Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Stark on September 24, 2007, 01:35:43 PM
-
for over a year neo cons have been trying to build a case against Iran. They have been feeding Americans lies and nothing but lies.
Remember these were the same people who told us Iraq was months away from nuclear weapon.
What did Ahmadinejad say?
“Ahmadinejad Didn’t Say “Israel Must Be Wiped Off The Map”
Global-Research, January 20, 2007
Information Clearing House
Across the world, a dangerous rumour has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran’s President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as this article will prove.
BACKGROUND:
On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled “The World Without Zionism.” Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster’s title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass’ narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.
Before we get to the infamous remark, it’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomaini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomaini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual-words belong to Khomaini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.
THE ACTUAL-QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi: “Emam ghoft in rezhim-e eshghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye rozgar mahv shavad.”
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime,” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e eshghalgar-e Qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question: what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh,” is not contained anywhere in his original-Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” despite never having uttered the words “map,” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Word by word translation:
Emam (Khomaini) ghoft (said) in (this) rezhim-e (regime) eshghalgar-e (occupying) Qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye rozgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on
www.president.ir/farsi/ahm
adinejad/speeches/1384/aba
n-84/840804sahyonizm.htm
THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:
While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual-speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical-trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism.” One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political-oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal-of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomaini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomaini’s own words foretelling that individual-regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomaini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise.” This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
THE ORIGIN:
One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.
The inflammatory “wiped off the map” quote was first disseminated not by Iran’s enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s official-propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International-media including the BBC, al-Jazirah, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran’s Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.
Amid heated wrangling over Iran’s nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for pre-emptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d’etre to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.
It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA’s translation changed. For instance, “map” was replaced with “earth.” In some articles it was “The Qods occupying regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth,” or the similar “The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth.” The inconsistency of the IRNA’s translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.
THE REACTION:
The mistranslated “wiped off the map” quote attributed to Iran’s President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.
Following news of Iran’s remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed “revulsion” and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel’s destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is “preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state” is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.
The artificial-quote has also been subject to additional-alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the “map” reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase “wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has “called for the destruction of Israel,” as do senior officials in the United States government.
President George W. Bush said the comments represented a “specific threat” to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because…” the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel.” Former Presidential-advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran “talks openly about destroying Israel,” and insists, “The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as “the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, ‘It is the goal-of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” The consensus is clear.
Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth’s Washington Post interview in September 2006:
“Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?
We need to look at the scene in the Middle East 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.
Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?
Our suggestion is very clear: Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted…. The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.
You’ve been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?
What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago…
So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?
Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let’s allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.”
The exchange is typical-of Ahmadinejad’s interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter’s face with his standard “Don’t the Palestinians have rights? etc.” retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the “map” comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial-break and lying, “as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map.”
Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled Words of Hate: Iran’s Escalating Threats released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, “Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel.” These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.
As Iran’s U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:
“It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month’s remarks by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that “We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.”
The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General-Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world: “They speak proudly and openly of their desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’ And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world.”
Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: “We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, and Russia?”
MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY:
On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post’s headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be ‘wiped out,’ while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will ’soon be wiped out.’
Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter’s Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel’s days are numbered], and the AP’s Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out].
The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to “Haaretz Service and Agencies,” are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed “the Jewish state” to “Israel” in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.
The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: [”Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out,” he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:
“The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom,” Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday’s meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran’s official-news agency, IRNA.
He said elections should be held among “Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner.”
Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except “He called for elections” became “He said elections should be held…”
It gets more interesting:
The quote used in the original-AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to: www.irna.ir/en/news/view/m
enu-234/0612134902101231.h
tm
There you will discover the actual-IRNA quote was:
“As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated.”
Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:
“The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom.”
In the IRNA’s actual-report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be “wiped out.” And how will it be wiped out? “The same way the Soviet Union was.” Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad’s previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.
What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original-authors’ words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.
This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq’s much larger and more formidable neighbour, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumour of the century.
-
Stark,
Facts will only confuse them.
-
exactly, I made a similar post on this point at the beginning of 2007.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=120360.0
pretty much crickets there too :D
-
In the last few paragraphs you give more credibility to a state run media outlet (IRNA) than you do the AP.
I agree on most parts but some offering credibility to that source is laughable.
-
exactly, I made a similar post on this point at the beginning of 2007.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=120360.0
pretty much crickets there too :D
You guys thinking the problem is a lack education/facts is endearing.
-
Good post! It shows how little fact-checking is done nowadays...
I was apalled at the treatment the Iranian president received at Columbia University. I just can't believe the pot shots he was dealt with from all these "freedom-loving" deans and university presidents, who insulted him in a very arrogant manner.
I am pissed at these motherfuckers because, had we switched the Iranian president with Bush, they wouldn't daaaaare say shit to GB.
Pick on the weak. I hate those individuals! I hate Columbia!
-
Preaching to people who have their minds made up already, which implies your post as pointless.
Some people will not change their views and have them set in stone.
-
Who fucking cares? Iran STONES WOMEN TO DEATH OVER NOTHING, HANGS PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY FUCK THOSE WORTHLESS FUCKS. Name ONE thing the middle east gives other than pain suffering and fucking oil just one. One medical advancement. Just one contribution to the human race I will leave you alone otherwise fuck them.
-
Who fucking cares? Iran STONES WOMEN TO DEATH OVER NOTHING, HANGS PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY FUCK THOSE WORTHLESS FUCKS. Name ONE thing the middle east gives other than pain suffering and fucking oil just one. One medical advancement. Just one contribution to the human race I will leave you alone otherwise fuck them.
Hey, the only thing we are fucking after bubba are the facts ::) Nobody here tried to pass the Iranian gov off as benevolent... Who fucking cares? Everyone who gives a shit about knowing exactly what is fact or fiction fed to us by neocon douchebags hungry for more war. What Iran does to women may be bad but it's not worth going to war over. Contrary to popular neocon believe, this nation was not created to police the world.
-
Who fucking cares? Iran STONES WOMEN TO DEATH OVER NOTHING, HANGS PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY FUCK THOSE WORTHLESS FUCKS. Name ONE thing the middle east gives other than pain suffering and fucking oil just one. One medical advancement. Just one contribution to the human race I will leave you alone otherwise fuck them.
The European Renaissance to start.
Mathematics, Astronomy, Science, Medicine, Literature, Agriculture, Arabic Numerals, and Alcohol etc., etc., etc.
The list is endless, so I trust those 9 areas will suffice.
Now Fvck off! Please and Thank You.
-
The European Renaissance to start.
Mathematics, Astronomy, Science, Medicine, Literature, Agriculture, Arabic Numerals, and Alcohol etc., etc., etc.
The list is endless, so I trust those 9 areas will suffice.
Now Fvck off! Please and Thank You.
Nice ;) Kind of ironic he would care about their human rights violations and in the same post say fuck em.
-
Hey Jag...we've gone down this road about how wonderful the Rags are before..guess what alll revisionist Bullshit. Imaragheadijad should go die in a fire..who cares at this point if he said what he said....he hates us, he sits on a shit ton of oil..and can't play nicely with the rest nof us....he needs to go.
-
The European Renaissance to start.
Mathematics, Astronomy, Science, Medicine, Literature, Agriculture, Arabic Numerals, and Alcohol etc., etc., etc.
The list is endless, so I trust those 9 areas will suffice.
Now Fvck off! Please and Thank You.
I'm going to guess you have little to no proof of any of this do you? Since I have some time to kill I will search around and see what I find. Yes I do find it ironic that I mention human rights violations and then say fuck them, it's all too easy to get carried away. I hate these people, and while we are not the world police if there is an injustice in the world, who will stand up for the little guy? Noone else is stepping up to the plate, I am more than happy to.
-
There's a history website that goes point by point on how many of the crap attributed to arabs is either BS, overblown or distorted by an over aplogetic West. I'm digging as well.
-
The reality is that the so-called “Arab” contribution to mathematics was substantially built on prior knowledge of the Hindus and the Greeks and while the Greek influence and origins are frequently acknowledged, the Hindu contribution is very rarely mentioned.
