|
01 May 08 - 02:23 PM (#2330800) Subject: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Remember when Obama declared he was willing to attack Pakistan? He has the support of the CIA, at least. "... Pakistan's Taliban is more closely bonded to al-Qaeda than were the Iraqi Sunnis -- and the Taliban remains committed to attacking U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Any peace bought by a Pakistani truce is likely to come at the expense of enhancing what CIA Director Michael V. Hayden recently called a "clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the West in general, and to the United States in particular." For a limited time, the United States should take the risk of being patient with Pakistan's new democratic government. The Taliban leaders reportedly have promised that if the pact is sealed, they will take action against al-Qaeda within a month. If that action is not taken, or if attacks into Afghanistan increase, the Bush administration has considerable leverage, including a $750 million aid program promised for the tribal areas -- and the option of unilateral military action using drones or Special Forces. While a multi-pronged approach will certainly be needed to eliminate the threat in Pakistan, al-Qaeda cannot be allowed to benefit from a truce. " From the Washington Post:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003278.html |
|
01 May 08 - 02:50 PM (#2330818) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk I don't think he was ever suggesting an American attack on the nation-state of Pakistan. I think he was suggesting some sort of limited military strikes against Al-Queda operations located inside Pakistan...meaning in the tribal areas just south of Aghanistan. Seems to me that that has already been done on occasion anyway, has it not? In other words, he was not in fact suggesting anything very unusual or radical under present circumstances. |
|
01 May 08 - 03:05 PM (#2330832) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce " I think he was suggesting some sort of limited military strikes against Al-Queda operations located inside Pakistan...meaning in the tribal areas just south of Aghanistan." Which is what the CIA head is saying- so my statement stands. In fact, this is one of his statements that I DO SUPPORT. ( Obama's) But it seems like the vast majority of those discussing him seem willing to ignore that he is as warlike ( NOTE: NOT "more", just "as") as McCain- yet the use of McWar still continues- so I will start to push Obomba from now on. |
|
01 May 08 - 03:10 PM (#2330836) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: Q (Frank Staplin) People remain woefully ignorant of the 'Taliban' and who and what they represent. The Taliban in Afganistan and Pakistan are the younger, more militant, Pashtun (Pushtun) people. The Pashtun, some 10 million of them in their tribal homeland which straddles the Afghan- Pakistan border region and extends into other jurisdictions, hold conservative beliefs that date to biblical times. Western civilization is foreign to them. They are mostly Sunni, with a strict legal and moral code, that departs from Sharia law in a number of precepts. There are two lineages, one of which, the Ghilzai, is more urban. The more these people are attacked, the more influence small groups of terrorists such as Al Qaeda will have with them. None of the political contenders (nor the Bush government) seem to have any understanding of the Pashtun peoples. |
|
01 May 08 - 03:41 PM (#2330868) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: Amos There's a lot of difference, Bruce, between being warlike as a general trait, and being intelligent in the assessment of military situations. I am pretty confident that Obama is one man who would never turn to waging war when it was not necessary, nor aim the machinery of war at a wrongly chosen target. Al Qeda, and the Bsuh administration, have blunderingly done both of these. A |
|
01 May 08 - 03:57 PM (#2330888) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce and I am pretty confident that McCain is one man who would never turn to waging war when it was not necessary, nor aim the machinery of war at a wrongly chosen target. THAT is my point. |
|
01 May 08 - 04:01 PM (#2330893) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: katlaughing "... Pakistan's Taliban is more closely bonded to al-Qaeda than were the Iraqi Sunnis.." "The Taliban leaders reportedly have promised that if the pact is sealed, they will take action against al-Qaeda within a month." Which is it? The Taliban is allied with al-Queda or is going to attack al-Queda? I agree with Amos. Obama will use good judgement and exhaust all other possibilities before he would ever consider waging war, much less posture and crow claiming it was over and done with then over the next five years take more and more of our young people and money to fight in an illegal war. |
|
01 May 08 - 05:29 PM (#2330957) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Yeah, I would much rather have a president who makes thoughtful decisions than a hot head who reacts... And while "Obomba" may sound funny to partisan righties it's over the top in describing what "Obama" has actually said... B~ |
|
