Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Don't you realize you are wasting your time, OE?

Fox -

Quote:
On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act

Annan -

Quote:

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."

You are 100% wrong. Your pathetic counter argument is akin to claiming that Bush doesn't speak for America. Just admit it and move on rather than continuing the foolishness, for once.

Cycloptichorn

I'm dumbfounded. The word "doublethink" comes to my mind...

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

[George, sometimes you still have the capacity to surprise.
Snivelling search for cover, you say? I think a little prejudice is showing through.

Prejudice? Perhaps. However, I'l bet I have a good deal more experience dealing with the British military establishment than you.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Don't you realize you are wasting your time, OE?

Fox -

Quote:
On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act

Annan -

Quote:

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."

You are 100% wrong. Your pathetic counter argument is akin to claiming that Bush doesn't speak for America. Just admit it and move on rather than continuing the foolishness, for once.

Cycloptichorn

I'm dumbfounded. The word "doublethink" comes to my mind...

Meaning you again won't address the points I've made? (I presume you are calling a member on the HUGE hole he dug for himself with that one though. Smile

)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Don't you realize you are wasting your time, OE?

Fox -

Quote:
On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act

Annan -

Quote:

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."

You are 100% wrong. Your pathetic counter argument is akin to claiming that Bush doesn't speak for America. Just admit it and move on rather than continuing the foolishness, for once.

Cycloptichorn

I'm dumbfounded. The word "doublethink" comes to my mind...

Meaning you again won't address the points I've made? (I presume you are calling a member on the HUGE hole he dug for himself with that one though. )

Why beat around the Bush? Just say outright that you were wrong with your statement.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
[George, sometimes you still have the capacity to surprise.
Snivelling search for cover, you say? I think a little prejudice is showing through.

Prejudice? Perhaps. However, I'l bet I have a good deal more experience dealing with the British military establishment than you.

Once again you have ignored, missed or misunderstood the main theme of a post of mine.

The Americans will not permit the deeds their servicemen to be judged by an international court.

Leaving aside any comment on that, the same is not the case where British servicemen, even chiefs of staff, are concerned.

I am sure this has a powerful mind-concentrating effect, especially when you are told to commence bombing a country which has done you no harm.

0 Replies

McG, Good point. However, I find it problematic that even though the world community has evidence that Bush is responsible for inhumanity against the Iraqis, nobody is willing to make the charge and follow through on it through a world court. Even our government is impotent against the Bush criminals.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Don't you realize you are wasting your time, OE?

Fox -

Quote:
On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act

Annan -

Quote:

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."

You are 100% wrong. Your pathetic counter argument is akin to claiming that Bush doesn't speak for America. Just admit it and move on rather than continuing the foolishness, for once.

Cycloptichorn

I'm dumbfounded. The word "doublethink" comes to my mind...

Meaning you again won't address the points I've made? (I presume you are calling a member on the HUGE hole he dug for himself with that one though. )

If George W. Bush, in his function as President of the United States of America, answered a journalist's question about the legality of the war in Iraq with the words "From our point of view and the Constitution point of view, it was legal", I assume you would agree with me in saying that there has been a US statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as a legal act.

Can you follow me so far?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Don't you realize you are wasting your time, OE?

Fox -

Quote:
On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act

Annan -

Quote:

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."

You are 100% wrong. Your pathetic counter argument is akin to claiming that Bush doesn't speak for America. Just admit it and move on rather than continuing the foolishness, for once.

Cycloptichorn

I'm dumbfounded. The word "doublethink" comes to my mind...

Meaning you again won't address the points I've made? (I presume you are calling a member on the HUGE hole he dug for himself with that one though. )

If George W. Bush, in his function as President of the United States of America, answered a journalist's question about the legality of the war in Iraq with the words "From our point of view and the Constitution point of view, it was legal", I assume you would agree with me in saying that there has been a US statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as a legal act.

Can you follow me so far?

Okay so we're changing subjects. Again. Shall I assume you have nothing with which to rebut the previous subjects?

George W. Bush in his function as President of the United States of America HAS answered journalist and numerous others about the legality of the war in Iraq and has said as much as "From our point of view, it was legal." The legality was further affirmed by a substantial majority vote in Congress and a subsequent re-election of the GWB to a second term in office.

But you, and Cyclop, and all the other Bush haters and/or Bush bashers have repeatedly said that it was illegal just the same and he had no authority to say that it was. I don't think any one of the American Bush bashers was saying that the President had the authority to speak for us then.

I presume you would treat his opinion with the same amount of disdain if he presumed to pronounce something illegal as well.

But now you are saying that Kofi Annan has the authority to say what is or is not legal so far as the United Nations goes? With no ruling or resolution from the United Nations whatsoever? With no censure even suggested, much less passed?

I take back my implied kudos to you re seeing the disconnect in this scenario.

Are you following me so far?

0 Replies

Quote:

But you, and Cyclop, and all the other Bush haters and/or Bush bashers have repeatedly said that it was illegal just the same and he had no authority to say that it was.

Nope, not me. I am merely saying that Annan, as the leader of the UN, can make statements on the UN's behalf the same way that the leader of any country or other large organization can make statements on the behalf of their respective constituents.

I don't believe the war was legal but I've never claimed that Bush didn't ahve the authority to say that it was, and have that be the official American position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well you should say it because he does not have that authority. And only somebody very ignorant of the way our government works would say that he does. He can speak from his knowledge, report what decisions have been made, explain the rationale for them, but he has no power whatsoever to say what is or is not legal.

