0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:39 pm
Well, I suppose, if it really are facts, a court will confirm it, Your Honour.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:45 pm
McTag wrote:
Ican, you haven't improved since last we met.

I vote we torture and kill all the prisoners in US jails since it is plain (to people like Ican) that they have been associating with criminals.

Much cheaper than the present system.

Question
Cheaper in money perhaps, but not cheaper in lives, and of course, Mc, that was my actual point. Very few prisoners in USA jails are mass murderers of civilians or are accomplices of those who mass murder civilians.

In fact, prisoners in USA jails that murdered (or were accomplices to those who murdered) as opposed to those who committed other crimes represent a small minority of all USA prisoners. Yes, I think all murderers in USA jails who have murdered one or more people should be executed rather than put on incarcerated welfare. It will prevent such people from murdering again and may discourage others not so incarcerated from murdering.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:57 pm
revel wrote:
I am just wondering how far away from basic ethical morally humane behavior the US will go before Bush's reign of terror is finally over. We still have until 2008.

["reign of terror" might be over the top, but I thought it sounded good Smile But then again, maybe it's not. ]


It's not! Smile

Bush does not, did not, and will not mass murder civilians or serve as an accomplice to those who mass murder civilians. It is malignancy that does that. Thus it is malignancy's "reign of terror."

I think that is definitely not over the top!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:40 pm
I guess 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed by our coalition forces is not "mass murder of civilians."

Nothing like twisted logic to defend this malignant president.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 04:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I guess 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed by our coalition forces is not "mass murder of civilians."

Nothing like twisted logic to defend this malignant president.


Nothing like a blatantly stupid and obvious falsehood to defend an indefensible position.

By the way,
murder is intentional killing, and
mass murder is intentional mass killing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 04:55 pm
Why did we attack Iraq? A: WMDs.
Did we find WMDs? A: No.
If we didn't attack Iraq for their WMDs, what was it for? A: For the Iraqi People
Does our killing 100,000 innocent Iraqis for the Iraqi People? A: ____? Only an idiot would presume to answer this question with a "yes."

Analysis: How many men and women of our military are we willing to sacrifice for the Iraqi People? A: 2,000, 4,000, 6,000, 8,000.....100,000?

Are you willing to send your loved ones for this misguided war? ican's A: Yes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 06:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Why did we attack Iraq? A: To prevent al Qaeda from operating training bases in Iraq now and in future, and to reduce the probability of Iraqi governments allowing al Qaeda future sanctuary in Iraq.

Did we find WMDs? A: No. The belief that Iraq possed WMD was merely a supplemental reason for invading Iraq. In April 2003, we found and destroyed al Qaeda training bases in Iraq.

If we didn't attack Iraq for their WMDs, what was it for? A: To defeat the terrorist threat to the USA.
Quote:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive—formally signed on October 25 [2001], after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun--included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex.57 The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."58
]

Does our killing 100,000 innocent Iraqis for the Iraqi People? A: This did not happen! The coalition did not kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The coalition did unintentionally kill at most 12,000 Iraqi civilians in its invasion of Iraq. Subsequently the coalition has unintentionally killed at most half that number in its efforts to stop terrorist mass murders of Iraqi civilians in Iraq.

Saddam's regime previously, from 1991 up to the time of the invasion of Iraq murdered over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. Terrorists have so far murdered about 18,000 Iraqi civilians.


Analysis: How many men and women of our military are we willing to sacrifice for the Iraqi People? A: We are willing to sacrifice none!

Analysis: How many men and women of our military are we willing to risk for the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."? Whatever it takes to actually eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

Are you willing to send your loved ones for this misguided war? A: The decision to invade Iraq was not misguided. It was one of many necessary steps to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

Are you willing to allow your loved ones to volunteer to fight this war? Yes, but it's their decision to make. Not mine. Many more of my loved ones would probably die in the USA if we fail to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 06:47 am
There was simply no outstanding reason to invade Iraq when we did it and there should be in cases of war and death.

Before you respond with your usual response, Ican, please save yourself the effort because I am not going to respond.

I truly mean no offense and I hold no offense towards you for your heartfelt beliefs, I just simply think your wrong.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 06:56 am
revel wrote:
There was simply no outstanding reason to invade Iraq when we did it and there should be in cases of war and death.

Before you respond with your usual response, Ican, please save yourself the effort because I am not going to respond.

I truly mean no offense and I hold no offense towards you for your heartfelt beliefs, I just simply think your wrong.