01 May 08 - 05:30 PM (#2330958) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk I get the impression, BB, that McCain thinks the war in Iraq is a good idea and was totally justified from the start. I don't. That's why I don't like the idea of McCain being president. As for Obama, I don't really buy this notion that he was always "against the war"...he voted to continue funding it, didn't he? But I do think he's less for it than McCain. ;-) I hope so, anyway. I regard both the Democrats and Republicans as almost certain to continue that war, and quite likely to start another. Obama might not be inclined to, though. Got my fingers crossed on that, but I have no assurance of it. I will never find out unless he gets elected, will I? |
|
01 May 08 - 05:36 PM (#2330963) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obomba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ebbie In this article, columist Frank Rich disagrees with the Democrat candidates hammering on McCain's "100 years in Iraq". He thinks that McCain has far more disturbing attributes than that misunderstood remark. Here are snippets from the column. * "The sum total of his public record suggests that he could well prolong the war for another century — not because he's the crazed militarist portrayed by Democrats, but through sheer inertia, bad judgment and blundering. " * "So far his bizarre pronouncements have been drowned out by the Democrats' din. They've also been underplayed by a press that coddles Ol' Man Straight Talk and that rarely looks more deeply into the "surge is success" propaganda than it did into Mr. Bush's announcement of the end of "major combat operations" five years ago. Even fewer noticed that the presumptive Republican nominee seemed at least as oblivious to what was going down (in Basra. Eb) as President Bush, no tiny feat." * "Mr. McCain was just as wrong about Basra as he was in 2003, when he said the war would be "brief" and be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. Or as he was in the 1990s, when he championed extravagant State Department funding for the war instigator Ahmad Chalabi, who'd already been branded untrustworthy by the C.I.A." * "As for Basra, Mr. McCain told Joe Klein of Time in January that it was "not a problem." He told John King of CNN while in Baghdad last month that Mr. Sadr's "influence has been on the wane for a long time." When the battle ended last week, Mr. McCain said: "Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn't Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire." At least the last of those sentences was accurate. It was indeed the losing side — Maliki's — that pleaded for the cease-fire." * "But Mr. McCain's bigger strategic picture, immutable no matter what happens on the ground, is foggier still. Like Mr. Bush, he keeps selling Iraq as the central front in the war on Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda was not even a participant in the Basra battle, which was an eruption of a Shiite-vs.-Shiite civil war." * "Mr. McCain is also fond of portraying Mr. Maliki's "democracy" in Iraq as an essential bulwark against Iran; his surrogate Lindsey Graham habitually refers to Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army as "Iranian-backed militias." But the political coalition and militia propping up Mr. Maliki are even closer to Iran than the Sadrists." * "We're succeeding," Mr. McCain said after his last trip to Iraq. "I don't care what anybody says." Again, it's the last sentence that's accurate." * "Mr. McCain's doomed promise of military "victory" in Iraq is akin to Wile E. Coyote's perpetual pursuit of the Road Runner, with much higher carnage. This isn't patriotism." The Whole Article |
|
01 May 08 - 05:40 PM (#2330967) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce And while "McWar" may sound funny to partisan lefties it's over the top in describing what "McCain" has actually said... So just keep using your "funny" labels, and I will keep using mine. |
|
01 May 08 - 05:41 PM (#2330969) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ebbie Frankly, I don't consider 'Obomba' funny. It comes across as rather more straw grasping. Sorry, BB. |
|
01 May 08 - 05:42 PM (#2330970) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce And I do not consider "McWar" to be other than a baseless insult. |
|
01 May 08 - 06:04 PM (#2330987) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Donuel Bruce, are you bombed? Or do you just make them for a living? |
|
01 May 08 - 06:15 PM (#2330996) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq One of these might be funnier: Obomba O'Bomba Obomba Perhaps we can have a vote? |
|
01 May 08 - 07:10 PM (#2331030) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ebbie I have a brilliant idea! How about 'Obama'? |
|
01 May 08 - 07:13 PM (#2331032) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce And how about "McCain"? |
|
01 May 08 - 07:34 PM (#2331042) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ebbie I agree with you, BB. |
|
01 May 08 - 07:44 PM (#2331049) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Very well, then. McCain it is. And people should also stop making up lewd stories about "Chonga" (Chongo's supposed sister). Chongo does not and never has had a sister named Chonga. |
|
