Fallen Soldier's Mom Arrested Outside Laura Bush Event!

Quote:

...I fought in something I believed in.

Like Joe I wish you all the best. But don't you put your belief system on hold when you join the military?

Maybe not. You must obey orders, but you have a higher duty to question illegal orders, even disobey them.

And when the Secretary General of the United Nations says the war in Iraq is "not in conformity with the UN Charter and is therefore illegal", you are within your rights to say to the Commander in Chief that you will not participate in an illegal war.

0 Replies

(You're welcome. McGentrix. Means a lot.) JJ

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
...I fought in something I believed in.

Like Joe I wish you all the best. But don't you put your belief system on hold when you join the military?

Maybe not. You must obey orders, but you have a higher duty to question illegal orders, even disobey them.

And when the Secretary General of the United Nations says the war in Iraq is "not in conformity with the UN Charter and is therefore illegal", you are within your rights to say to the Commander in Chief that you will not participate in an illegal war.

Here's the problem with your post, I didn't swear an oath to the UN, I swore an oath to the US and the Commander in Chief, regardless of who that is. Now I joined to serve under a president who I believe is going what is best for the US, not what is best for the world. That is the reason I didn't serve under Clinton. He thought too much of the world and not enough about the US.

The UN doesn't call the shots here in the US and doesn't control the US military. Anyone in the service who says what you recommend would be a traitor in my eyes. As stated above they didn't swear to up hold the law and regulations of the UN, but those of the US. I don't answer to the UN so Kofi can kiss my 4th point of contact.

Joe Nation:

Quote:

You believe in this war? Really? You think you know what's going on? I might believe you love the American ideal, freedom for all, democracy spreading out across the world, the rights of humans protected against injustice or I might believe you want to be a part of the War against Terror(ism), the present, real threat to the world, but , despite what the propaganda (and I use that word infrequently) mills have told you, the war in Iraq is not about any of those things.

Bush has said many things leading up to the war in Iraq and WMD's was just one of them. He said many times about the treatment of the Iraqi people in which he gassed his own people, we have found thousands and thousands of bodies in mass graves and not all of them have been from the war with Iran. Saddam supported terrorism, which I knew before he said it because of the news reports of Saddam sending money to homicide bombers in Israel. After the war we were finding convicted terrorists, one that had even killed a disabled American citizen because he was Jewish.

While we found no proof of WMD's, we also never found proof that he got rid of them, just because we can't find any doesn't they didn't exist. Hans Blix said that Saddam was one of the best recorders keepers there were in the Middle East but they still couldn't find anything saying they disposed of the weapons.

Please tell me what the war was about then.

Quote:

I love the American Ideal, that is why I volunteered in 1967, and believe me when I say, like Dick Cheney, I had many other committments that I should have attended to, but I thought that war, as you believe this one is, was a war for the right reasons, freedom, democratic principles, protection of the unprotected. Turns out I was wrong, we fought in Viet Nam to keep a series of autocrats in power and Ho Chi Min at bay.

Did you know that after we left Vietnam that the NVA walked into Vietnam and killed and executed well over 1.5 million people? I would say we were needed and when we left it got worse. So much for Communism being good for Vietnam. It take you supported Ho Chi Min and his murderous belief in communism? You describe it as holding him at bay.

Quote:

And if you think for one moment that this war is about anything other than George W. Bush and his neo-con cronies' weird, myopic view of the world, then you too will find out you were wrong. I hope you live long enough to find out.

Did you feel this same way about Clinton and his removing the Haitian leader from power? Or how about when he removed Milosovich from power?

0 Replies

They were more civil with Michael Moore.

When confronted with the sort of person who Moore was focusing on in his documentary the Republicans are feeling a bit of heat. They yelled "four more years" for Dick Nixon too. And they got them.

But don't forget that the seeds of destruction were already sown before the start of Nixon's second term.

And if Bush brings off a populist campaign and pulls a majority from the usually apathetic parts of the Peanut Gallery, count on it that he will have four years of uphill rock rolling that will make the task of Sisyphus seem easy.

