BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:47 PM

Brucie:

Mister Hussein was recently taken to a hospital in Iraq for an operation to repair a hernia, I believe, and then returned to his cell.

Otherwise, in general, he still believes he is the legal President of Iraq and seems to be otherwise in good mental shape according to an FBI agent who has studied his interrogation records.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:46 PM

"to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000"

So isn't it also hypocritical of the French?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:43 PM

Tuesday 12th October 2004 :
Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Hussein Siphon Billions from UN Oil-for-Food Program by Jason Leopold

When the Iraqi Survey Group released its long awaited report last week that said Iraq eliminated its weapons programs in the 1990s, President George W. Bush quickly changed his stance on reasons he authorized an invasion of Iraq. While he campaigned for a second term in office, Bush justified the war by saying that that Saddam Hussein was manipulating the United Nation's oil-for-food program, siphoning off billions of dollars from the venture that he intended to use to fund a weapons program.

The report on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, prepared by Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Iraqi Survey Group, said Saddam Hussein used revenue from the oil-for-food program and "created a web of front companies and used shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue in the decade before the US-led invasion last year," reports The New York Times.

"Through secret government-to-government trade agreements, Saddam Hussein's government earned more than $7.5 billion," the report says. "At the same time, by demanding kickbacks from foreign companies that received oil or that supplied consumer goods, Iraq received at least $2 billion more to spend on weapons or on Saddam's extravagant palaces."

The oil-for-food program was supervised by the U.N. and ran from 1996 until the war started in Iraq last year. It was designed to alleviate the effects sanctions had on Iraqi citizens by allowing limited quantities of oil to be sold to buy food and medicine.

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil. Since the oil-for-food program began, Iraq has sold $40 billion worth of oil. U.S. and European officials have long argued that the increase in Iraq's oil production also expanded Saddam's ability to use some of that money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq was skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program thanks to companies like Halliburton and former executives such as Cheney.

U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through sale because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of foreign subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- according to the Post, to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.

Cheney's hard-line stance against Iraq on the campaign trail is hypocritical considering that during his tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Cheney pushed the U.N. Security Council, after he became CEO to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil related equipment, to Iraq. Cheney has said sanctions against countries like Iraq unfairly punish U.S. companies.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney adamantly denied that under his leadership, Halliburton did business with Iraq. While he acknowledged that his company did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, Cheney said, "Iraq's different." He claimed that he imposed a "firm policy" prohibiting any unit of Halliburton against trading with Iraq.

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," Cheney said on the ABC-TV news program "This Week" on July 30, 2000. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

But Cheney's denials don't hold up. Halliburton played a major role in helping Iraq repair its oil fields during the mid-1990s that allowed Saddam to siphon off funds from the oil-for-food program to fund a weapons program, which Cheney and President Bush insist was the case.

As secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, Cheney helped to lead a multinational coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and to devise a comprehensive economic embargo to isolate Saddam Hussein's government. After Cheney was named chief executive of Halliburton in 1995, he promised to maintain a hard line against Baghdad.

But that changed when it appeared that Halliburton was headed for a financial crisis in the mid-1990s. Cheney said sanctions against countries like Iraq were hurting corporations such as Halliburton.

"We seem to be sanction-happy as a government," Cheney said at an energy conference in April 1996, reported in the oil industry publication Petroleum Finance Week.

"The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments," he observed during his conference presentation.

Sanctions make U.S. businesses "the bystander who gets hit when a train wreck occurs," Cheney told Petroleum Finance Week. "While virtually every other country sees the need for sanctions against Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime there, Cheney sees general agreement that the measures have not been very effective despite their having most of the international community's support. An individual country's embargo, such as that of the United States against Iran, has virtually no effect since the target country simply signs a contract with a non- U.S. business," the publication reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM

So, you feel that Amos is entitled to an opinion and I am not?



" believe you are changing the facts to suit your opinions, a characteristic of the present administration."

AND the Democratic candidate... AND most of the liberal posters here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:38 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Saddam Hussein underwent surgery about two weeks ago to repair a hernia and has made a full recovery, a US official said Wednesday (this week)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:28 PM

"Of course he said he would rush out and defend the US..... righjt after taking a poll as to what the most popular thing in the world would be."

