 2002 on that resolution.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> I read 678, and no where in it does it say that the UN can tell the US when to stop. It does tell Iraq to get out of _Kuwait_, tell _Iraq _what it can and can't do, mandates a bit of financial business regarding _Iraq_, and tell _Iraq _to play nicely when at war.
> 
> How does any of that apply to the US?


Look at my comments above...tactics--winning the war(battle by battle) is not the same thing as setting the terms for a cease fire.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 15, 2006)

Decker said:


> So Winston Churchhill, FDR and all of the presidents that followed were crackpots?
> 
> So it's to hell with the rule of law and any attempt at international law or diplomacy.
> 
> Can you see why that view is not even an option?



So you assert that every president since FDR believes that the US is subordinate to the UN?  The United Nations is the supreme law of the earth?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 15, 2006)

Decker said:


> 19th century america is when and where the term Manifest Destiny was born--it was coined in the 1800s.



Uh, yeah _and_?  My point was that Manifest Destiny did stop prematurely.  No one wanted South or Central America. Or Canada really. 




Decker said:


> Your little smiley faces are getting to me.


You don't say... 

Just kidding!  I'll stop.   Or not. 



Decker said:


> You mischaracterize my position.



No I didn't.  You're saying that the US should submit itself to the will of the UN.  I'm saying that the UN politicians are no better than those in the US.  Worse actually, because they're pushing their own countries agenda on the US.

The alternative isn't no law, it's self-governance. Each country abides by it's own laws.



Decker said:


> For the love of god DOMS, I've said repeatedly that the battle tactics are up to the US--"any means necessary"--but it's a matter of historical fact that the UN has set the terms of the cease fire with Res. 687--GW Bush predicated his whole push to war in 2002 on that resolution.



That was just one of many things that Bush tried to use to validate the war.  Big deal.  He didn't need to.  He simply should have said that he was finishing the war.  Which he was.  Also, keep in mind that the UN resolution was simply the paper version of the demands laid down by the US back in 1991.  It's didn't set the conditions, it simply repeated them.  The point being that the UN wasn't setting the terms, the US was.  Then the US decided that after 10 years that the Iraqis weren't living up to their end.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 15, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> The United Nations is the supreme law of the earth?


What a horrible thought.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 15, 2006)

DOMS said:


> No I didn't.  You're saying that the US should submit itself to the will of the UN.  I'm saying that the UN politicians are no better than those in the US.  Worse actually, because they're pushing their own countries agenda on the US.


Are you implying that US politicians aren't busy trying to realize their own agendas?  That they have the best interests of the people/nation they represent?  I say that the UN is necessary as a checks and balances system on an international level and all members are responsible for keeping it's eye on the others in the group....

Have you never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?  Made in 1939, our government is just as if not more corrupt than it was portrayed in that movie...


----------



## goandykid (Nov 15, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Uh, yeah _and_?  My point was that Manifest Destiny did stop prematurely.  No one wanted South or Central America. Or Canada really.



I want Canada.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 15, 2006)

We can call it "New Michigan"


----------



## DOMS (Nov 15, 2006)

maniclion said:


> Are you implying that US politicians aren't busy trying to realize their own agendas?  That they have the best interests of the people/nation they represent?



I'd rather it be a corrupt politician from _*my *_country calling the shots rather than a corrupt politician from _*another *_country.



maniclion said:


> I say that the UN is necessary as a checks and balances system on an international level and all members are responsible for keeping it's eye on the others in the group....



You could say that, but you'd sound like a moron.  You're just one of self-loathing types that's enamored with the word "international".  




maniclion said:


> Have you never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?  Made in 1939, our government is just as if not more corrupt than it was portrayed in that movie...



Jimmie Stuart was incredible in that movie.  

And I'm sure that an organization that has China on it's human rights council is just so-o-o-o much peachier than anyone else.


----------



## brogers (Nov 15, 2006)

Didn't the founders of our country warn us about "Entangling Alliances" ...


----------



## Decker (Nov 16, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> So you assert that every president since FDR believes that the US is subordinate to the UN? The United Nations is the supreme law of the earth?


NO and No.  The US is subordinate to the UN only when it wants to attack a country which did not attack the US.  There is no supreme law of the earth....that does not compute.  But there should be an entity in place to deal with conduct between countries, organizations etc.


----------



## Decker (Nov 16, 2006)

DOMS said:


> ....
> No I didn't. You're saying that the US should submit itself to the will of the UN. I'm saying that the UN politicians are no better than those in the US. Worse actually, because they're pushing their own countries agenda on the US.


Corruption exists at all levels of all sorts of governing bodies. Since the US is a member of the UN and since the US wanted to attack a country that did not attack us, the only legal recourse available to the US was to attack Iraq pursuant to UN resolutions consistent with the UN charter.


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> The alternative isn't no law, it's self-governance. Each country abides by it's own laws.


Right. So let's abolish the federal government and let the individual states war w/ each other when a conflict arises and let the winner be the strongest state. No no, that's no good. There must be an established set of laws and an infrastructure that governs these conflicts and aims toward equitable resolution/solution.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> That was just one of many things that Bush tried to use to validate the war. Big deal. He didn't need to. He simply should have said that he was finishing the war. Which he was. Also, keep in mind that the UN resolution was simply the paper version of the demands laid down by the US back in 1991. It's didn't set the conditions, it simply repeated them. The point being that the UN wasn't setting the terms, the US was. Then the US decided that after 10 years that the Iraqis weren't living up to their end.


Yes Bush needed to do that. The first Iraq war was authorized by the UN when Bush I and an Arab coalition asked the UN for authorization to defend Kuwait. GWB claimed that Res. 678 & 687 gave him the option of enforcing UN resolutions unilaterally. However, the resolutions do not permit that. So GWB acted to enforce Res. 1441. Res. 1441 did not permit the use of force (in enforcing the prior inspection resolutions) unless the UN convened and decided such with a new resolution.

That's not my spin. That is a matter of history. It is fact. If Bush could have acted unilaterally (w/out UN approval) don't you think he would have? He didn't b/c that would have opened him to obvious war crimes charges.


----------