Just in case you are wondering, revel ... I think you're wrong.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 08:09 am
Well, tico, color me surprised.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 02:09 pm
circular argument going on here

and what colour is surprised btw?

just back from breathing the deep fresh air of cornwall, I can see clearly now the rain has gone,
etc.

yes I am drinking a bottle of Chilean Shiraz

no must examine label Cabernet Sauvignon

well not the bottle obviously, just the contents.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 02:36 pm
The Bush administration was slightly hobbled today by Scooter Libby's indictment. I think Libby was one of those who pushed the WMD story to get public approval.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 04:49 pm
The fundamental motive for the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan and the fundamental motive for the USA’s invasion of Iraq were the same motive. It was neither benign or altruistic. It was to serve our enlightened self-interest. It was to eliminate the threat of terrorism to Americans.

We hold our government responsible for securing our unalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Quote:
The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.



Our government is “bound by oath or affirmation” to defend us and our country.

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power To … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States



The government of the USA declared its goal is the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life.”

Quote:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
September 20, 2004, final report
The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive—formally signed on October 25 [2001], after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun--included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex.57 The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."58


The USA invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to destroy al Qaeda terrorist training camps, established in Afghanistan in May 1996, and remove its government that allowed them, because they were a threat to our way of life.

The USA invaded Iraq in March 2003 to destroy al Qaeda terrorist training camps, established in Iraq in December 2001, and remove its government that allowed them, because they were a threat to our way of life.

Adequate evidence of two alleged supplemental reasons for invading Iraq has not been found:
(1) Iraq in February 2003 possessed WMD; and,
(2) Iraq assisted al Qaeda in its September 11, 2001 attack on American civilians.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 09:55 pm
Iraq's alleged possession of WMD and its alleged assistance of al Qaeda in its 9/11 attacks were primary reasons for invading Iraq, not "supplemental reasons." Supplemental reasons (highlighted) were that members of Al Qaeda were hiding in Iraq, and Iraq's alleged continuation of aiding and harboring other international terrorist organizations. Another primary reason stated was Iraq's repression of its civilian population, thereby giving a primary, altruistic reason for invasion.

According to Congress, it authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq because:

Quote:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution 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;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 01:01 am
From the BBC

The Pentagon has invited UN officials to visit the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, more than three years after first receiving the request.

The Pentagon said the invitation showed it had "nothing to hide".


Yes, of course not.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 07:20 am
Quote:
and what colour is surprised btw?
Bright pink maybe.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 09:31 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Iraq's alleged possession of WMD and its alleged assistance of al Qaeda in its 9/11 attacks were primary reasons for invading Iraq, not "supplemental reasons." Supplemental reasons (highlighted) were that members of Al Qaeda were hiding in Iraq, and Iraq's alleged continuation of aiding and harboring other international terrorist organizations.
...
Quote:

...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.


The government of the USA declared its goal to be the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life." That is, it is the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, the congressional joint resolution not withstanding. It was stated as such more than a year before the joint congressional resolution and reinforced as such in five of the "whereases" in the joint congressional resolution.
Quote:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
September 20, 2004, final report
The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive—formally signed on October 25 [2001], after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun--included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex.57 The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."58[/B]


Given al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, this fundamental reason is sufficient to justify our invasion of Iraq whether Iraq did or did not assist al Qaeda's 9/11 terrorist attack on the US; and, whether Iraq did or did not possess WMD. Consequently, these two reasons, assist and/or possess reasons, were merely supplemental reasons. The USA had to invade Iraq as a necessary step toward the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life," despite the failure to find sufficient evidence of the truth of the assist or of the possession.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 04:41 am
A sequence of events:

USA and Britain invade Iraq, which has a big Shia majority. Iran, the neighbouring Shia country, then elects a hardline government with fundamentalist Shia views. Iran then pushes ahead with a nuclear development programme, ignoring international concerns. Iran's president then says "Israel should be wiped off the map".

A question: how much are Bushco's actions helping peace and stability in the Middle East?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 08:32 am
McTag,
Your question reminds me of the problem of creating many more new terrorists than the number of terrorists being defeated.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 10:10 am
McTag wrote:
A sequence of events:

USA and Britain invade Iraq, which has a big Shia majority. Iran, the neighbouring Shia country, then elects a hardline government with fundamentalist Shia views. Iran then pushes ahead with a nuclear development programme, ignoring international concerns. Iran's president then says "Israel should be wiped off the map".

A question: how much are Bushco's actions helping peace and stability in the Middle East?


imo Bush is well aware of the likely consequences of his actions. As he said himself "people misunderestimate me". He knew full well that the invasion of Iraq was likely to make terrorism worse, at least in the short term. But that was a price that had to be paid (by others) in pursuit of much wider strategic objectives that have nothing to do with defeating terrorists or bringing democracy to the middle east. The western economies are entering a period of unprecedented difficulty which governments have understood (imo) for a long time. With the collapse of the Soviet Union (and after the Clinton wobble), they see now as the time for action. Nothing makes sense unless it is viewed in the light of the crisis which is about to hit us. And what is that crisis you may ask. Oil, thats what. Ican and the flat earth economists do not understand this. But others do, and some of them are directing the foreign policy of the United States, and Britain.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 12:58:28