0 Replies

BM

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
...I fought in something I believed in.

Like Joe I wish you all the best. But don't you put your belief system on hold when you join the military?

Maybe not. You must obey orders, but you have a higher duty to question illegal orders, even disobey them.

And when the Secretary General of the United Nations says the war in Iraq is "not in conformity with the UN Charter and is therefore illegal", you are within your rights to say to the Commander in Chief that you will not participate in an illegal war.

Since we are a sovereign nation, we do not take our marching orders from the Secretary General. Any nation which forfeits the right to govern its own defense is stupid in the extreme. What fraction of the wars fought in the world in the last 50 years have been with UN permission? Very, very few. And, furthermore, since Hussein's surrender involved conditions, any attempt to enforce those conditions has that legal stamp of approval anyway.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote

Quote:

Since we are a sovereign nation, we do not take our marching orders from the Secretary General.

No, but as a sovereign nation, the US has freely signed up for the UN Charter, in fact was a founder member of the UN, and as a member of the UN, America has certain rights and responsibilities. One of the things the US has signed up to do is uphold international law. And one of the fundamental tenets of international law is that one country does not wage war against another country purely on the grounds that they do not approve of the legitimate government of that country. Which is exactly what Britain and the US did against the recognised government of Iraq.

The wmd excuse was just that.

Quote:

Any nation which forfeits the right to govern its own defense is stupid in the extreme.

True. But the UN Charter provides for countries to act in self defense. Even in some cases, pro actively against a perceived threat. The legitimacy depends on the balance. Kofi Annan says in his view, the balance was not in favour of making the American action in Iraq legal.

Quote:

What fraction of the wars fought in the world in the last 50 years have been with UN permission? Very, very few.

The first gulf war. The Korean war. But you misunderstand the nature and function of the UN. The UN's role is to try and prevent war by getting countries to settle their differences within the guidelines of the UN charter.

Quote:

And, furthermore, since Hussein's surrender involved conditions,

I didnt know he surrendered. I thought he was captured.

Quote:

any attempt to enforce those conditions has that legal stamp of approval anyway.

I dont understand this bit, but it sounds like a circular argument to me.

0 Replies

Steve, Brandon is speaking of the war in '91. Saddam surrendered and was given certain conditions he had to meet of face additional attacks/sanctions.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Brandon wrote

Quote:
Since we are a sovereign nation, we do not take our marching orders from the Secretary General.

No, but as a sovereign nation, the US has freely signed up for the UN Charter, in fact was a founder member of the UN, and as a member of the UN, America has certain rights and responsibilities. One of the things the US has signed up to do is uphold international law. And one of the fundamental tenets of international law is that one country does not wage war against another country purely on the grounds that they do not approve of the legitimate government of that country. Which is exactly what Britain and the US did against the recognised government of Iraq.

The wmd excuse was just that.

We went in because Iraq had signed a document, when surrendering in 1990, promising to verifiably eliminate WMD and WMD programs and a dozen years was perceived as long enough. Such WMD could pose an extreme hazard to anyone Hussein might have perceived as an enemy. We did not invade to remove a gorvernment that was abhorrent, although it was nice to be able to do that while in the neighborhood.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
Any nation which forfeits the right to govern its own defense is stupid in the extreme.

True. But the UN Charter provides for countries to act in self defense. Even in some cases, pro actively against a perceived threat. The legitimacy depends on the balance. Kofi Annan says in his view, the balance was not in favour of making the American action in Iraq legal.

I repeat, any government which forfeits its defense decisions to a body of other nations is behaving stupidly. Kofi Annan does not, and should not, make US defense decisions.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
What fraction of the wars fought in the world in the last 50 years have been with UN permission? Very, very few.

The first gulf war. The Korean war. But you misunderstand the nature and function of the UN. The UN's role is to try and prevent war by getting countries to settle their differences within the guidelines of the UN charter.

