What happens when you oppose Bu$hCo too vigorously

[BillM]

For sure Blair did break the law - and a move to impeach Blair was taken in the House of Commons two years ago.
(Impeachment process in Britain is carried out differently compared to the USA : as outlined in Parliamentary proceedure - see Erskine May).
We'll leave Blairs actions over Iraq until someone comes in here and tries to defend, the indefensible.

So.....when is the revolution?

Do I think George Bush broke the law?

Isn't the invasion of another sovereign country, illegal?

Well that depends....when the UN, France, UK and Germany were in favor of it the first time....Desert Storm...then nobody seemed to think it was illegal then.....

Who signed the Executive Order to invade Iraq in the USA ?

George Bush of course....why do you always ask questions that you already know the answer to?

 

[davidmc]

For sure Blair did break the law - and a move to impeach Blair was taken in the House of Commons two years ago.

Do I think George Bush broke the law?
Isn't the invasion of another sovereign country, illegal? Who signed the Executive Order to invade Iraq in the USA ?

I think enforcing security council resolution 1441 was not against the law. However, intentionally using flawed info, when it was not necessary anyway, could be construed as either illegal or illogical.

Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661
(1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15
August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons...

SH was a destabilizing entity in the region not to mention the fact he offered bounties to families of suicide bombers in Israel, constantly impeded weapons inspectors, fired on allied aircraft, he & his sons sadistically tortured & or raped various Iraqi citizens, ect...

 

[limerickman]

Well that depends....when the UN, France, UK and Germany were in favor of it the first time....Desert Storm...then nobody seemed to think it was illegal then.....

The UK, France etc were in favour of invasion in 1990/1991 because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Which was entirely different to what preceeded 2003 invasion of Iraq by Bush.
(it could be argued by Iraq - that it (iraq) did nothing illegal by entering Kuwait in 1990/91 because until 1948, Kuwait was the 14th province of Iraq - in 1948, USA and Britain annexed Kuwait and installed a "king" who just happened to be sitting on huge reserves of oil, off whom BP and Aramco enter vast commissions).

George Bush of course....why do you always ask questions that you already know the answer to?

.............therefore it was Bush who authorised the illegal invasion of Iraq by signing the Executive Order.

 

[limerickman]

I think enforcing security council resolution 1441 was not against the law. However, intentionally using flawed info, when it was not necessary anyway, could be construed as either illegal or illogical.

SH was a destabilizing entity in the region not to mention the fact he offered bounties to families of suicide bombers in Israel, constantly impeded weapons inspectors, fired on allied aircraft, he & his sons sadistically tortured & or raped various Iraqi citizens, ect...

Saddam was a bad individual - there is no doubt about that.

The juxtaposition here is that the West (USA and Britain) viewed Saddam as "their man" from 1979-1990.
Saddam kept buying ammo from Britain and the USA in his war against Iran and was seen as a bulwark against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But let's also be clear : Bush falsely accused Saddam of complicity in 9/11 (a lie), he falsely accused Saddam of having WMD (a lie) and he stated that
Saddam supported Al Qaeda (a lie).

 

[davidmc]

But let's also be clear : Bush falsely accused Saddam of complicity in 9/11 (a lie), he falsely accused Saddam of having WMD (a lie) and he stated that
Saddam supported Al Qaeda (a lie).

non-complicity I believe you are correct.
not supporting al-qaieda I believe you are correct. Especially in light of this:

Updated: 3:31 p.m. ET Sept 8, 2006
WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/
The accusing of possession of wmd. I contend that. See:

Security Council

4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

 

[davidmc]

I'm not defending Bush but as to lying about wmd...

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

July 26, 2004
Modified: August 23, 2004

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from ***** .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
This, from the Annenberg foundation which is a non profit, non-partisan foundation.

 

[limerickman]

I'm not defending Bush but as to lying about wmd...

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
This, from the Annenberg foundation which is a non profit, non-partisan foundation.

This was the infamous ***** connection - where allegations about uranium being procured form ***** were made.

Blair was in Washington at that very speech by Bush, if I recall.

Now they're saying that MI6 originally provided the information.

Look Powell brought doctored photos to the UN in February 2003 - photos shown to have been cut and pasted.
He claimed that these photos showed conclusive proof of Iraq's WMD.

As for the Brits - Blair preached to Europe on the basis of information containing cut and pastes from a PhD students dissertation on the subject, from the internet about Iraq's WMD capability.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/07_dossier.html

The Iraq affair was a ball of smoke - a lie.
Unfortunately, thousands of innocent Iraqi's have paid with their lives for the lies told by Bush and Blair about Iraq.

As for US/British casualties - those soldiers shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

 

[davidmc]

This was the infamous ***** connection - where allegations about uranium being procured form ***** were made.

Blair was in Washington at that very speech by Bush, if I recall.

Now they're saying that MI6 originally provided the information.

Look Powell brought doctored photos to the UN in February 2003 - photos shown to have been cut and pasted.
He claimed that these photos showed conclusive proof of Iraq's WMD.