Let me, in answer, quote a noted authority who said

"You are making statments of opinion as if they were facts. *I* do not know that I can count on ANY of those things to occur as you have stated."

Kerry has not talked about a poll, or getting a consensus before moving; he has talked about what the founding fathers called "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Bush has not had this respect.

"Getting rid of Saddam- good
"getting killed by WMD - bad

"THAT was what was the October, 2002 question."

No. Mr Bush said the war was about getting rid of WMDs, not getting rid of Saddam. He stated just before the war that even if Sadddam stepped down, we would still invade. The "getting rid of Saddam" excuse only showed up after it was beginning to look like there were no WMDs.

I believe you are changing the facts to suit your opinions, a characteristic of the present administration.

clint

And as I keep saying, most of the world did *not* think Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, or the world. That Saddam *was* an imminent threat was a minority opinion, and a wrong one, as we see. Iraq is more of a threat now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

I don't get out much. Anyone know what's happenin' with Saddam Hussein?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:21 PM

The USA was supposed to leave Iraq in June. It's still there. So, when's it leaving?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:17 PM

Jesus bloody Christ, BB, of COURSE those are speculative statements. I was extrapolating based on what I do know about the difference ebetween the two men. How can a speculative proposition be answered with facts? It is a what-if scenario, man!! The answer is not technically just opinion but an extrapolation from known trends. Feel free to project your own fantasies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:06 PM

You are making statments of opinion as if they were facts.


*I* do not know that I can count on ANY of those things to occur as you have stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

As to what Kerry would have done, you can count on two aspwects of his nature:

1. He would have bent over BACKWARDS before sending men in to battle to make sure there was no viable path, instead of jumping at ANY excuse or even inventing casii belli as W did over and over. For one rerason, he was there on the ground and knows what it means to stand into danger.

2. He would have understood the data before himn well enough to realize it was rotten, because he is capable of thinking about information and seeing when it doesn't add up.

W's only alarm goes off when the data threatens to make him look bad. He doesn't dig consistency or logical sequence, or misestimations of importance or other dodges, except as tools in PR. Using these things as a way to reason through second hand information from a distant scene is beyond him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:27 PM

Getting rid of Saddam- good

getting killed by WMD - bad



THAT was what was the October, 2002 question.


Clint,

For every statement from Kerry, there seems to be an opposite one. Of course he said he would rush out and defend the US..... righjt after taking a poll as to what the most popular thing in the world would be.


As for those who said that we did not need to attack Iraq, HOW MANY EVER told Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions? Seems like they were a little predjudiced, from the begining...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:17 PM

My last was for beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

Here's a simpler way to put it just for you:

Supporting the work of the UN inspectors and allowing them to continue = Good for the US and the rest of the world

Attacking Iraq = Bad for the US and the rest of the world

...or to put it even more simply:

UN weapons inspections = Good

Attacking Iraq = Bad

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

"So, what you are saying is that Kerry, if presented with the evidence that Bush had seen ( whether true or false) and the warning form Russia, would have done exactly what Bush did? If so, he is lying, now: If not, he would not be acting against what, IMO, was a clear and present danger to the US."

So, what you are saying is that there are only two possibilities: to do exactly what Bush did, or to do nothing? Obvious nonsense. There are many courses of action in almost any situation.

"I beleive a larger number of people would have seen Iraq as a danger than would not have."

Most of the world did not see Iraq as a danger, as I have pointed out before.

And what about that phony claim I called you on at 3:56 PM?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:09 PM

I don't know if there were prohibited weapons or not. I have never said I knew whether there were prohibited weapons or not. What I have said is that the UN inspectors knew whether or not there were prohibited weapons, and that they were doing a good job of dealing with whatever weapons (or materials not counted as weapons, prohibited or not) they found, and that the best and least hazardous course of action would have been for the US to let them continue to do their job. And now events are showing this to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

A

We shall see. Lets talk about it on November 3rd ( or later, depending on the lawsuits...)