To quote from Carl B. Boyer in his "History of Mathematics", “...Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, ..., who died sometime before 850, wrote more than a half dozen astronomical and mathematical works, of which the earliest were probably based on the Sindhind derived from India. Besides ... [he] wrote two books on arithmetic and algebra which played very important roles in the history of mathematics. ... In this work, based presumably on an Arabic translation of Brahmagupta, al-Khwarizmi gave so full an account of the Hindu numerals that he probably is responsible for the widespread but false impression that our system of numeration is Arabic in origin. ... [pages 227-228]...”.
The hatred of Western Civilization, and the corresponding urge to glorify anything outside it, especially if it can be depicted as a victim of the West, is a well-known phenomenon of the contemporary liberal mind. One of the forms it has taken in recent years is the attempt to artificially inflate the historic achievements of other civilizations beyond what the facts support. The noble savage myth is a commonplace; what is more complex is the myth that has been bandied about concerning the supposed "golden age" of Islamic civilization during what we know as the Middle Ages.
The myth of an Islamic Golden Age is needed by Islam’s apologists to save it from being damned by its present squalid condition; to prove, as it were, that there is more to Islam than the terrorism of Bin Laden and the decadence of the oil sheiks. It is, frankly, a confession that if the world judges it by what it is today, it comes up rather short, being a religion that has yet to produce a democratic or prosperous society, or social and cultural forms admired by neutral foreign observers the way anyone can admire American freedom, Japanese order, Israeli courage, or Italian style.
Some liberal academics openly admit that they twist the Moslem past to serve their present-day intellectual agendas. For example, some who propound the myth of an Islamic golden age of tolerance admit that their goal is,
I could go on forever.....
-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={5BB95390-5AA5-4F74-ACD5-BCCE6E77931C}
This "golden" period in question largely coincides with the second dynasty of the Caliphate or Islamic Empire, that of the Abbasids, named after Muhammad’s uncle Abbas, who succeeded the Umayyads and ascended to the Caliphate in 750 AD. They moved the capital city to Baghdad, absorbed much of the Syrian and Persian culture as well as Persian methods of government, and ushered in the "golden age."
This age was marked by, among other things, intellectual achievement. A number of medieval thinkers and scientists living under Islamic rule, by no means all of them "Moslems" either nominally or substantially, played a useful role of transmitting Greek, Hindu, and other pre-Islamic fruits of knowledge to Westerners. They contributed to making Aristotle known in Christian Europe. But in doing this, they were but transmitting what they themselves had received from non-Moslem sources.
The problem with turning this list of intellectual achievements into a convincing "Islamic" golden age is that whatever flourished, did so not by reason of Islam but in spite of Islam. Moslems overran societies (Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Byzantine, Syrian, Jewish) that possessed intellectual sophistication in their own right and failed to completely destroy their cultures. To give it the credit for what the remnants of these cultures achieved is like crediting the Red Army for the survival of Chopin in Warsaw in 1970! Islam per se never encouraged science, in the sense of disinterested enquiry, because the only knowledge it accepts is religious knowledge.
As Bernard Lewis explains in his book What Went Wrong? the Moslem Empire inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle east, of Greece and of Persia, it added to them new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India." The decimal numbers were thus transmitted to the West, where they are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers, honoring not their inventors but their transmitters.
Furthermore, the intellectual achievements of Islam’s "golden age" were of limited value. There was a lot of speculation and very little application, be it in technology or politics. At the present day, for almost a thousand years even speculation has stopped, and the bounds of what is considered orthodox Islam have frozen, except when they have even contracted, as in the case of Wahabism. Those who try to push the fundamentals of Moslem thought any further into the light of modernity frequently pay for it with their lives. The fundamentalists who ruled Afghanistan until recently and still rule in Iran hold up their supposed golden age as a model for their people and as a justification for their tyranny. Westerners should know better.
-
Hey Jag...we've gone down this road about how wonderful the Rags are before..guess what alll revisionist Bullshit. Imaragheadijad should go die in a fire..who cares at this point if he said what he said....he hates us, he sits on a shit ton of oil..and can't play nicely with the rest nof us....he needs to go.
It's not about him, he and several other world leaders can all go fuck themselves. They're all evil asses. It's much more about keeping neocons like Bill Kristol honest. If Iran is doing evil ass shit, there shouldn't be much need to make crap up. If we're going to war, let us do it knowing the whole truth and nothing but where allegations are made.
-
..and can't play nicely with the rest nof us....
pot..kettle..black! :D
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6389157.stm
lies..all lies! :-\
-
Who fucking cares? Iran STONES WOMEN TO DEATH OVER NOTHING, HANGS PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY FUCK THOSE WORTHLESS FUCKS. Name ONE thing the middle east gives other than pain suffering and fucking oil just one. One medical advancement. Just one contribution to the human race I will leave you alone otherwise fuck them.
You realize America has killed over 700K Iraqis in the past three years. It's hypocritical to talk crap about their human rights record when we're killing them left and right. Besides, those women and homos weren't white or Jewish so no one really cares anyways. :)
Judi, you forgot to mention the Holy Qur'an.
-
You realize America has killed over 700K Iraqis in the past three years.
Noooo. Not this again. :) Where are you getting this number? From what I recall, we established on here many months ago that the half million number that some advocacy group came up with was completely unreliable. It was based on interviews with a small number of people and then estimates were made based on those interviews. At least that's what I remember.
-
Noooo. Not this again. :) Where are you getting this number? From what I recall, we established on here many months ago that the half million number that some advocacy group came up with was completely unreliable. It was based on interviews with a small number of people and then estimates were made based on those interviews. At least that's what I remember.
The number released last year was 655K. That being said, it doesn't matter anyways.
-
The number released last year was 655K. That being said, it doesn't matter anyways.
"The number released" sounds pretty official. It wasn't.
Some advocacy group overstating collateral damage by hundreds of thousands isn't a big deal, since those people were never dead anyway. Is 700,00 your estimate?
-
"The number released" sounds pretty official. It wasn't.
Some advocacy group overstating collateral damage by hundreds of thousands isn't a big deal, since those people were never dead anyway. Is 700,00 your estimate?
I guessed they would have atleast killed another 45K within a year. Can't really see why the death number would matter that much, no one cares.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/)
-
You realize America has killed over 700K Iraqis in the past three years. It's hypocritical to talk crap about their human rights record when we're killing them left and right. Besides, those women and homos weren't white or Jewish so no one really cares anyways. :)
Judi, you forgot to mention the Holy Qur'an.
The numbers may be 700k, but do you think that is the actual number killed directly by Americans whether it be by gunfire, bombing/strafing runs, or other incident attributed to battle? I would think that much of these deaths were caused by indirect American involvement such as secetarian violence, power struggles, disease/famine, and all around civil war. Also, how much of this number could actually be foreign fighters attracted to the region?
Then you speak about that people only care about white or jewish deaths. That isn't true. White farmers in South Africa have been killed by the hundreds, but that does not make the news. Anti-semitism(REAL anti-semitism, not the criticize Isreal type) is rampant throughout Europe due to massive Muslim immigration....in fact, an average of 10 Jews a day are assaulted in Paris. That is never mentioned, unless one went to look specifically for it. 90% of interracial crime in the US is black on white, but that is never mentioned(I guess because....its expected? lol).
Caring about human deaths? Sure the media and general populace care about certain human deaths in regards to race, culture, religion, and region.....when it most conveniantly suits them.
-
JB,
A lot of it must be mixed as you suggest. As far as S. Africa goes, it doesn't really make the news too much in America. Politically it wouldn't be goodfor anyone to assert whites had the right to be there considering how long the "good neighbour" was in tact.
-
I guessed they would have atleast killed another 45K within a year. Can't really see why the death number would matter that much, no one cares.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/)
I wouldn't say no one cares.
Here is how they arrived at the numbers:
The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/
-
I wouldn't say no one cares.
Here is how they arrived at the numbers:
The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/
Numbers get manipulated all the time when a bunch of people get killed. Maybe next time we'll keep better records.
-
Numbers get manipulated all the time when a bunch of people get killed. Maybe next time we'll keep better records.
Yes numbers get manipulated all the time, but "we" didn't come up with these numbers. I don't know what the government's official number is.
-
Yes numbers get manipulated all the time, but "we" didn't come up with these numbers. I don't know what the government's official number is.
We both have a better chance of winning the powerball than finding out the real numbers, LOL!
With a small leap of logic, I guess they could all be classified as potential suicide bombers, if they all went ballistic at the same time it would cause mass destruction.. maybe Bush was right. :)
-
We both have a better chance of winning the powerball than finding out the real numbers, LOL!
