Truth: What neo cons dont want America to know

[headhuntersix]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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.

[Hugo Chavez]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[headhuntersix]

France and Germany want to be important again. Especially France.

[Hedgehog]

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.

[headhuntersix]

No never said that it was. i think France wants to be seen as much stronger on the world stage.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[Dos Equis]

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   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. 

[Decker]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.     

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=2424192;topic=172844.0;num_replies=0;sesc=51070d13e0dc94f350e61fbfa2c435f7

 

[Decker]

"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.

[drkaje]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.        

[tu_holmes]

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.

[drkaje]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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). 

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.). 

[Decker]

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.