The US, UN & Iraq II

however this is not a first for the US. From Pres Polk to Pres Reagan we have used preemptive war. we just didn't call it that.

Havings seen Straw on tv, reading his text, well did he really believe what he said?

I don't know what's worse, to embark on an illegal immoral unnecessary pre emptive attack on a sovereign member of the UN, or to support and join in that attack for no other reason than to be seen to be on the same side as the aggressor.

Theres a discussion digression regarding cut-and-paste over at: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=140220#140220

First, copyright conventions should be observed. Next, anytime a brief quote excerpted from an article will serve the point, excerpt and attribute. That is just considerate. Sometimes a quote and a link just won't do, but use common sense. Link whenever you can, excerpt a quote or post a precis, and dont burn up the bandwidth. Cut-and-paste only if you have to. Folks on dialup in particular will appreciate that. Its just good netiquet.



timber

Walter,

No I don't think he did believe in his heart, the words he read out. But you know what politicians are like. This is a very difficult situation. Taking the country into an illegal war is a serious business, and as much as I'm sure Jack Straw likes the French, they are a useful target for any blame that has to be apportioned.

Turkish Leaders to Act on U.S. Troops

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkey's top political and military leaders called on the government Monday to take urgent action to allow in U.S. troops.

9 minutes ago http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20030317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_iraq

Reuters gives a little bit more text than ul's yahoo link:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17489577

tres, you are right. It is like taking paper home from the office or making personal telephone calls on your employer's time, things that I have never done because it felt like stealing from the company.

I should have excerpted bits and added my comments, making it my own joined with theirs. Or, as you say, tell folks and let them buy the Journal or borrow one.

Are you being a bit scrupulous? Maybe. But that is better than me being sneaky. Thanks for keeping me honest.

From the "Argument" of tomorrow's Independent:

Kara - As a rule, I tend to think that copying a paragraph and offering the source is fine, since it is likely to generate more interest in their publication.

And I have reams of paper from the office. Perhaps I am more scrupulous of intellectual property because I think to benefit from others being so as well.

Tres

Re apologizing for patent lies by politicians because it is common...not a chance. Call the buggers on it every time, or you're a lousy citizen. Especially, for gods sake, on a whopper of this magnitude on an issue this serious.

I think I'm going to throw up.

Thanks, Blatham. Now, war protesters, join me in turning the protest directly on Bush and his cohort. Be as serious and unforgiving as he has been. He deserves no less.

walter, I am in total agreement with the Independent editorial. I know that Tony Blair's future is now in doubt, but I have always felt the sincerity of his stance. He did not need to invoke God's blessing on his policies, nor did he appear sanctimonious about his considered views. What irony that he will suffer politically when Bush will be re-elected in a rush of patriotic fervor and jingoistic triumphalism.

Whatever else may come of this Tony Blair is assured of being remembered a man of courage and honor. Such qualities often do little to gain one points in popularity contests.



timber

dyslexia is quite right. These are excerpts of President Polk's special message asking Congress to declare war on Mexico

Full Text

"the long-continued and unredressed wrongs and injuries committed by the Mexican Government on citizens of the United States in their persons and property...Mr. John Slidell, of Louisiana, was comissioned by me as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Mexico, and was intrusted with full powers to adjust both the questions of the Texas boundary and of indemnification to our citizens. The redress of the wrongs of our citizens naturally and inseparably blended itself with the question of boundary. The settlement of the one question in any correct view of the subject involves that of the other. I could not for a moment entertain the idea that the claims of our much-injured and long-suffering citizens, many of which had existed for more than twenty years, should be postponed or separated from the settlement of the boundary question... the Mexican Government refused all negotiation, and have made no proposition of any kind. In my message at the commencement of the present session I informed you that upon the earnest appeal both of the Congress and convention of Texas I had ordered an efficient military force to take a position « between the Nueces and the Del Norte.» This had become necessary to meet a threatened invasion of Texas by the Mexican forces, for which extensive military preparations had been made. The invasion was threatened solely because Texas had determined, in accordance with a solemn resolution of the Congress of the United States, to annex herself to our Union, and under these circumstances it was plainly our duty to extend our protection over her citizens and soil...Had we acted with vigor in repelling the insults and redressing the injuries inflicted by Mexico at the commencement, we should doubtless have escaped all the difficulties in which we are now involved."

This sounds quite familiar, doesn't it?

trimber

I suspect he may be remembered by some in that way, but I won't be one of them if this political decision is the subject under discussion. Recall, if you will, his own statement that if Britain went along with the US, then that was, in effect, preventing the US from acting unilaterally. For that statement alone he deserves a pie in the face every day for the rest of his life. Pity, as I like the guy, but on this one, he's putting a big hurt on world peace and the stability of the future. I understand your estimation of these things differs from mine.

However, I'll have a long term fondness for our PM, a disappointment until of late. I like him particularly now, as we aren't joining in.

Lola

You mentioned oil...but I'm sure it is just good-hearted concern for down-trodden Iraquis behind the move that will kill downtrodden Iraquis. Oh, and terrorism, of course.

But on the oil thing...let's look at the Defense Policy Board, a group created by the Defence Department in 1985, now chaired by Richard Perle, who was appointed by Rumsfeld in 2001.

Along with Perle, Henry Kissinger and Gerald Hillman sit on the DPB. Coincidentally, all three are involved in a 'security and defence' private business named Trireme. The following is from Hersh's article in the New Yorker

...just watching Peter Jennings on ABC with a take from London...Robin Cook saying, (to paraphrase) that if Al Gore had prevailed, we would not be at war....

My sentiments...

Sorry, I meant to include, "the hanging chads", and if Al Gore had been allowed to prevail, we would not be at war!