01 May 08 - 08:02 PM (#2331063) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert McWar, McWar, McWar... Hey, he's the guy who has said that he's be fine with the US being at war in Iraq for a 100 years... He has earned his name... Obama saying that if he had reliable intellegence of a terrorist organizations location that he would order a sergical strike does not make him this monsterous "bomber"... B~ |
|
01 May 08 - 08:08 PM (#2331069) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Wrong again Bobert. If you can't deal with the facts, please let the rest of us alone. McCain stated that there would probably be US troops there, like we have NOW in Germany and Japan. YOU are the one who keeps pushing endless war, not him. So O'Bomber said that he would bomb an allied power if it was convenient to him... |
|
01 May 08 - 08:18 PM (#2331081) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: dick greenhaus BB- McCain said that he was Ok with having troops in Iraq indefinitely if nobody was shooting at them. He didn't say how he'd get from now to then. |
|
01 May 08 - 08:20 PM (#2331085) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "if nobody was shooting at them." Now, if THAT is bobert's definition of endless war, I can live with it... |
|
01 May 08 - 08:21 PM (#2331086) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Amos Bobert: He said "be in Iraq" for 100 years. Unfortunately, that was a really dumb thing to say, given the intractable nature of the tribal groups in Iraq. He is also the one who made stupid jokes about bombing Iran, as though this was aperfectly acceptable outcome. So perhaps he just has a really kludgy sense of humor? I dunno. But it's enough to make me a good deal wary about him being in charge. A |
|
01 May 08 - 08:52 PM (#2331106) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ebbie "McCain stated that there would probably be US troops there, like we have NOW in Germany and Japan" bb Actually, McCain said 'South Korea and Japan', not Germany and Japan. Of course, we never invaded South Korea... |
|
01 May 08 - 08:55 PM (#2331109) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Now, be fair, BB. I don't think Obama was talking about bombing an allied power (Pakistan). That would entail bombing Karachi, Islamabad, Lahore, other major centres, basic infrastructure, and military bases. Just like was done in Iraq. Do you think for one moment that Obama ever suggested doing that? I don't. I think he suggested bombing secret Al-Queda staging areas out in the countryside, not installations belonging to the government of Pakistan. Okay? Agreed? To bomb Al-queda staging areas would not constitute an attack on an allied power. It would constitute bombing a few clandestine enemy forces in hiding somewhere in the countryside of an Allied power...far from any of that Allied power's cities, bases, or major infrastructure. Yet Obama is being depicted as if he wants to attack "Pakistan". This is disingenous in the extreme, and probably a deliberate and entirely cynical misinterpretation by whoever decided to go after Obama in the first place. |
|
01 May 08 - 08:56 PM (#2331113) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce I'll stand corrected. |
|
01 May 08 - 08:59 PM (#2331115) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "et Obama is being depicted as if he wants to attack "Pakistan". This is disingenous in the extreme, and probably a deliberate and entirely cynical misinterpretation by whoever decided to go after Obama in the first place." Ad the comment that McCain wants a hundred years of war? THAT is not "disingenous in the extreme"??? Yet that goes without any criticism, here... |
|
01 May 08 - 09:01 PM (#2331119) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce But my point aboput Bobert has been stated, even if I am the only one criticised for disingenous statements... |
|
01 May 08 - 09:10 PM (#2331123) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Yes, I would agree that McCain's words have often been used in a similarly disingenous way...quoted all by themselves, out of context of whatever else he said at the time, quoted in such a way as to do the maximum possible political damage. And as you note, most people here don't care about that, because they can't stand McCain anyway. ;-) This is typical of what happens in politics. If you're against someone, you just search around diligently for a single phrase he uttered on some occasion that you can use forever afterward to paint him in the worst way possible. That's unscrupulous. And that, clearly, is the point you are trying to make here. |
|
01 May 08 - 09:12 PM (#2331124) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Thank you! |
|
01 May 08 - 09:27 PM (#2331133) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert No, I like McCain... Great Senator... Like to keep it that way... He dose not have the temperment for being president... Plus, he is a major flip-flopper... You don't have a clue when Mr Straight Talker is gonna be next week or next year with his positions.... But I like him... Just keep him away from sharp objects and nuclear weapons and all will be well... B;~) |
|
01 May 08 - 09:34 PM (#2331139) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce So, Obama is a lousy senator? Bobert, if you just stop saying "McWar" I mght actually agree with some things you say- but as long as you act worse than you accuse Bush of acting, I can't take your comments as worth the effort of verifying. |