True. :)
-
to get accurate numbers would put our troops in harms way. Plus with the refugee crisises, you have folks coming and going quietly and in large groups. Very hard to estimate population loss, much less find exacts. Plus, when you throw in the fact that BOTH sides are motivaed to lie, well that doesn't help either.
Is it true that a US Solldier wounded in Baghdad who makes it over the Iraqi border (to germany, kuwit, or wherever) before dying, DOES NOT count as an Iraqi war casualty? I heard that and was shocked.
-
Numbers get manipulated all the time when a bunch of people get killed. Maybe next time we'll keep better records.
The actual numbers don't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Anyone quibbling over those at this point is simply looking to derail the topic.
The point is any nation that claims to be democratic, yet invades a sovereign state posing no threat to itself, and deposes it's legitimate head-of-state in order to seize control of it's resources, disembowels habeas corpus at home, endorses warrantless wiretaps & spying against it's own citizens, engages in indefinite seizure and imprisonment without charges, engages in the practice of "rendition", (a euphemism for illegal kidnapping and trans national human trafficking for the purposes of torture) has no business condemning anyone for their less than stellar human rights record.
-
The actual numbers don't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Anyone quibbling over those at this point is simply looking to derail the topic.
The point is any nation that claims to be democratic, yet invades a sovereign state posing no threat to itself, and deposes it's legitimate head-of-state in order to seize control of it's resources, disembowels habeas corpus at home, endorses warrantless wiretaps & spying against it's own citizens, engages in indefinite seizure and imprisonment without charges, engages in the practice of "rendition", (a euphemism for illegal kidnapping and trans national human trafficking for the purposes of torture) has no business condemning anyone for their less than stellar human rights record.
Judi,
Mark Twain wrote something to the effect: There are two kinds of democracy in America. The one we export and the one we practice at home. :)
He also wrote: There are three kinds if lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
-
Hey Jag...we've gone down this road about how wonderful the Rags are before..guess what alll revisionist Bullshit. Imaragheadijad should go die in a fire..who cares at this point if he said what he said....he hates us, he sits on a shit ton of oil..and can't play nicely with the rest nof us....he needs to go.
HH6, we really don't need that racist shit here.
We really don't.
Take that stuff somewhere else. Calling middle-eastern people rags is fcuked up.
Basically, I agree that their culture is inferior in several ways.
But that doesn't give us any right to plunder their natural resources, to treat them like anything less than equals.
We are the better men, the enlightened ones. It's time to act like it.
Democracy? Women's rights? Hell yeah. I definitely support these movements in any totalitarian regime.
edit: The use of racial slurs against these groups of people directly hurt any kind of sound critisism. That's why I think it's contra-productive, and actually helps the anti-democratic groups these regions raise support for their cause.
Culti-hugging apologists will jump at every given chance to group legit critisism together with the racial slurs.
-
Basically, I agree that their culture is inferior in several ways.
But that doesn't give us any right to plunder their natural resources, to treat them like anything less than equals.
We are the better men, the enlightened ones. It's time to act like it.
Democracy? Women's rights? Hell yeah. I definitely support these movements in any totalitarian regime.
Very nice post!
-
Noooo. Not this again. :) Where are you getting this number? From what I recall, we established on here many months ago that the half million number that some advocacy group came up with was completely unreliable. It was based on interviews with a small number of people and then estimates were made based on those interviews. At least that's what I remember.
No. That was a survey by The Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. The number of Iraqis dead was 654,965. That shows all deaths in Iraq by all circumstances. That number is up over the 143,000 iraqi deaths pre-invasion.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods
-
Sorry hedge I disagree completely...but to make u happy I'll watch how I say it. It won't change the absolute lothing I have for them.
-
No. That was a survey by The Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. The number of Iraqis dead was 654,965. That shows all deaths in Iraq by all circumstances. That number is up over the 143,000 iraqi deaths pre-invasion.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods
Thanks. The number is completely unreliable.
-
Thanks. The number is completely unreliable.
Why?
-
Why?
Because of what I posted earlier:
The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/
They didn't do a body count, or anything remotely close to a body count. Interviewing a small number of people in "clusters" does not give you an accurate number and certainly cannot link over 600,000 deaths to the war.
-
Because of what I posted earlier:
The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/
They didn't do a body count, or anything remotely close to a body count. Interviewing a small number of people in "clusters" does not give you an accurate number and certainly cannot link over 600,000 deaths to the war.
So you are discounting a strict methodical survey and its results b/c George W. Bush disagreed with the
results?
Did you read the rest of the article?
"Paul Bolton, a researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health who has conducted surveys throughout the world, also said the methodology appears sound. ``The president mainly relies on figures that come from passive surveillance, where you have institutions like hospitals that collect data as bodies are brought to them," Bolton said. ``When the president says these studies are different, they are different. But the passive method is the flawed one.""
The way I read the survey was that 143,000 of the 600,000 were regular deaths. The others were related to the invasion--whether from tainted drinking water from our bombing their purification infrastructure (a war crime) or from the use of depleted uranium in US shells.
-
So you are discounting a strict methodical survey and its results b/c George W. Bush disagreed with the
results?
Did you read the rest of the article?
"Paul Bolton, a researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health who has conducted surveys throughout the world, also said the methodology appears sound. ``The president mainly relies on figures that come from passive surveillance, where you have institutions like hospitals that collect data as bodies are brought to them," Bolton said. ``When the president says these studies are different, they are different. But the passive method is the flawed one.""
The way I read the survey was that 143,000 of the 600,000 were regular deaths. The others were related to the invasion--whether from tainted drinking water from our bombing their purification infrastructure (a war crime) or from the use of depleted uranium in US shells.
I didn't say anything about Bush and my opinion isn't based on what Bush had to say about this--although he is right about the numbers being unreliable.
I give as much credence to Bush's opinion as I do "Paul Bolton." Neither interviewing clusters nor "passive surveillance" provide accurate numbers. I don't think anyone really knows the number. I don't believe the number is anywhere near 600,000.
Do you know how many deaths are attributable to insurgents blowing people up? (I don't.)
-
I didn't say anything about Bush and my opinion isn't based on what Bush had to say about this--although he is right about the numbers being unreliable.
I give as much credence to Bush's opinion as I do "Paul Bolton." Neither interviewing clusters nor "passive surveillance" provide accurate numbers. I don't think anyone really knows the number. I don't believe the number is anywhere near 600,000.
Do you know how many deaths are attributable to insurgents blowing people up? (I don't.)
I believe the number dead in Iraq due to the invasion is somewhere between 74,431 (no. of documented civilian deaths--NGO, media and other official sources) to 590,000 (round number from survey subtracting the usual annual death from those estimated by the Johns Hopkins Study).
Either number represents a crime against humanity.
The range is not really relevant when the baseline number of deaths equals the population of Evanston, Illinois and the highest estimate is that of the population of the City of Milwaukee.
That is the moral outrage of our time.
-
I believe the number dead in Iraq due to the invasion is somewhere between 74,431 (no. of documented civilian deaths--NGO, media and other official sources) to 590,000 (round number from survey subtracting the usual annual death from those estimated by the Johns Hopkins Study).
Either number represents a crime against humanity.
The range is not really relevant when the baseline number of deaths equals the population of Evanston, Illinois and the highest estimate is that of the population of the City of Milwaukee.
That is the moral outrage of our time.
I know you believe the war is illegal, but what about the insurgents blowing up innocent civilians? Aren't those crimes against humanity and morally outrageous?
Assuming the range is 74,431 to 590,000, I think a significant number have been were killed by their own people.
-
I know you believe the war is illegal, but what about the insurgents blowing up innocent civilians? Aren't those crimes against humanity and morally outrageous?
Assuming the range is 74,431 to 590,000, I think a significant number have been were killed by their own people.
Yes that is a horrible phenomenon but there would be no insurgency if there were no US forces in Iraq.
But for the invasion, many of those 74,431 to 590,000 people would still be living.
-
I know you believe the war is illegal, but what about the insurgents blowing up innocent civilians? Aren't those crimes against humanity and morally outrageous?
Assuming the range is 74,431 to 590,000, I think a significant number have been were killed by their own people.
BB,
Have two wrongs ever made a right?
-
BB,
Have two wrongs ever made a right?