Nor does Kofi Annan.

0 Replies

No, we're not changing subjects. You declared that there has been no UN statement pronouncing the war in Iraq illegal, in spite of the fact that Kofi Annan, in his function as Secretary General of the United Nations has made the statement that, from their point of view, the war in Iraq was illegal.

You explicitly stated that there was no UN resolution or statement.

Apparently, you were wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well you should say it because he does not have that authority. And only somebody very ignorant of the way our government works would say that he does. He can speak from his knowledge, report what decisions have been made, explain the rationale for them, but he has no power whatsoever to say what is or is not legal.

Nor does Kofi Annan.

That's right, the President of the United States can not declare something legal or illegal. However, he can make a statement about his point of view or the Constitutional point of view concerning the legality or illegality of a specific action.

If he would do so, it is very reasonable to call this the US position on that matter.

Likewise, the Secretary General of the United Nations can not declare something legal or illegal. However, he can make a statement about his point of view or the UN Charter point of view concerning the legality or illegality of a specific action.

If he would do so, it is very reasonable to call this the UN position on that matter.

You will probably disagree, though.

0 Replies

old europe, You're trying to have a discussion with somebody that refuses to acknowledge the UN even though we are a member of it.

Seems you're trying plow through a brick wall.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

No, we're not changing subjects. You declared that there has been no UN statement pronouncing the war in Iraq illegal, in spite of the fact that Kofi Annan, in his function as Secretary General of the United Nations has made the statement that, from their point of view, the war in Iraq was illegal.

You explicitly stated that there was no UN resolution or statement.

Apparently, you were wrong.

Again.....since you again seem to be deliberately avoiding discussing any arguments I make......I ask you: Are you then saying that you believe Kofi Annan IS the United Nations and has full power to speak for it; i.e. say what will and will not be the ruling of the United Nations?

Or is he, like our President, the elected executive charged to uphold the prescribed law?

Unless Kofi Annan IS the United Nations, I still say there was no resolution, statement of censure, or any other action by the United Nations objecting to the invasion of Iraq. And Kofi Annan is a bigger prick than I already thought when he comes out at this late date and tries to embarrass the United States and our President and allies.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

old europe, You're trying to have a discussion with somebody that refuses to acknowledge the UN even though we are a member of it.

Seems you're trying plow through a brick wall.

A bit, yes.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
old europe, You're trying to have a discussion with somebody that refuses to acknowledge the UN even though we are a member of it.

Seems you're trying plow through a brick wall.

A bit, yes.

Says one who dodges and ducks and avoid and pretends he missed every tough question presented to him. And who refuses to deal with any rebuttal as it is presented but who wishes to twist it and distort it into something it is not. Again OE, if that is your point of view, lets both find something else to do. I can only stand so much liberal doublespeak myself.

0 Replies

You can go on this way for years, OE. Believe me.

It would have been far easier to admit that Annan made the statement, but that the UN hasn't passed a resolution or taken any action based upon said statement, which makes it hollow.

Of course, that would have meant admitting error. Why is that so difficult for you to do? It wasn't even a main point of your argument and the whole sidetrack could have been avoided. I honestly don't understand.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo, Annan made the statement based on his knowledge of the UN rules and regulations. It was not just out of hand statement; it had more in support of the statement backed by UN Resolutions and Agreements.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Again.....since you again seem to be deliberately avoiding discussing any arguments I make......I ask you: Are you then saying that you believe Kofi Annan IS the United Nations and has full power to speak for it;

Of course. That's pretty much the job description of a UN Secretary General. Who else do you think has full power to speak for the United Nations if not the Secretary General?

Foxfyre wrote:

i.e. say what will and will not be the ruling of the United Nations?

I'm sorry, but this second part of the sentence means something completely different than the first part of it. The UN Secretary General is the UN Secretary General, not a clairvoyant or a dictator.

And you clearly asked for a UN resolution or statement. Not for a "ruling of the United Nations".

Had you worded your initial question more cleverly, you might have a point. You didn't, and therefore you haven't.

0 Replies

Foxfyre-Post: 2528784 - wrote:

If the UN objected to the invasion, they certainly passed no resolution nor issued any official statement saying so.

Quote:

BBC - Last Updated: Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 14:57 GMT 15:57 UK

The use of a single word in diplomacy can often mark a significant moment and the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's use of the word "illegal" about the war in Iraq is one such moment.

He has carefully avoided the word before.

His previous phrasing was to say that the war was "not in conformity with the UN Charter".

This was a typical diplomatic phrase designed to get over the meaning, but to avoid directness. It was not exactly a ringing phrase and Mr Annan was content with that.

Now, in a BBC interview, he has been pressed into using the word "illegal" and that is the word which will now be used everywhere to describe his position.

He has not changed his position. But his language has changed and that counts.

It is worth noting that he still hedged the word round with references to the UN Charter, but that will be largely ignored.

Diplomacy does not often like directness. Mr Annan is a diplomatic sort of diplomat.

The BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones cleverly forced Mr Annan's hand, just as a good lawyer will do to a witness in court. This is the exchange:

BBC: "So you don't think there was legal authority for the war."

Mr Annan: "I have made it clear, I have stated clearly, that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter."

BBC: "It was illegal."

Mr Annan: "Yes, if you wish."

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know