|
01 May 08 - 09:53 PM (#2331152) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Hey, didn't I just refer to McCain as McCain, BB??? Come on???? No reason to get all blasted when I'm playin' nice, is there??? McCain is still a hot-head who is not consistent on his views, frequently seems confused and is not someone I want to make the correct decision should the phone ring at 3:00 in the morning... B~ |
|
01 May 08 - 09:57 PM (#2331156) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Your opinion- which you are entitled to. I disagree- I want someone who has *some* military service to make the decisions. Proof that at least once he placed the country above himself. IMO, of course. |
|
01 May 08 - 10:00 PM (#2331159) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bill D "..he voted to continue funding it, didn't he?" I wish folks would quit making a vote necessarily mean "in favor of" If Obama & others felt like, once IN a conflict, even though opposed to it, they had to keep funding the troops, it is unfair to then paint them as "voting for war"! Now we have a situation where the Bushites argue that 'if the war is going badly, we MUST stick it out and stay there'....but if the war 'is going well, and things are getting better, we might as well stay there!' Right...does "tiger by the tail" ring any bells? I'm glad to see the point made that Obama merely said that he would take appropriate action IF a known military target was identified....NOT that he would "attack Pakistan". |
|
01 May 08 - 10:03 PM (#2331161) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies BB is correct. McCain is no more in favor of war than Obama is. The difference is McCain has deluded himself into actually believing that Iraq really is the central venue for the war against al-Qaeda. Which makes absolutely no sense. But if it were true, the war against al-Qaeda in Iraq is indeed over--there is no way al-Qaeda will be able to take over in Iraq--as I've said more than once--but that has nothing to do with any alleged US success in Iraq. The obvious reason has nothing to do with US force of arms--but is that al-Qaeda has overreached badly in its attempt to enforce "Moslem Puritanism"--with the result that Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis all now loathe it. So the US troops can all leave Iraq--aside from "Kurdistan" where they are actually wanted. But I certainly agree with BB that it's McCain, not McWar. And of course Obama and no other variant. |
|
01 May 08 - 10:05 PM (#2331167) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce You know, if we keep agreeing with each other and acting reasonably, nobody will believe it is really us! We might actually have a civil conversation! |
|
01 May 08 - 10:30 PM (#2331181) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies I actually think McCain is a very decent person--though it would help if he were to confirm this by standing firm against the planned 'Wright-oriented NC ad" by the NC Republican party. And it now seems he's backsliding on that. And he also should sever ties with Hagee--as much as Obama has severed ties with Wright. He's basically decent-- and an unquestioned war hero, which means I respect him more than I've respected any presidential candidate in a long time---but completely wrong on the Iraq war and Roe v Wade, among other things. Which is too bad--I would have liked to vote for him. But I can't swallow his views. Though I'm a registered Republican, he will never get my vote. And I will do all I can to defeat him. |
|
02 May 08 - 09:02 AM (#2331226) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert The problem with havin' a "military" man anawering the phone at 3:00 in the morning is exactly that... |
|
02 May 08 - 12:20 PM (#2331272) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor McCain is a total flip flopping sellout. "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."--John McCain, May 2001 "He voted against tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005, and this year he's for the tax cuts in the reconciliation bill. It looks like he did it for political reasons." --Grover Norquist, on McCain's conversion, |
|
02 May 08 - 12:34 PM (#2331282) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq Jack the Sailor implies that Grover Norquist is worth listening to. Well, here is another statement from Grover Norquist: "The modern Democratic Party is the party of government. Its growth is the health of the state--and vice versa. Over time, all the party's building blocks are dependent on continuous support and reinforcement by the power of the central government. Trial lawyer money is now a major part of the Democratic Party, but it is wholly dependent on legislators and courts maintaining the present tort laws that allow lawyers to interject themselves into any and all contracts and relationships. They siphon off some $240 billion a year--$40 billion of which stays with a few thousand lawyers. Labor unions, once the godfather of the Democratic Party but now displaced by the richer and more photogenic trial lawyers, cannot maintain their $8 billion in compulsory union dues