Ever? I could probably think of a few examples. First one that comes to mind is the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer by a fellow inmate in prison (Michigan doesn't have the death penalty). Those two wrongs made a right in my book, although you still have to punish the guy who killed Dahmer.
But generally, I say "no."
I'm not suggesting the murder of innocent men, women, and children by insurgents justifies the war. I don't believe the war is illegal. I was mainly talking about the inflated collateral damage numbers.
-
Ever? I could probably think of a few examples. First one that comes to mind is the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer by a fellow inmate in prison (Michigan doesn't have the death penalty). Those two wrongs made a right in my book, although you still have to punish the guy who killed Dahmer.
But generally, I say "no."
I'm not suggesting the murder of innocent men, women, and children by insurgents justifies the war. I don't believe the war is illegal. I was mainly talking about the inflated collateral damage numbers.
Legality is determined by whoever is in power. :)
-
Legality is determined by whoever is in power. :)
This is news? Those in power make the rules. That's what we elect them to do.
-
The war is totally legal... Congress voted on it, that makes it legal.
It's still WRONG.
-
This is news? Those in power make the rules. That's what we elect them to do.
I don't think so. It can work that way sometimes but as our inept leader says, "let history judge...."
In the law there is a principle called stare decisis. Existing court holdings affect and direct current cases. That creates continuity. That creates accountability. The law might be unenforced, ignored or even suppressed for a while. But it is there.
For all the normalization in the media of this US led Crime Against Humanity in Iraq, International Law still exists and in that jurisdiction it can be shown that Bush is a war criminal no different than Pinochet, Eichmann or Himmler.
He may get away with it now but there is whole body of law out there that will catch up with him.
In the mean time, people like me will keep pointing this crime out.
-
I don't think so. It can work that way sometimes but as our inept leader says, "let history judge...."
In the law there is a principle called stare decisis. Existing court holdings affect and direct current cases. That creates continuity. That creates accountability. The law might be unenforced, ignored or even suppressed for a while. But it is there.
For all the normalization in the media of this US led Crime Against Humanity in Iraq, International Law still exists and in that jurisdiction it can be shown that Bush is a war criminal no different than Pinochet, Eichmann or Himmler.
He may get away with it now but there is whole body of law out there that will catch up with him.
In the mean time, people like me will keep pointing this crime out.
Is the point of "stare decisis" to have courts make law or interpret existing law? The legislature can change the law anytime they want. It's the court's role to interpret whatever law the legislature passes.
And Tu is absolutely right: Congress endorsed the war already, multiple times. You are a voice in the wilderness mang. :)
-
This is news? Those in power make the rules. That's what we elect them to do.
They're also elected to both uphold, and follow the rules already in place.
-
They're also elected to both uphold, and follow the rules already in place.
If they don't it is the peoples job to remove them from the post they hold.
Who do you really hold responsible? I personally hold the people who vote them in as the responsible party then. If I don't like my officials, I vote for the other guy... end of story.
-
They're also elected to both uphold, and follow the rules already in place.
O.K. And?
If you're talking about the war, Bush was given authority to use force, he used it, Congress endorsed his use of force at least twice afterwards, then continued to fund his use of force, repeatedly.
-
O.K. And?
If you're talking about the war, Bush was given authority to use force, he used it, Congress endorsed his use of force at least twice afterwards, then continued to fund his use of force, repeatedly.
Hell, they still DO!!!
They still fund it... because the Dems are pussies!
Instead of saying, you know what, we're not funding this war, and being afraid to look like they're not "supporting the troops", they just keep on giving money to the damn war... PISSES ME OFF!
Have some balls you bitches.
-
This is news? Those in power make the rules. That's what we elect them to do.
Beyond being a millionaire, it's naive to believe any politician serves your intrests. It's nice they can serve up palatable bullshit but foolish to believe the average citizen is a priority to them. Things just don't work that way and haven't for a long, long time.
We've gone past deciding between the lessor of two evils to picking agreeable degrees. :)
I understand why people hawkish for the wars want to believe that way. On an emotional level, we're not done getting revenge for 911. On an intellectual level
(to the average American) all Arabs are the same. Most people don't even realize Iranians aren't Arabs, LOL! I digress, the point is.. accepting Bush and his policies were dead wrong means all those people (American, Iraqi, etc...) died for nothing. Anti-war people wouldn't emotionally and on a greater (more important) scale be able to politically survive another attack if they don't give Bush free reign... they're too afraid.
Ultimately, this has gone to the point where 'truth' has no value whatsover. Kind of sad when you think about it.
BB, the original saying was: It's called the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. :)
-
Hell, they still DO!!!
They still fund it... because the Dems are pussies!
Instead of saying, you know what, we're not funding this war, and being afraid to look like they're not "supporting the troops", they just keep on giving money to the damn war... PISSES ME OFF!
Have some balls you bitches.
True. No stones. They got the majority by running against the war and then wimped out after taking office, focusing instead on things like minimum wage. Besides, their fingerprints are all over this war.
-
Beyond being a millionaire, it's naive to believe any politician serves your intrests. It's nice they can serve up palatable bullshit but foolish to believe the average citizen is a priority to them. Things just don't work that way and haven't for a long, long time.
We've gone past deciding between the lessor of two evils to picking agreeable degrees. :)
I understand why people hawkish for the wars want to believe that way. On an emotional level, we're not done getting revenge for 911. On an intellectual level
(to the average American) all Arabs are the same. Most people don't even realize Iranians aren't Arabs, LOL! I digress, the point is.. accepting Bush and his policies were dead wrong means all those people (American, Iraqi, etc...) died for nothing. Anti-war people wouldn't emotionally and on a greater (more important) scale be able to politically survive another attack if they don't give Bush free reign... they're too afraid.
Ultimately, this has gone to the point where 'truth' has no value whatsover. Kind of sad when you think about it.
BB, the original saying was: It's called the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. :)
I agree to an extent. Yes the golden rule applies. Yes those who donate the most money get a seat at the table and are first in line. No question that many politicians are not about principle first, but are concerned about their donors and what will keep them in office.
That said, regarding the war, I believe it was the right thing to do. My opinion isn't based on being a war hawk, fear, preserving any kind of beliefs, etc.
-
True. No stones. They got the majority by running against the war and then wimped out after taking office, focusing instead on things like minimum wage. Besides, their fingerprints are all over this war.
I fucking hate both parties so badly I could spit.
It sucks when you have to vote for the one you hate the 'least'.
-
I agree to an extent. Yes the golden rule applies. Yes those who donate the most money get a seat at the table and are first in line. No question that many politicians are not about principle first, but are concerned about their donors and what will keep them in office.
That said, regarding the war, I believe it was the right thing to do. My opinion isn't based on being a war hawk, fear, preserving any kind of beliefs, etc.
How has invading Iraq made us safer?
-
How has invading Iraq made us safer?
We removed an evil and dangerous man with unlimited resources who the world believed was trying to acquire WMDs. The same man who plundered his country's resources, sponsored terrorism, and would probably do whatever he could to help anyone who wanted to attack the U.S. Although we obviously never found WMDs, I suspect he moved whatever he had out of the country. There is also no legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress (we found somewhere close to this amount in one of his palaces).
We sent to a strong message to the rest of the world that you don't mess with the U.S. Makes talks with countries like Iran much easier, because they know we're not shy about a dropping a bomb or two.
There have been no terrorist attacks since we invaded.
-
We removed an evil and dangerous man with unlimited resources who the world believed was trying to acquire WMDs. The same man who plundered his country's resources, sponsored terrorism, and would probably do whatever he could to help anyone who wanted to attack the U.S. Although we obviously never found WMDs, I suspect he moved whatever he had out of the country. There is also no legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress (we found somewhere close to this amount in one of his palaces).
We sent to a strong message to the rest of the world that you don't mess with the U.S. Makes talks with countries like Iran much easier, because they know we're not shy about a dropping a bomb or two.
There have been no terrorist attacks since we invaded.
Dude,
We put him in power.
China is just actually worse! Would you like to invade them next?
There is a perfectly legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress considering the US's influence on global banking. I bet checking under Haliburton's mattress would yield similar results. There are other nations in the region with WMDs. BTW, you really might want to check and see where the WMD's he used on the Kurds came from, LOL!
The world already knew the message. Occupying Iraq destabilized the region and created more enemies.