B

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:04 PM

I assure you that Kerry is not "another candidate that could not win",. The last candidate they ran could and did. So will this one. Hell, he's already shut down the incumbent three times on nationaltelevision.

Your bizarre notions about some Demo plan around Hillary are laughable at best.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:54 PM

So, you are telling me that there WERE prohibited weapons, and the US was justified (but perhaps not wise) in attacking?


If you insist that they were not there, how could they end up in the wrong hands?

If you insist they were there, the reasons the US gave for attacking were valid.


Can't have it both ways. I have never said the execution of the war was without serious flaws- but the reasons to attack seem to me to be adaquate.

IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:34 PM

beardedbruce, here's the thread with your posts asserting that allowing the UN inspectors to remain in Iraq do their job was responsible for weapons having been removed from Iraq prior to and during the US invasion of Iraq, and a quote from that thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:46 AM

(beardedbruce- )

TRUE- and that is a result of the delay and attempt to get a consensus in the UN. If the US had acted unilateraly, without months of debate and warning, we might have found them still in place- but that is not how we do things.... I wonder why?

(me- )

"Not quite, beardedbruce. The UN inspectors were doing a good job of containing and eliminating Saddam's weapons. They wanted to finish the job they started. They warned that an attack on Iraq by the US (and the coalition of the coerced) before they finished the job, would probably accomplish the exact opposite of the results the US said it wanted (elimination of WMDs), and that, instead, whatever WMDs still existed would probably end up in the hands of the wrong people, including terrorists. And this appears to be exactly what has happened.

I'd say the UN inspectors were right about this one. We should have let them finish their job."

BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM

Were supposed to be out in June (past), no?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:26 PM

Well, since the Dems insisted on running another candidate that could not win, in order to make it easy for Clinton ( Hillary, this time) to run in the next election, we should be out as soon as the other countries get together and provide "peacekeeping" forces, after the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:12 PM

So, basically, the US isn't leaving anytime soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:09 PM

If Bush wins, we will leave in January, after the elections. If Kerry wins, we will probably stay another year to help support the UN "peacekeepers" that will be trying to keep the three sides from wiping each other out.

IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:02 PM

So, when is the US leaving Iraq, not to change the subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM

So, what you are saying is that Kerry, if presented with the evidence that Bush had seen ( whether true or false) and the warning form Russia, would have done exactly what Bush did? If so, he is lying, now: If not, he would not be acting against what, IMO, was a clear and present danger to the US.

Just my opinion. Sorry if we look at the world and see different things, but I beleive a larger number of people would have seen Iraq as a danger than would not have.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:43 PM

Yep, really don't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Hate to see this thread not getting equal billing with the other one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:02 PM

BB:

I gotta second Keller on it -- you reversed Kerry's posture on him and then chastised him for a position he never took.

The entire falsehood perpetrated by your right wing friends was that they had to go into Iraq to provide for the common defense. It was not true then. It is true that right now, being waist deep in shit of our own making, so to speak, that we have a probelm in common defense.

Bush had no real grounds for this invasion. He didn't understand Iraq, didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Hashemite and a sushi, certainly did not understand Hussein's game or his bluffing. He did not know what was on the ground where. He knew none of the things you should know before taking a fight to the enemy's home turf. Why he went ahead was he was in the grip of war-mongers who didn't care, who though brute force would be enough.

Arrogance and assholery of the first order--if not his directly then his by agency.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:56 PM

"one who wants to get a concensus of the whole world before taking required steps to "provide for the common defence" "

Kerry didn't say that; he specifically denied it, and you know it.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

Dear Young Guy:

Wash the Old Guy's mouth out with soap. He is definitely NOT a nice person.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Nope. Keep up here. They said W's of MD didn't exist. They knew that nuclear materials existed, and were keeping a darn good watch on them unitl the US told them "you better get out, 'cause we can't gaurantee your safety when we start bombing". Inspectors (wisely) high-tailed. US forces invade and fail to secure facilities. Nuclear material now in the hands of God Knows who. Pretty simple. Pretty stoopid.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM

My son says Kerry is a lying cocksucker.