without the laws that make such payments mandatory. Both wings of the dependency movement--those locked into welfare dependency and the bureaucrats who get paid well to manage others' dependency (and make sure none of them get jobs and become Republicans) are wholly dependent on legislators halting further welfare reform. Big city political machines thrive on federal grants and state-granted powers. And the coercive utopians--the radical environmentalists, animal-rights activists, feminists, and others who would use state power to force on us tiny non-flushable toilets and cars too small to hold families, take away the circus and our pet cats, and otherwise impose more fussbudget impositions on our lives than Leviticus--all depend on government grants to use and misuse federal and state power." |
|
02 May 08 - 12:35 PM (#2331284) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor McCain was wrong about the war. He does not in any way deserve a free pass on this war as Bearded Bruce is trying to give him. Yes he said a hundred years more. But then he said it was, if it was the same as Japan or Korea. But that was a deflection of the question. It was not what the person was trying to ask. He also won't tell us how we get to that peaceful situation He gives us two choices, stay until we stop losing troops or stay because we are not losing troops. To me that sounds like one choice. Stay for a hundred years no matter what. McWar is a quick way to say that a vote for McCain is a vote for war. Bruce may not like that. He may think it uncivilized. but it is true. Calling Obama, Obomba is simple childish tit for tat. Bruce, if you want to do that, I say go ahead. We all know who sang "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran." We know who had bad judgement about Iraq. But if you need reminding, here is an article from Salon. John McCain's real war record On the campaign trail he touts his sharp criticism of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration on Iraq. But a look at McCain's record reveals a different war story. By Mark Benjamin Early last year, John McCain seemed to lash his political fortune to the success or failure of the troop "surge" in Iraq. Backing the surge fit his carefully tended reputation as a maverick; his allies noted that McCain was bravely risking his political career to do what he believed was right. "I have just finished an election campaign," Sen. Joe Lieberman said last January when he and McCain pushed the surge at a meeting at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "If rumors are correct, he may be starting one," Lieberman said of McCain, standing at his side. "He is not taking the easy way out here. But he is taking the way that he believes is best for the safety of our children and grandchildren and the values and the way of life that America has come to represent." A year later, leaving aside the question of its long-term effects, the surge has had a tangible short-term security impact in Baghdad. And McCain, in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, isn't going to let us forget that he knew better all along. "I'm proud to have been one of those who played a key role in bringing about one of the most important changes in recent years," McCain trumpeted during the GOP debate in Manchester, N.H., on Jan. 6. "And that was the change in strategy from a failing strategy in Iraq pursued by Secretary Rumsfeld." Two days later, McCain won the Granite State primary. In fact, lately former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has become quite the punching bag for McCain on the campaign trail. Part of the McCain mantra, whether recited on the stump or to reporters on his campaign bus, is that he knew that Gen. David Petraeus' surge of troops would work better than Rumsfeld's light footprint approach. It's his way of supporting the war while criticizing the way it was executed by the Bush administration without ever uttering the word "Bush." It is also meant to be proof of the gravitas McCain would bring to the job of commander in chief. "I have the knowledge and experience and judgment, as my support of the Petraeus strategy indicated, and my condemnation of the previous Rumsfeld strategy," said McCain in a Jan. 9 NBC "Today" show interview. "No other candidate running for president did that on either side." But to buy into the McCain-knows-best version of the Iraq war, you have to ignore a lot of history. McCain was among the most aggressive proponents of a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, cosponsoring the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. He also expressed full faith in the way it would be executed -- a war plan conceived and executed by Rumsfeld. He did call for more troops in Iraq sooner than some, but later than others who made the same argument before the first shots were even fired. And McCain's support for Rumsfeld only evaporated over time, as it became painfully clear that the war in Iraq was going south. Bert Rockman, the head of the political science department at Purdue University, said McCain's commander-in-chief argument is tarnished because he advocated "the right tactics and the wrong strategy." "It was a mistake probably to have gone in, that is the real issue," Rockman explained. "We have