No terrorist attack since the invasion is a silly reason. How many attacks did we have before the occupation? They are no more connected to those bombs than US taxpayers are to the Tomahawk missiles the Navy drops on Iraq. There is no causal relationship between Iraq and 911. Bin Laden is a wahabbi from Saudi Arabia. Most of the Hijackers were Saudis... if there's any country in need of an asswhoopin.... you get my point.
911 sucked, I get that. What no one has been able to satisfactorily explain is how destroying an uninvolved country is supposed to make us all feel better. I wouldn't even have had a problem with using bombs to keep Afghanistan in the stone age... forever. Literally leaving no stone unturned and sending no aid would send the message that harboring terrorists was too expensive on a cultural level.
Like I wrote earlier, it's understandable why someone would want to believe attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. There just doesn't seem to be a verifiable, logical reason to support the argument.
I'd say we're less safe for having invaded them. One thing people can't live with for too long without taking action is fear. Fear is why we're giving up constitutional rights and allowing the government free reign. They fear us... how far would they have to go in order to feel safe? Sadly, those countries need nuclear weapons more than ever for nothing more than to delay or prevent a US attack. Just because the US will not attack a nuclear superpower. Especially one that close to Israel. It would be insane for them to not do everything possible for their country's protection. That kind of leverage is the only thing that would make the US negotiate and prevent their 'neighbors' from indiscriminately attacking.
-
We removed an evil and dangerous man with unlimited resources who the world believed was trying to acquire WMDs. The same man who plundered his country's resources, sponsored terrorism, and would probably do whatever he could to help anyone who wanted to attack the U.S. Although we obviously never found WMDs, I suspect he moved whatever he had out of the country. There is also no legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress (we found somewhere close to this amount in one of his palaces).
We sent to a strong message to the rest of the world that you don't mess with the U.S. Makes talks with countries like Iran much easier, because they know we're not shy about a dropping a bomb or two.
There have been no terrorist attacks since we invaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
This isn't true, the propaganda in the news is simply not true.
And check out the amount of terrorist attacks prior to 2004 (when USA invaded Iraq) and after.
Or look at the late 90's. How much terrorism was it then, in comparison to today?
I'm not asking you to discard your sceptisism of Hussein, I also believe he was a bad man. All I'm saying is: Look at the numbers.
BTW, the link could be of interest for 240 or Bust as well, who's been argueing that an aggressive foreign policy is beneficial to USA.
-
Is the point of "stare decisis" to have courts make law or interpret existing law? The legislature can change the law anytime they want. It's the court's role to interpret whatever law the legislature passes.
And Tu is absolutely right: Congress endorsed the war already, multiple times. You are a voice in the wilderness mang. :)
Both. Precedent governs the application/interpretation of the law in a current case.
You and Tu are both incorrect as to Congress's role in the legality of the war. Congress's endorsement (i.e., funding of the war and grant of authority to use force) has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of Bush's misuse of the Congressional grant of authority to use force in Iraq.
Here's why.
Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force to force Iraq to comply with UN inspections as required under UN resolution 1441.
Iraq let inspectors into the country in 2002 and were complying with inspections.
George Bush ordered the US military to attack Iraq in 2003 for not complying with inspections.
But Iraq was complying--the WMD inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and finding no WMDs.
Does everyone see the problem here?
As commander and chief of the armed force, the decision to attack Iraq was Bush's and Bush's alone. Bush misused the authority to use force to compel Iraq's compliance w/ WMD inspections. Iraq complied. Bush attacked anyways.
That is a crime...a war crime...a crime against humanity.
And it shows the cowardice at the heart of Bush: he attacked a prone country. We asked for inspections, we got them and he butchered them anyways.
-
And it shows the cowardice at the heart of Bush: he attacked a prone country. We asked for inspections, we got them and he butchered them anyways.
In your opinion, how evident do you think this fact is to the general public?
-
Both. Precedent governs the application/interpretation of the law in a current case.
You and Tu are both incorrect as to Congress's role in the legality of the war. Congress's endorsement (i.e., funding of the war and grant of authority to use force) has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of Bush's misuse of the Congressional grant of authority to use force in Iraq.
Here's why.
Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force to force Iraq to comply with UN inspections as required under UN resolution 1441.
Iraq let inspectors into the country in 2002 and were complying with inspections.
George Bush ordered the US military to attack Iraq in 2003 for not complying with inspections.
But Iraq was complying--the WMD inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and finding no WMDs.
Does everyone see the problem here?
As commander and chief of the armed force, the decision to attack Iraq was Bush's and Bush's alone. Bush misused the authority to use force to compel Iraq's compliance w/ WMD inspections. Iraq complied. Bush attacked anyways.
That is a crime...a war crime...a crime against humanity.
And it shows the cowardice at the heart of Bush: he attacked a prone country. We asked for inspections, we got them and he butchered them anyways.
Decker.
The president can't be a war criminal with the amount of military and economic power the US has. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that the definition is more political than practical.
-
Decker.
The president can't be a war criminal with the amount of military and economic power the US has. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that the definition is more political than practical.
You are correct. I can't deny that.
International law is relevant only to the extent that the US honors it. And surprise surprise the US is ignoring it...just like with terrorist allegations against Reagan/Bush for mining Nicaraguan harbors back in the 1980s.
This is what I mean about fighting the good fight. I, and people like me, will keep pointing out the fact that Bush is thug that used the military to commit murder. I will do that for two main reasons:
1. It's the truth
2. It's an irritant to his supporters b/c the truth of the assertion that he broke the law to invade Iraq is fairly obvious--somewhere in their minds, they know I'm right.
It's an uphill battle but those are the most worthwhile.
-
Decker.
The president can't be a war criminal with the amount of military and economic power the US has. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely that the definition is more political than practical.
I think it's very important to stress that Bush has potentially broken international laws.
Why?
Number of reasons:
1. Understanding why support for USA's war on terror is going down.
2. Understanding that US actions actually can cause increased anti-Americanism. For every action, there will always be a reaction.
If USA works with the international community, like it did much of the 1990's, or like when Nixon and Kissinger tried to reach out in the early 1970's (relatively), decreased tension and support is the result.
-
We removed an evil and dangerous man with unlimited resources who the world believed was trying to acquire WMDs. The same man who plundered his country's resources, sponsored terrorism, and would probably do whatever he could to help anyone who wanted to attack the U.S. Although we obviously never found WMDs, I suspect he moved whatever he had out of the country. There is also no legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress (we found somewhere close to this amount in one of his palaces).
We sent to a strong message to the rest of the world that you don't mess with the U.S. Makes talks with countries like Iran much easier, because they know we're not shy about a dropping a bomb or two.
There have been no terrorist attacks since we invaded.
lol... removed one man and vastly increased the ranks among radical groups. Great trade off ::) We should feel so much safer, let me dig up my assbackward logic so I feel good about it too :D Oh, and I really doubt with our history countries out there doubt we have the willingness to drop a few bombs, that's just a stupid thing to say, what we have obliterate a country at least every decade to maintain our "don't mess with this" status? ::) I don't know where you get your no terrorist attacks since we invaded, terrorist attacks are way way up since we invaded...
-
Look at what we did in the 1990's first. I don't think guy is a good link because of the Soviets and the Cold War etc. They did as much as they could given the nature of international politics. Back to the 1990's...we did nothing. We got nothing accompished with regards Israel and Palistine, despite the best efforts of the Clinton administration. The Israelis were prepared to give away the whole deal in 1998 but Arrafat shit canned that. We pulled out of Somalia. Once Clinton came into power we completely changed the ROE in that country. We pulled out essential troops and support and once we pulled out completely, Bin laden looked at that as a sign that we were weak. We got involved in Bosnia, on the side of the Muslims, a fact lost on " the faithful". We're still there for some reason. We gutted the military. We really got very little accomplished as far as foreign affairs.
-
In your opinion, how evident do you think this fact is to the general public?
That's a great question. Considering the "liberal media" won't even address the topic of the legality of the invasion, I would say that the general public has no idea.
But look at what happens when I discuss this with Bush supporters on this board, they cannot deny my charges of illegality. Instead, they spout more propaganda: "Hussein was a bad man, he supported terrorism" (not Al Qaeda) "everyone believed he had WMDs" (wrong again) "the world is better off w/out him."
When I start to hear that nonsense, I know I've won.
The story has to be told. Whether it catches on with the public...that's a tough one.
