Please Help.... What do I say

[dhgray]

Benedictus:

I don’t think Bush is a war criminal, but I do think that a reasonable person could argue that he is.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I will agree with walstan when he says:

walstan:

why aren’t we in … say… Zimbabwe or North Korea or even China? Why didn’t we invade during Pol Pots reign in Cambodia or intervene in the genocide in Central Africa?

 

[Hildebrand]

gilliam:

No that was not one of the reasons. Read the link below. The President, nor congress ever said Iraq posed an eminent threat. Maybe he can find a quote where they said that, but I doubt it.

Partly right, while the President and most members of Congress said Saddam as a gathering threat… Senator John Edwards did say Saddam posed an eminent threat.

"Although Democrats, including Kerry, had long paid lip service to a policy of regime change in Iraq, Edwards was one of the earliest and most outspoken Democratic hawks on Iraq following the September 11 attacks. On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein’s regime as an “imminent threat” in an interview on CNN. “I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/396vvexd.asp

 

[gilliam]

Benedictus:

Yes, I’m familiar with that, but I still don’t recall the persecution of the Iraqis as being the motivation to invade. The invasion was billed as being part of the war against terror. We heard all about phantom WMDs.

I’ll admit that we did hear about how terrible Saddam was to his own people. Indeed, that is the only plausible reason to go to war, since no intelligent person still believes in the phantom WMDs or that Saddam was behind 9/11.

It is certain that our invasion has caused more harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam was capable of. Saddam was a murderer and tyrrant, but before the war, we had in place ways of protecting the Kurds and Shi’ites

The motivations for why we went in are outlined in the resolution. In this case:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Was it discussed before we went in, absolutely.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

I am not asserting anything except to point out that Colin Powell didn’t say Iraq was an immenent threat which is what people in this thread said he said. Which he didn’t say. You are free to infer whatever you want from whatever anyone says, as we are free to infer whatever we want from what you say, but we are not free to misquote someone.

Thats a brilliant political copout:

“It wasn’t what I said that counts, it was what you heard” Shear genious.

Lets listen to Tony Blair on his speach to the House of Commons 24th September 2002.

The dossier we publish gives the answer. The reason is because his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren’t needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.

Events have shown it wasn’t.

It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

Note the 45 minute reference. If that was true why didn’t he use them during the invasion? Only one possible answer, it wasn’t true.

In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Again key personnel who used to work on the nuclear weapons programme are back in harness. Iraq may claim that this is for a civil nuclear power programme but it has no nuclear power plants.

The infamous Yellow Cake story. Even Blair had to admit it was a hoax.

It is clear both that a significant number of longer-range missiles were effectively concealed from the previous inspectors and remain, including up to 20 extended range Scud missiles; that in mid 2001, there was a step change in the programme and by this year, Iraq’s development of weapons with a range over 1,000 kms was well underway; that hundreds of key people are employed on this programme; facilities are being built; and equipment procured, usually clandestinely. Sanctions and import controls have hindered this programme but only slowed its progress. The capability being developed is for multi-purpose use, including with WMD warheads.

They must have done a cracking job hiding that lot after the invasion, then, even better they made them all vanish without trace. Worthy of Hollywood that trick.

Let me be plain about our purpose.

Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam.

They deserve to be led by someone who can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator.

Someone who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not languishing as a pariah.

Someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam’s personal greed.

Someone who can lead a government more representative of the country as a whole, while maintaining absolutely Iraq’s territorial integrity.

We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East.

So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam. But our purpose is disarmament. No-one wants military conflict. The whole purpose of putting this before the UN is to demonstrate the united determination of the international community to resolve this in the way it should have been resolved years ago: through a proper process of disarmament under the UN.

Note, disarmament, not regime change, DISARMAMENT. Now do you understand why most Brits disagree with the Iraq War?

 

[dhgray]

Now do you understand why most Brits disagree with the Iraq War?

Because they live so close to France? or they have 1.63 million (2001 census) muslims and are afraid.

 

[walstan]

dhgray:

Because they live so close to France?

Noo… thankfully because we live so far from the States.

 

[aimee]

dhgray:

Because they live so close to France? or they have 1.63 million (2001 census) muslims and are afraid.

Vous ne comprenez pas… français

 

[aimee]

walstan:

Noo… thankfully because we live so far from the States.

Vous n’êtes pas French

…now que je comprends

 

[dhgray]

aimee:

Vous n’êtes pas French

…now que je comprends

OH Aimee … I don’t know what you said, but I L:heart:VE the way you talk.

 

[marvin]

walstan:

Noo… thankfully because we live so far from the States.

Yes thankfully you do. Sorry about the whole lost Empire thing. Maybe the UK will be important again someday.

 

[Adonis33]

Benedictus:

Arguably, Bush is a war criminal. At Nuremberg, the Allies tried and executed people for starting a war of aggression. President Bush’s war in Iraq was a war of aggression, so, arguably, he is a war criminal.

Given the intelligence that was presented to President Bush, I cannot believe a rational person can say “Bush is a war criminal”. Usually the only people making that claim are from the extreme left. (Like some of my co-workers)

This is very different than saying “Bush was wrong”.

 

[walstan]

marvin:

Yes thankfully you do. Sorry about the whole lost Empire thing. Maybe the UK will be important again someday.