As for the Brits - Blair preached to Europe on the basis of information containing cut and pastes from a PhD students dissertation on the subject, from the internet about Iraq's WMD capability.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/07_dossier.html

The Iraq affair was a ball of smoke - a lie.
Unfortunately, thousands of innocent Iraqi's have paid with their lives for the lies told by Bush and Blair about Iraq.

As for US/British casualties - those soldiers shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

Yes, the doctored or misrepresented photo's supplied to the UN by the Bush admin. and Powells either complicity or duplicity are a sad chapter in American (republican, mind you) history but it doesn't detract from the fact of material breach of sec council resolution 1441, no It would appear that no one in Europe wanted to address the "elephant in the living room" (SH) except for the U.S. & Blair

 

[BillM]

I think enforcing security council resolution 1441 was not against the law. However, intentionally using flawed info, when it was not necessary anyway, could be construed as either illegal or illogical.

Well..that remains to be an opinion...as opposed to fact unfortunately. I doubt we will ever know the real story.

SH was a destabilizing entity in the region not to mention the fact he offered bounties to families of suicide bombers in Israel, constantly impeded weapons inspectors, fired on allied aircraft, he & his sons sadistically tortured & or raped various Iraqi citizens, ect...

Details...details.

 

[BillM]

The UK, France etc were in favour of invasion in 1990/1991 because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Which was entirely different to what preceeded 2003 invasion of Iraq by Bush.
(it could be argued by Iraq - that it (iraq) did nothing illegal by entering Kuwait in 1990/91 because until 1948, Kuwait was the 14th province of Iraq - in 1948, USA and Britain annexed Kuwait and installed a "king" who just happened to be sitting on huge reserves of oil, off whom BP and Aramco enter vast commissions).

The UK was still in favor of invading Iraq this time.

If you could argue that Iraq did nothing wrong by invading Kuwait....then that speaks volumes....about you.

.............therefore it was Bush who authorised the illegal invasion of Iraq by signing the Executive Order.

It isn't illegal if he authorized. America runs this show...or haven't you noticed.

 

[davidmc]

Bush remembering past missunderstandings & misunderrepresentations
http://www.cagle.com/news/fiore/main.asp
Blair has end in sight

 

[ptlwp]

Bush's main sins are

naivety
innocence
believing that people are better than they truly are
having a spiritual side to 'em
thinking he can change the natural ways of mankind
thinking that he can change any damn thing he wants

other that, he is a decent man, idealistic at worst
true to his spirit at best.

 

[Carrera]

His willingness to turn a blind eye to torture is disturbing and misguided. I do believe in military action for self-defence purposes but I draw the line at secret detention centres where prisoners are tortured. If governments are going to stoop to those levels, they are acting no differently than the terrorists.

Bush's main sins are

naivety
innocence
believing that people are better than they truly are
having a spiritual side to 'em
thinking he can change the natural ways of mankind
thinking that he can change any damn thing he wants

other that, he is a decent man, idealistic at worst
true to his spirit at best.

 

[Wurm]

Bush's main sins are

naivety
innocence
believing that people are better than they truly are
having a spiritual side to 'em
thinking he can change the natural ways of mankind
thinking that he can change any damn thing he wants

other that, he is a decent man, idealistic at worst
true to his spirit at best.

Surely you jest?

 

[ptlwp]

Surely you jest?

He is like a simpleton....thinks in simplistic ways, naively, like a child.....the way the world "should be" according to his own ingrained beliefs, like a little kid, you know, sucking on a lollipop wishing that "Santa Claus" would show up and give him what he wants.

 

[Wurm]

GWB does as he's told, period. His actions are totally intended. Whether he's "incompetent" or "stupid" really begs the question and isn't relevant.

nns's non-response to my previous response is conspicuous for its absence. Hmm...

Where is the big-mouthed, know-it-all broad now?

 

[BillM]

GWB does as he's told, period. His actions are totally intended. Whether he's "incompetent" or "stupid" really begs the question and isn't relevant.

nns's non-response to my previous response is conspicuous for its absence. Hmm...

Where is the big-mouthed, know-it-all broad now?

She was invited not to post by another know it all.

Are you always an ass or just on this forum?

 

[limerickman]

The UK was still in favor of invading Iraq this time.

Blair did hitch his policy to the US policy of invading Iraq in 2003.
I agree.

If you could argue that Iraq did nothing wrong by invading Kuwait....then that speaks volumes....about you.

I didn't say that Iraq didn't do wrong by invading Kuwait.
I made the point that the territory now known as Kuwait - was annexed from Iraq in mid 20th century - by the USA and Britain and I did say that Saddam (and anyone else) could make the case that Iraq - by invading Kuwait in 1991 - were attempting to reclaim what had been Iraq's for centuries prior to the enforced annexation of said territory.

It isn't illegal if he authorized.

Wrong.
It is illegal.

Under the Geneva Conventions to invade a sovereign territory, unless the country in question is attacked.

America runs this show...or haven't you noticed.

America doesn't run the show..................... or haven't you noticed.

Binladen & Co have set the agenda and the USA's jumping to their tune.

 

[BillM]

Bin Laden is living like a rat in a cave.

Denial isn't just a river.

 

[limerickman]

Bin Laden is living like a rat in a cave.

Denial isn't just a river.

Neither you or anyone else knows where Binladen is living.
You haven't got a clue.