Yes, a very tiny fraction.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
And, furthermore, since Hussein's surrender involved conditions,

I didnt know he surrendered. I thought he was captured.

Geez, the first Gulf War.

0 Replies

I think he is referring to the first Gulf War. Hussein surrendered and was placed under certain sanctions and requirements. The failure to live up to the requirements placed upon him gave legality to further military action without additional UN approval. At least I think that is what is being said by Brandon.

0 Replies

Ooops, guess he was quicker than I was in getting an explaination posted. Smile

0 Replies

Ok Thanks McG understand.

That argument is exactly the one deployed by US and UK for "re starting" a war that never really finished. But I see two problems with this. First you can't just restart a war after a break of 12 years as if hosilities had only finished yesterday. Something has got to change. But nothing had in the case of Iraq. The policy of containment was working, it may have been ugly, but nothing had materially changed between Clinton and Bush.

The thing that did change was Bush 2's desire to seek vengeance for the humiliation of his father. That doesnt make starting or re starting a war legal.

Secondly the conditions were UN Chapter 7 conditions, and mandatory. Saddam was probably in breach of them, but that was for the UN to decide, and for the UN to determine what action should follow. It was not for the US to suddenly hijack the process and act unilaterally.

As far as I can determine, the balance of opinion seems to be that the war was illegal because the UN did not specifically authorise the use of force. The British made strenuous efforts to secure the so-called second resolution which would do so, but failed. (Much to the annoyance of Rumsfeld Wolfowitz Cheney etc. who were never that bothered anyway. They probably blame Blair for delaying the start from Oct 2002 to March 2003 and the subsequent quagmire that has developed).

0 Replies

Quote:

a dozen years was perceived as long enough.

It was for the UN to do the perceiving not the US.

Quote:

Kofi Annan does not, and should not, make US defense decisions.

Correct. And he doesn't.

Your posts illustrate that you do not understand the role of the UN.

0 Replies

But the UN has proven itself to be ineffective in most cases where an actual decision needs to be made.

We can use the genocides in Africa as examples. The UN should have been able to step in and stop such massive human rights violations, but they didn't because the UN is an organization without teeth.

Bush took his case to the UN. They made 1441. Had we waited for the UN, Saddam would STILL be in power and we would STILL be at risk of another terrorist attack.

0 Replies

Saddam is out of power supposedly and according to our great and fearless leaders we ARE under imminent danger of attack, especially if we don't reelect bush (according to cheney).

Personally, if I'm going to be in danger of attack no matter what I'd rather be spared the cost of this horsehit war, and I mean the financial cost, the cost in lives lost the cost in domestic spending to make our country better within it's own borders that we can't afford because we are sucking money from A: our pockets to B: Iraq to C: a few corporate big dogs back in America.

Of course that's just me. Obviously a great many Americans don't mind wiping their leaders asses on dollar bills.......

0 Replies

Quote:

Had we waited for the UN, Saddam would STILL be in power and we would STILL be at risk of another terrorist attack.

Would still be in power? Quite possibly. But then the UN inspectors might have been able to finish their job and conclude that Iraq was disarmed of illegal wmd.

But why let them do that when you can kill thousands of people and spend billions of dollars to come to the same conclusion?

Had the UN inspectors been allowed to finish their work, (they only asked for a few months) do you think they would have reported back to the Security Council that Saddam actually had wmd?

As for "STILL being at risk of another terrorist attack", I'm glad Americans no longer feel under threat.

The Chief Constable of the Metropolitan police here in London is on record as saying a terrorist attack is "inevitable".

0 Replies

chin up old boy...stiff upper lip and all....wouldn't want to be perceived as one of those sissy frogs eh?

0 Replies

huh?

0 Replies

just farting aorund....responding to your attack is inevitable comment....a little playful wise assing is all.....

0 Replies

he forgot to add the

/sarcasm

tag.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fallen Soldier's Mom Arrested Outside Laura Bush Event!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know