Never lost it my friend, all the chidren grew up and left home, some made it good others not so. Thats life.

 

[gilliam]

Walstan,

Let me repeat: Colin Powell didn’t say Iraq was an immenent threat which is what people in this thread said he said.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

Walstan,

Let me repeat: Colin Powell didn’t say Iraq was an immenent threat which is what people in this thread said he said.

Ahhhh… the reasoned voice of political denial.

 

[marvin]

walstan:

Never lost it my friend, all the chidren grew up and left home, some made it good others not so. Thats life.

Left home after enduring severe beatings if that’s what you mean.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Is it worth responding to? Sure, particularly since you did a knee-jerk the first time around. But what you’re going to say ought to come from you.

Mr. Bush is not going to be tried as a war criminal. Why? Because even if he were guilty of war crimes–which is a matter for debate, as it is a legal issue, not a justice issue–someone would have to drag him into court by force, and that isn’t going to happen. Even if the UN were stirred up to do it, it wouldn’t happen. Just trying it would destroy the UN and probably start WWIII. So while his opponents may be frustrated, staying in reality is still their best course.

If he’s violated the law or committed a high crime, he hazards impeachment. But since the Congress is controlled by the Republicans, he isn’t going to be impeached unless the public outcry truly reaches an unprecedented din. Judging by the level of tolerance we saw concerning Abu Ghraib, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Most of the voters seemed more sympathetic towards the guilty soldiers than Mr. Bush was!

I’m sure the “Daily Show” website is full of little television clips from past shows, where Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush made public statements that turned out later to not be true and even to contradict their other statements. I have seen many, myself. For some reason, we tolerate that. Heaven forbid that the Administration ever do anything that this War on Terror won’t excuse. I mean that seriously. Mr. Bush doesn’t scare me nearly as much as the unquestioning tolerance and inattention of the electorate does. They’re his battery pack.

“Do you think that the British called the Americans that opposed the occupation of America and who fought against the loyalists “insurgents” in 1776?” Well, pretty much, yes. The Congress and the Continental Army were committing treason. The British had some truly nasty prison ships for prisoners, and I very much doubt that any got “due process.” This was not the era of the Geneva Conventions. We didn’t have a “clean” revolution… it’s just that the dirty side isn’t what you put in a gradeschool textbook. There were large-scale instances of looting, lynching, raping (including elderly and pregnant women, with male family members forced to witness), and other criminal activities by military personnel. These were court-martial offenses, but they were beyond what the generals could keep a wrap on. Burning cities and any property that might prove useful to the enemy was an allowed, if regrettable, option of warfare… we don’t need to remind anyone that they didn’t have “smart” bombs back then, either. Torture during interrogation was also an expected option, not a crime.

Still, the British viewed themselves as dealing with fellow Englishmen who had a gripe over taxes and an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, not a different nation, and by the accounts I’ve read they hoped to mend things peaceably. That was because it suited their goals and because they counted their “enemy” as belonging to their own ethnic group, though, and not because they thought opposing the King wasn’t a capital crime.

The way the British saw those wanting independence for India would be a better analogy, but only somewhat better. There was no United Nations to bother with in 1776–did the Crown not rule by divine right? There were entirely different complicating factors. Besides, the first thing that you learn about the Middle East is that it is not Europe, not Asia, not any of the Americas. Simple comparisons are hazardous!

What would really be interesting is if you two could figure out how to have a conversation about this. Good luck to you.

 

[AmyS]

BLB_Oregon, it would be interesting if we could have a conversation. I have tried with this person and they just come back with rediculous acqusations and conclusions. It is amazing how many times my words have been turned around.

I admire many of the posters on this site, and respect the communication that comes across. I have reasearched things, but, I don’t know enough… Especially when it comes to the revolutionary war (I do know it started on April 19th) Overall I knew I could come here and get some good sound information. You all amaze me at times.

Aimee even speaks French!

 

[BLB_Oregon]

AmyS:

BLB_Oregon, it would be interesting if we could have a conversation. I have tried with this person and they just come back with rediculous acqusations and conclusions. It is amazing how many times my words have been turned around.

I admire many of the posters on this site, and respect the communication that comes across. I have reasearched things, but, I don’t know enough… Especially when it comes to the revolutionary war (I do know it started on April 19th) Overall I knew I could come here and get some good sound information. You all amaze me at times.

Aimee even speaks French!

Then you might try: “Hmm. It seems we’re striking out on politics. Would you like to try religion, or should we just take refuge in the taboos of the sensibly polite? You never know. Having one friend with whom we never talk politics might do wonders for our blood pressure!”

 

[aimee]

BLB_Oregon:

Then you might try: “Hmm. It seems we’re striking out on politics. Would you like to try religion, or should we just take refuge in the taboos of the sensibly polite? You never know. Having one friend with whom we never talk politics might do wonders for our blood pressure!”

Hey…we agree

 

[AmyS]

BLB_Oregon:

Then you might try: “Hmm. It seems we’re striking out on politics. Would you like to try religion, or should we just take refuge in the taboos of the sensibly polite? You never know. Having one friend with whom we never talk politics might do wonders for our blood pressure!”

That is so funny… I was just telling my friend that it helps burn calories!