Was it the nuclear materials that the UN inspectors said did not exist that vanished?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:25 AM

I will get back to this on the 'morrow. Gotta get for the nonce. If I don't get at least six hours sleep I get owly. Later.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:18 AM

"as far as I'm concerned, that puts you miles above most of the people we elect to political office. "

I will take this as a compliment, though it could be damming with faint praise...


I have never understood how the neocons could possibly be so incompetent, according to most of those posting here, yet so effective.

I have never been a neocon- while I do believe (IMO) that the US was justified in going into Iraq ( actually, I think we waited too long), there are a lot of neocon points I do not agree with. The problem is that here, if I support Bush in Iraq, it is presumed I agree about gay marriage, abortion, et al- which is not true. I just feel the damage that the Bush administration might do on the other topics is offset by the ( IMO) required defense of my country. I would be much happier if Elizabeth Dole were president- but in the present choice, I would rather have a paranoid person who everyone thinks will fly off the handle than one who wants to get a concensus of the whole world before taking required steps to "provide for the common defence" , the primary function of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:09 AM

I hear you. I agree only partly on the oil thing. What you say is true, but the US will have to recoup its losses in this war. One way or the other. Incidentally, you are not a target to me. I love getting your goat when I can, and I tend to like people who argue for what they believe, even though I think--on occasion--that they are misguided.

To me, this is about world domination by multi-nationals. I believe there is a neocon agenda at work. (Yes, I have bought into the conspiracy theory of history.) Target: not to me. Adversary with whom I like to argue?: definitely.

You and I share much common ground. I would enjoy having a few beers with you if opportunity ever presents itself. I like your poetry/writing, even though we are often against each other in the political stuff. Basically, what's gonna happen is what's gonna happen. IMO, much of it is already written, and all we can do is try to figure out how we all let it come to be. The thing I like about you is that you are tenacious and you believe in what you are saying. Even though I disagree, as far as I'm concerned, that puts you miles above most of the people we elect to political office.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:57 AM

brucie,

I agree that he needed to be gotten rid of. From the evidence AT THE TIME, I feel we were justified in going in. It was NEVER about 9/11- but it was about a source for terrorist WMD.

IMO, it is NOT about oil- we are spending more, and have less control over the oil than we did even under the Oil for Food program. The European countries that protested did so because of oil- but the US is not getting oil out of this-we are using it up. Check past threads- we are buying gas from Kuwait to sell at a cheaper price to the Iraqis. The whole "blood for oil" is a slogan that has no meaning. Unless you want to say US blood for European oil.

I am still not sure there are not WMD in the area, from Iraq. The report is quite clear that it DOES NOT address the possibility of WMD being moved out of Iraq to, say, Syria. When WMD are concerned, I would rather be pessimistic and be pleasently proved wrong, than be optimistic and be dead.

Of course, around here that makes me a target, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:20 AM

Ever feel like we're in that cartoon with the sheepdog and the wolf? One of them was called Ralph. Can't remember the other. I know I laughed when the whistle went at the end of the day and regardless where they were at in their activities--mid punch, mid breath, mid scream--the action stopped and that was it until they punched their timecards next day. Anyway, goodnight Ralph.

PS BB, a year ago I would have agreed with you; in fact, a year ago I did. I have changed my mind. Not because WMDs were not found, but because the reason for the US invasion has become very clear to me. This is about oil. Not getting rid of Hussein--and he had to be got rid of; not about 9/11; that had nothing to do with Iraq; not about the UN and WMDs. It is about oil. Always was, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:14 AM

ok. Have a good rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:12 AM

I'm going to bed. Catch you tomorrow if the satellite is working.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:09 AM

The UN didn't fail to take action. As we now see, the UN was taking precisely the correct action. It was sending its inspectors into Iraq. The inspectors were doing a good job. The US action of kicking out the inspectors and attacking Iraq is now being blamed for the disappearance of the materials that were discussed in the link I posted in this thread, as well as stockpiles of conventional weapons which are now being used to kill US soldiers as well as innocent Iraqi civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM

That just says, "If you don't see things my way, UN, then I will do what I want to do with or without you."