-
Most Americans don't care about international law...the rest of the world is for vacations as far as most folks think. I don't care about it because it presuposes that we all operate on a level playing field and that America, by her actions, defies that playing field. There is no level playing field. If other countries can screw America they will....at any oppertunity. If there is money to be made, then international law is out. Why all of a sudden is France our new friend...oil....politica l power...reemergence as being important on the world stage. They could care less about Iraq or Iran unless the oil stops flowing, so its in their strategic best interest to get back on board with the US, international law be dammed.
-
Most Americans don't care about international law...the rest of the world is for vacations as far as most folks think. I don't care about it because it presuposes that we all operate on a level playing field and that America, by her actions, defies that playing field. There is no level playing field. If other countries can screw America they will....at any oppertunity. If there is money to be made, then international law is out. Why all of a sudden is France our new friend...oil....politica l power...reemergence as being important on the world stage. They could care less about Iraq or Iran unless the oil stops flowing, so its in their strategic best interest to get back on board with the US, international law be dammed.
I would say more that Americans don't think international law should have any power over the affairs of Americans which is a little different looking at America's place in a global community of nations. If we are to totally disregard international law, your "important on the world stage" is nothing less than an obligation to be Team America World Police. Bushie's NWO... Fuck that...
-
True..but Decker wasn't mentioning that, short of Int Law...we'd have to run around putting out every fire. I took it as regards Bush, our actions as deployed soldiers, the oil etc.
-
Why all of a sudden is France our new friend...oil....politica l power...reemergence as being important on the world stage. They could care less about Iraq or Iran unless the oil stops flowing, so its in their strategic best interest to get back on board with the US, international law be dammed.
I respectfully disagree.
The new president of France is the reason.
Sarkozy has always been pro-USA.
He won the election, now his policies will be implemented.
And he didn't win the election based on whether he was gonna support USA or not, that wasn't on the agenda in the French election.
The big issue was the integration problems.
And things related to that.
-
I respectfully disagree.
The new president of France is the reason.
Sarkozy has always been pro-USA.
He won the election, now his policies will be implemented.
And he didn't win the election based on whether he was gonna support USA or not, that wasn't on the agenda in the French election.
The big issue was the integration problems.
And things related to that.
I was thinking the same thing, same went for Germany.
-
Most Americans don't care about international law...the rest of the world is for vacations as far as most folks think. I don't care about it because it presuposes that we all operate on a level playing field and that America, by her actions, defies that playing field. There is no level playing field. If other countries can screw America they will....at any oppertunity. If there is money to be made, then international law is out. Why all of a sudden is France our new friend...oil....politica l power...reemergence as being important on the world stage. They could care less about Iraq or Iran unless the oil stops flowing, so its in their strategic best interest to get back on board with the US, international law be dammed.
People should care about international law. The US helped to create it. If there is no continuity to international relations we and the entire planet will suffer. How? Stupid unnecessary wars, like Iraq, will become normative operating procedures.
I agree with you that a country acts in its own best interest. And in that context, International law has been very successful except when the US is on the shit end of the stick. Then the US just ignores it. That's called "exceptionalism" and it is the hallmark of a type of elitism that undermines the IL effort.
Just think what could happen if Russia, China, India or Pakistan adopts the asinine doctrine of pre-emption. The US, for the moment is on top of the world's power structure. It may always be that way. But the rest of the countries of the world will catch up with us weapons-wise.
We can't beat the world but it can sure as hell beat us.
These long-term considerations are tied to how we operate now in establishing and honoring International Law.
-
France and Germany want to be important again. Especially France.
-
France and Germany want to be important again. Especially France.
Ok.
I already mentioned that Sarkozy wasn't elected on his pro-American views.
He was elected on his tough policies in integration issues and social agendas.
Those were the main agendas in the French election.
Not US relations, believe it or not.
-
No never said that it was. i think France wants to be seen as much stronger on the world stage.
-
Dude,
We put him in power.
China is just actually worse! Would you like to invade them next?
There is a perfectly legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress considering the US's influence on global banking. I bet checking under Haliburton's mattress would yield similar results. There are other nations in the region with WMDs. BTW, you really might want to check and see where the WMD's he used on the Kurds came from, LOL!
The world already knew the message. Occupying Iraq destabilized the region and created more enemies.
No terrorist attack since the invasion is a silly reason. How many attacks did we have before the occupation? They are no more connected to those bombs than US taxpayers are to the Tomahawk missiles the Navy drops on Iraq. There is no causal relationship between Iraq and 911. Bin Laden is a wahabbi from Saudi Arabia. Most of the Hijackers were Saudis... if there's any country in need of an asswhoopin.... you get my point.
911 sucked, I get that. What no one has been able to satisfactorily explain is how destroying an uninvolved country is supposed to make us all feel better. I wouldn't even have had a problem with using bombs to keep Afghanistan in the stone age... forever. Literally leaving no stone unturned and sending no aid would send the message that harboring terrorists was too expensive on a cultural level.
Like I wrote earlier, it's understandable why someone would want to believe attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. There just doesn't seem to be a verifiable, logical reason to support the argument.
I'd say we're less safe for having invaded them. One thing people can't live with for too long without taking action is fear. Fear is why we're giving up constitutional rights and allowing the government free reign. They fear us... how far would they have to go in order to feel safe? Sadly, those countries need nuclear weapons more than ever for nothing more than to delay or prevent a US attack. Just because the US will not attack a nuclear superpower. Especially one that close to Israel. It would be insane for them to not do everything possible for their country's protection. That kind of leverage is the only thing that would make the US negotiate and prevent their 'neighbors' from indiscriminately attacking.
We put him in power? Assuming that is true, so what. We make a mistake, we clean it up.
China isn't anywhere near Saddam/Iraq. Saddam invaded his neighbor and was about to invade a second before we stopped him. He gassed and tortured his own people. He plundered his country's resources. Sponsored terrorism. Was clearly trying to obtain WMDs. He was crazy. China isn't similar at all.
Sorry, but a man in Saddam's position with a billion in cash is up to no good.
We had one pretty big terrorist attack before we invaded. None since.
It's actually much easier to be a member of the herd when it comes to many issues, including the war. I'm comfortable with my belief that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. The fact we mismanaged the war doesn't change my opinion.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
This isn't true, the propaganda in the news is simply not true.
And check out the amount of terrorist attacks prior to 2004 (when USA invaded Iraq) and after.
Or look at the late 90's. How much terrorism was it then, in comparison to today?
I'm not asking you to discard your sceptisism of Hussein, I also believe he was a bad man. All I'm saying is: Look at the numbers.
BTW, the link could be of interest for 240 or Bust as well, who's been argueing that an aggressive foreign policy is beneficial to USA.
I meant no terrorist attacks in the U.S. The numbers would be 1 major attack before 02 and 0 since.
-
Both. Precedent governs the application/interpretation of the law in a current case.
You and Tu are both incorrect as to Congress's role in the legality of the war. Congress's endorsement (i.e., funding of the war and grant of authority to use force) has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of Bush's misuse of the Congressional grant of authority to use force in Iraq.
Here's why.
Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force to force Iraq to comply with UN inspections as required under UN resolution 1441.
Iraq let inspectors into the country in 2002 and were complying with inspections.
George Bush ordered the US military to attack Iraq in 2003 for not complying with inspections.
But Iraq was complying--the WMD inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and finding no WMDs.
Does everyone see the problem here?
As commander and chief of the armed force, the decision to attack Iraq was Bush's and Bush's alone. Bush misused the authority to use force to compel Iraq's compliance w/ WMD inspections. Iraq complied. Bush attacked anyways.
That is a crime...a war crime...a crime against humanity.
And it shows the cowardice at the heart of Bush: he attacked a prone country. We asked for inspections, we got them and he butchered them anyways.
Why do you omit the fact Congress passed resolutions supporting the war after it started? Isn't that part of the analysis?
How could Congress prosecute Bush as a war criminal after endorsing the war?
-
lol... removed one man and vastly increased the ranks among radical groups. Great trade off ::) We should feel so much safer, let me dig up my assbackward logic so I feel good about it too :D Oh, and I really doubt with our history countries out there doubt we have the willingness to drop a few bombs, that's just a stupid thing to say, what we have obliterate a country at least every decade to maintain our "don't mess with this" status? ::) I don't know where you get your no terrorist attacks since we invaded, terrorist attacks are way way up since we invaded...