Your clear and present danger scenario has played out in the past. Russia puttin missiles in Cuba--that was a clear and present danger. Iraq may or may not having WMDs--that's a little shaky to me.

My nightmare during the Gulf War was that Iraq would arm a few Scuds with bio or chemical weapons. That scared the shit outta me, because if one of them had hit Israel, I really think that Israel would have used nuclear weapons in response. Given the nature of the conflict in the mid-East, I do think the Israelis would have had no choice but to hit about six countries that surround it. (I am not trying to open a can of worms here. I am not at all saying whether I think this is a good or bad response. However, I think it's the response that would have occurred.)

9/11 was a clear and present danger, and ostensibly that is at least part of the reason the US went into Iraq. But ther has never been a link drawn between 9/11 and Iraq. Hell, what was the worry about letting the UN decide what constituted a 'clear and present danger'?

How, exactly then, did Iraq pose a 'clear and present danger' to the USA? If possession of WMDs are a c and pd to the US, then there are at least 20 countries that have nukes, that many with chem weapons and probably that many with bio weapons. Hell, is the US gonna take the world saying the world is a 'clear and present danger' to the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:49 PM

It can take the FAILURE of the UN to take action as a reason to take action.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM

It can take that action, but it cannot use the UNSC resolution as its justification for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:42 PM

The fact that Iraq was signitory to cease-fire terms binds it to complience with the UN resolutions. SO WHAT?

The US can enforce action against what it sees to be a clear and present danger, and lose lives and spend money.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM

beardedbruce, the UNSC is the only body authorized under the terms of the resolution, and by agreement of its signatories, to determine what the "serious consequences" of non-compliance with that particular UNSC resolution should be, and when they should be applied. The resolution specifically states that the UNSC decides to remain seized of the matter (chooses to continue to monitor the situation and make decisions as it develops). And it also specifically states that member nations agree to respect the borders and uphold the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation. And it also specifically states that member nations agree not to hinder, in any way, the ability of the UN inspectors to do their job. Both of these conditions place specific limits on what member nations can and cannot do under the terms of the resolution.

The fact that the US is a signatory to this resolution binds it to the terms of the resolution. The US, being a signatory to the resolution, cannot then use the resolution as an excuse to violate the terms of the resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM

EVERY COUNTRY can do what it darn well wants when it darn well wants to do it.

AND accept the consequences.




Iraq can ignore UN resolutions.

France and Germany can ignore UN sanctions against Iraq, and help Saddam re-arm.

The US can enforce what it sees to be a clear and present danger, and lose lives and spend money.

And all of the world can ignore places like Sudan, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc if it might be convenient.


I hope this has made things cleared, brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:00 PM

So that means that when the US decides that something is OK to do that then it is OK for the US to do that.

Canada chose not to play ball this time 'round because there WAS no UN sanction. There is not much open to interpretation. Unless EVERYthing is open to interpretation, in which case your Constitution is up for grabs, your legal structure is totally open to interpretation, and world peace is just another name for Neocon dominance--with the US playing the role of the enforcer. Because what you have said simply means that the US can do what it darn well wants when it darn well wants to do it. Hell, whay didn't you just say so in the first place. Woulda saved lots of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:32 PM

brucie


1441 declares that it is the last chance to comply before "serious consequences" ( diplomatic talk for armed action) occurs.

Yes, there is interpretation required- but for every lawyer that thinks one thing, there is an equal and opposite one just waiting to be asked.

Each of us have our own opinion on whether the invasion was legal, and on whether it was justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM

I see life must be a little quiet for Beardedbruce. He's back on one of those hot button issues, mis-reading and mis-representing the issues in his consistent fashion. And I see my name popped up in here.

BB, you used some pretty hokey sources when you posted to that earlier contentious thread. The link posted here is to Reuters, which is a perfectly good large international news bureau. That makes a huge difference in the credibility of the article.

I'm not going to fool with this thread--why bother? You never let the facts get in the way of the argument you want to make. You and Dubya have a lot in common.

SRS