I feel safer. I understand why you don't. :)
I'm sure some people will think our invasion did not strike fear into the hearts of depots, but then there are people like me who believe it helped broker this result: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/koreas.nuclear/index.html
No terrorist attacks on American soil since the war started.
-
Why do you omit the fact Congress passed resolutions supporting the war after it started? Isn't that part of the analysis?
How could Congress prosecute Bush as a war criminal after endorsing the war?
Congress is not the commander and chief of the armed forces.
Only the president has that constitutional duty.
It was Bush's decision to order the military to attack Iraq or not.
Bush violated UN Res. 1441 by ordering the invasion.
What law did Congress break by passing resolutions supporting the war after it started?
-
Congress is not the commander and chief of the armed forces.
Only the president has that constitutional duty.
It was Bush's decision to order the military to attack Iraq or not.
Bush violated UN Res. 1441 by ordering the invasion.
What law did Congress break by passing resolutions supporting the war after it started?
Congress didn't break any law and neither did Bush.
My question is "How could Congress prosecute Bush as a war criminal after endorsing the war?" They would be prosecuting him for conduct they have already condoned. Makes no sense to me.
-
Congress didn't break any law and neither did Bush.
My question is "How could Congress prosecute Bush as a war criminal after endorsing the war?" They would be prosecuting him for conduct they have already condoned. Makes no sense to me.
Yes President Bush did break a law--several in fact. If you do not follow the legal procedure for executing a UN Resolution you are violating that resolution.
Under the Nuremburg Holdings, if another country does not attack you, an ally or a national interest, and that country is attacked, that is a war of aggression. That is a war crime.
Ask the Third Reich about that holding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_War_Crimes_Tribunal
I'll ask you again, what law did Congress violate?
Can Congress, as whole, be tried? No. Can individuals be roped in? Yes.
So the string of culpability looks like this: President, Congress, soldiers.
-
Yes President Bush did break a law--several in fact. If you do not follow the legal procedure for executing a UN Resolution you are violating that resolution.
Under the Nuremburg Holdings, if another country does not attack you, an ally or a national interest, and that country is attacked, that is a war of aggression. That is a war crime.
Ask the Third Reich about that holding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_War_Crimes_Tribunal
I'll ask you again, what law did Congress violate?
Can Congress, as whole, be tried? No. Can individuals be roped in? Yes.
So the string of culpability looks like this: President, Congress, soldiers.
"Congress didn't break any law . . . ." That's not the point. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Bush violated a UN resolution, despite the fact neither Congress nor the UN have reached this conclusion. With that assumption, I ask you again "How could Congress prosecute Bush as a war criminal after endorsing the war?"
I'm talking legally, practically, politically, and logically. It doesn't work. Congress cannot introduce articles of impeachment based on Bush violating a UN resolution after Congress told Bush and the American people that the war was justified after it started.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=2424192;topic=172844.0;num_replies=0;sesc=51070d13e0dc94f350e61fbfa2c435f7
:)
-
"Congress didn't break any law . . . ." That's not the point. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Bush violated a UN resolution, despite the fact neither Congress nor the UN have reached this conclusion. With that assumption, I ask you again "How could Congress prosecute Bush as a war criminal after endorsing the war?"
I'm talking legally, practically, politically, and logically. It doesn't work. Congress cannot introduce articles of impeachment based on Bush violating a UN resolution after Congress told Bush and the American people that the war was justified after it started.
Who's talking impeachment? I'm talking about a war crimes trial at the World Court.
Impeachment is possible b/c it is quasi-judicial/political thing. Congress could push through impeachment if the will was there. Impeachment was jammed down the throat of america once already in the last 10 years. It could be done again. You keep referring to Congress as some homogenous body--it isn't.
-
We put him in power? Assuming that is true, so what. We make a mistake, we clean it up.
China isn't anywhere near Saddam/Iraq. Saddam invaded his neighbor and was about to invade a second before we stopped him. He gassed and tortured his own people. He plundered his country's resources. Sponsored terrorism. Was clearly trying to obtain WMDs. He was crazy. China isn't similar at all.
Sorry, but a man in Saddam's position with a billion in cash is up to no good.
We had one pretty big terrorist attack before we invaded. None since.
It's actually much easier to be a member of the herd when it comes to many issues, including the war. I'm comfortable with my belief that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. The fact we mismanaged the war doesn't change my opinion.
We did put him in power. We also trained Abu Ismael from 1993.
The absence of a terror attack by attacking another country is a silly argument. We would have the same result if we attacked Buffalo, NY!
One man fighting a powerful enemy needs cash. If the money was in any offshore account the US would have imposed sanctions on them to seize the assets. The average American has more to fear hanging out in 'tha hood' and he/she is no safer for Iraq having been invaded.
Honestly, I'd love to believe it were the right thing to do. That way when we are in debt 10-20 years and have no constitution things will make sense. There is one thing I hope... if I'm right and you're wrong. I hope the next attackers are white (European) just to see how eager the "kill all the Arab scum" groupies here are to find a diplomatic soloution, LOL!
You don't have any choice but to be comfortable with Bush's policy. Any wavering means all those people died in vain.
Some people 'feel' safer but are you really? I doubt you could demostrate any appreciable way in which we are safer aside from airport security. They can walk across the border from Mexico all day long and Canada when the weather is nice. They could learn spanish and demand asylum from Cuba, LOL!
It's cute that people think more bombs will make us safer or cause despots to poop their pants. :)
-
Who's talking impeachment? I'm talking about a war crimes trial at the World Court.
Impeachment is possible b/c it is quasi-judicial/political thing. Congress could push through impeachment if the will was there. Impeachment was jammed down the throat of america once already in the last 10 years. It could be done again. You keep referring to Congress as some homogenous body--it isn't.
So the World Court will prosecute Bush, despite the fact the UN has never accused Bush of violating a UN resolution five years after the war started?
Regarding impeachment, Congress doesn't have to be a homogenous body to impeach the president, as the partisan impeachment of Clinton shows. But Congress is the judge and jury when it comes to impeachment and removal.
There is no will, because they already endorsed the very conduct you claim is illegal. The impeachment talk makes no sense Decker. I'd like to hear from you or anyone how impeachment passes the common sense test (after you watch Gore wax eloquent about Saddam, terrorism, and WMDs). I'm all ears.
-
It's cute that people think more bombs will make us safer or cause despots to poop their pants. :)
If that were the case, we'd never have been attacked on 9/11 anyway... We've always had more bombs than anyone else.
-
If that were the case, we'd never have been attacked on 9/11 anyway... We've always had more bombs than anyone else.
People believe in Santa Claus too, LOL! Who are we to judge? :)
-
We did put him in power. We also trained Abu Ismael from 1993.
The absence of a terror attack by attacking another country is a silly argument. We would have the same result if we attacked Buffalo, NY!
One man fighting a powerful enemy needs cash. If the money was in any offshore account the US would have imposed sanctions on them to seize the assets. The average American has more to fear hanging out in 'tha hood' and he/she is no safer for Iraq having been invaded.
Honestly, I'd love to believe it were the right thing to do. That way when we are in debt 10-20 years and have no constitution things will make sense. There is one thing I hope... if I'm right and you're wrong. I hope the next attackers are white (European) just to see how eager the "kill all the Arab scum" groupies here are to find a diplomatic soloution, LOL!
You don't have any choice but to be comfortable with Bush's policy. Any wavering means all those people died in vain.
Some people 'feel' safer but are you really? I doubt you could demostrate any appreciable way in which we are safer aside from airport security. They can walk across the border from Mexico all day long and Canada when the weather is nice. They could learn spanish and demand asylum from Cuba, LOL!
It's cute that people think more bombs will make us safer or cause despots to poop their pants. :)
You are free to believe both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have no relationship to the absence of terror attacks on American soil. Of course, I think that's silly.
You are wrong about my comfort with Bush's decision to remove Saddam. I don't believe a person who dies serving the country dies in vain. Ever. My support for the war has absolutely nothing to do with that made-up rationale.
An appreciable demonstration of safety is the absence of terror attacks in America, but then again you think that's silly. :)
More bombs do make us safer. That's why the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore (because we produced more bombs).
-
So the World Court will prosecute Bush, despite the fact the UN has never accused Bush of violating a UN resolution five years after the war started?
Regarding impeachment, Congress doesn't have to be a homogenous body to impeach the president, as the partisan impeachment of Clinton shows. But Congress is the judge and jury when it comes to impeachment and removal.
There is no will, because they already endorsed the very conduct you claim is illegal. The impeachment talk makes no sense Decker. I'd like to hear from you or anyone how impeachment passes the common sense test (after you watch Gore wax eloquent about Saddam, terrorism, and WMDs). I'm all ears.
The UN Security Council never authorized the use of force by ANY COUNTRY against Iraq. The onus to show compliance with 1441 is on the US and not the UN. The UN Security Council and member states did condemn the invasion: UN Member States Condemn US-led Invasion of Iraq http://english.people.com.cn/200303/27/eng20030327_114090.shtml
Congress's vote to give the president authority to use force was not unanimous--in the senate the vote was 77-23. So in order to not offend your common sense, I would love to see those 77 senators stand trial as well as the president. Good thing most of them were republicans being company guys. We'd be better off without them.
-
The UN Security Council never authorized the use of force by ANY COUNTRY against Iraq. The onus to show compliance with 1441 is on the US and not the UN. The UN Security Council and member states did condemn the invasion: UN Member States Condemn US-led Invasion of Iraq http://english.people.com.cn/200303/27/eng20030327_114090.shtml
Congress's vote to give the president authority to use force was not unanimous--in the senate the vote was 77-23. So in order to not offend your common sense, I would love to see those 77 senators stand trial as well as the president. Good thing most of them were republicans being company guys. We'd be better off without them.
Not following you. If the UN decides, five years after the fact, to prosecute Bush for violating 1441, the onus will be on Bush to prove he didn't violate 1441? Isn't it the other way around? I thought those making the charges have the burden to prove them? Does the World Court have a different legal standard?
A vote of 77-23 is overwhelming.
What was the Senate vote on resolutions endorsing the war after it started? :) That's my main (but not only) hang up with this impeachment talk. You are saying the body charged with removing the president can do so based on conduct that same body said was okay. That's where I think this fails the common sense test (and the political test, etc.).
-
Not following you. If the UN decides, five years after the fact, to prosecute Bush for violating 1441, the onus will be on Bush to prove he didn't violate 1441? Isn't it the other way around? I thought those making the charges have the burden to prove them? Does the World Court have a different legal standard?
A vote of 77-23 is overwhelming.
What was the Senate vote on resolutions endorsing the war after it started? :) That's my main (but not only) hang up with this impeachment talk. You are saying the body charged with removing the president can do so based on conduct that same body said was okay. That's where I think this fails the common sense test (and the political test, etc.).
The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. I didn't say that that would happen. That's a clever restatement of our discussion. I pointed out the fact that, under Res 1441, the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force against Iraq yet Bush claimed to attack Iraq to enforce Res 1441.
How does that jibe with your common sense?
I would love to choose those votes for funding the war after the initial invasion. B/c w/ each subsequent vote, the number of Nays grew to be almost veto-proof....almost.
Those nay voters (the guys not on trial) would comprise the deliberating body. I would have a vote to impeach the president, VP, his cabinet, and all the supporting Congressmen. Theoretically that could happen.
The same goes for war crimes charges.
-
The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. I didn't say that that would happen. That's a clever restatement of our discussion. I pointed out the fact that, under Res 1441, the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force against Iraq yet Bush claimed to attack Iraq to enforce Res 1441.
How does that jibe with your common sense?
I would love to choose those votes for funding the war after the initial invasion. B/c w/ each subsequent vote, the number of Nays grew to be almost veto-proof....almost.
Those nay voters (the guys not on trial) would comprise the deliberating body. I would have a vote to impeach the president, VP, his cabinet, and all the supporting Congressmen. Theoretically that could happen.
The same goes for war crimes charges.
Decker you first said "I'm talking about a war crimes trial at the World Court." Now you're saying "The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court." So what exactly are we talking about?
My comments about who has the burden of proof were based on your assertion that Bush could be tried for war crimes by the UN and that "The onus to show compliance with 1441 is on the US and not the UN." But if you're now saying a prosecution is not possible, then I guess we agree. :)
Regarding the resolutions, I'm talking about the resolutions passed by the Senate after the war started. Didn't the Senate pass at least one resolution after the war started supporting the use of force?
-
Decker you first said "I'm talking about a war crimes trial at the World Court." Now you're saying "The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court." So what exactly are we talking about?
My comments about who has the burden of proof were based on your assertion that Bush could be tried for war crimes by the UN and that "The onus to show compliance with 1441 is on the US and not the UN." But if you're now saying a prosecution is not possible, then I guess we agree. :)
Regarding the resolutions, I'm talking about the resolutions passed by the Senate after the war started. Didn't the Senate pass at least one resolution after the war started supporting the use of force?
I am talking about those things but as we know they will never come to pass b/c of the US's 'exceptions' to UN Jurisdiction when it suits the US's purposes. My effort in this political sphere is to bring to light the Bush administration's criminal behavior. Sometimes I don't preface my statements with the idea that my position(s) employ speculation/theorizing but I didn't think I'd have to. The practical matter of official action being taken against Bush in my lifetime is zilch. I've admitted that in one of these darn threads.
So yeah, on that point we agree. It's almost like discussing damnation after death and which behavior gets you consigned to what level of Hell.
-
I am talking about those things but as we know they will never come to pass b/c of the US's 'exceptions' to UN Jurisdiction when it suits the US's purposes. My effort in this political sphere is to bring to light the Bush administration's criminal behavior. Sometimes I don't preface my statements with the idea that my position(s) employ speculation/theorizing but I didn't think I'd have to. The practical matter of official action being taken against Bush in my lifetime is zilch. I've admitted that in one of these darn threads.
So yeah, on that point we agree. It's almost like discussing damnation after death and which behavior gets you consigned to what level of Hell.
Understood.
I'm going to look for this, but I believe they passed a near unanimous resolution supporting the war after it started.
-
If they don't it is the peoples job to remove them from the post they hold.
Who do you really hold responsible? I personally hold the people who vote them in as the responsible party then. If I don't like my officials, I vote for the other guy... end of story.
In fair elections, that's what occurs. When you deal with rigged elections, whole other mechanisms are needed.
-
BB,
How can the absence of attacks be any measure of the policy's effectiveness considering we've only had two attacks? I'm omitting the ones done by Americans. :)
You're not a dumbass (I think) but deliberately confusing the difference between relative and absolute risk is not going to make rational people believe bullshit, LOL!
The Soviet Union failed because their economy sucked ass and couldn't support the 'military industrial complex' in the absence of war.
-
BB,
How can the absence of attacks be any measure of the policy's effectiveness considering we've only had two attacks? I'm omitting the ones done by Americans. :)
You're not a dumbass (I think) but deliberately confusing the difference between relative and absolute risk is not going to make rational people believe bullshit, LOL!
The Soviet Union failed because their economy sucked ass and couldn't support the 'military industrial complex' in the absence of war.
It is similar to a community's crime rate dropping after the police increase their presence.
You might be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince "rational people" like you to agree with my support for the war. I'm not. You asked how the war made us safer and I gave you my opinion. It's okay if you disagree. :)
Part of the reason the Soviet Union's economy tanked was they spent too much money on weapons trying to build the "military industrial complex" during the cold war. They did this trying to keep up with us.
-
It is similar to a community's crime rate dropping after the police increase their presence.
It's just the opposite, LOL! Their crime rate has increased and ours hasn't been affected at all.
You might be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince "rational people" like you to agree with my support for the war. I'm not. You asked how the war made us safer and I gave you my opinion. It's okay if you disagree. :)
I appreciate your trying to give a reason. I just feel it is a leap of faith to associate two unrelated events.
Part of the reason the Soviet Union's economy tanked was they spent too much money on weapons trying to build the "military industrial complex" during the cold war. They did this trying to keep up with us.
At least you got one right. :)
-
It's just the opposite, LOL! Their crime rate has increased and ours hasn't been affected at all.
I appreciate your trying to give a reason. I just feel it is a leap of faith to associate two unrelated events.
At least you got one right. :)
I have reached one half of my daily quota. :)
-
Part of the reason the Soviet Union's economy tanked was they spent too much money on weapons trying to build the "military industrial complex" during the cold war. They did this trying to keep up with us.
I disagree I miss the old Soviet Union... We could keep track of them, we can't keep track of the smaller guys... hence why Terrorism is up.
-
I completely agree.