discovered there are worse things than Saddam Hussein." During the run-up to the war, McCain argued vociferously in favor of an invasion, quoting the logic of Vice President Dick Cheney. "As Vice President Cheney has said of those who argue that containment and deterrence are working, the argument comes down to this: Yes, Saddam is as dangerous as we say he is," McCain said in a saber-rattling speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Feb. 13, 2003. "We just need to let him get stronger before we do anything about it," he added sarcastically. In the period leading up to the war, McCain sounded, at times, less like a straight-talking maverick and more like the neoconservative former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. "It's going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East," McCain said about the war on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" on Feb. 21, 2003. He seemed to think Iraq would be a cakewalk, predicting that the war "will be brief." He also sounded like Wolfowitz's boss, Donald Rumsfeld, as far back as late 2002. Despite all his talk now about more troops, as the war drums built toward a crescendo, McCain argued that better technology meant fewer troops were going to be needed in Iraq. "Our technology, particularly air-to-ground technology, is vastly improved," McCain told CNN's Larry King on Dec. 9, 2002. "I don't think you're going to have to see the scale of numbers of troops that we saw, nor the length of the buildup, obviously, that we had back in 1991." It was pure Rumsfeld. But even back then, not everyone was so sure that the war would be brief or that Rumsfeld's smaller force would be sufficient. On Feb. 25, 2003, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki famously warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand" soldiers would be needed to take and hold Iraq. Rumsfeld publicly disagreed with Shinseki's estimate. If McCain shared Shinseki's position, he didn't say so at the time. "I have no qualms about our strategic plans," he told the Hartford Courant in a March 5 article, just before the invasion. "I thought we were very successful in Afghanistan." And while he was quiet about Shinseki, McCain shouted down some naysayers who proved to be much more prescient than he. On the cusp of the invasion, West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor on March 19, 2003, to denounce the war. It was a speech that predicted the future debacle so accurately that it now seems that the senior senator from West Virginia had a crystal ball in his Senate desk. "We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many," Byrd warned. "After the war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe." McCain pounced, taking to the Senate floor to predict that "when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America." By June 2003, McCain was still generally in the "Mission Accomplished" camp. "I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process," he told Fox News on June 11. "But the conflict, the major conflict is over ... The regime change is accomplished." It was during an August 2003 visit to Iraq that McCain seems to have realized that the Iraq tale was not unfolding as another chapter in the glorious history of the United States. (It is not entirely clear when he came to the realization, since the McCain campaign failed to return my call asking for a staffer to go through this history with me.) While he was in Iraq, insurgents used a truck bomb to blow up the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on Aug. 19, killing U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello. McCain told NPR on Aug. 29, 2003, that "we need more troops" in Iraq. "When I say more troops, we need a lot more of certain skills, such as civil affairs capability, military police. We need more linguists," McCain added. And McCain was not always sour on Rumsfeld. As late as May 12, 2004, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, McCain was asked on "Hannity & Colmes" whether Rumsfeld could still be effective in his job. "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job," McCain responded. "He's an honorable man." It is true that by late 2004, McCain was down on the secretary of defense, telling the press that he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld. But the clips show that he stopped short of calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying it was the president's prerogative to pick his own national security team. To be fair, McCain has been calling for more troops for years now. And political experts do think McCain's argument on the surge may still gain some traction among GOP voters. "We still have about two-thirds of Republicans who support the effort in Iraq," explained Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown. "It certainly would work with the Republican audience he is appealing to." That may depend, in part, on the memories of the people in that audience. Amanda Silverman contributed reporting to this article. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:42 PM (#2331288) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Grover Norquist is one of yours, PDQ, a Republican "conservative." It is significant that he is saying that. Iis significant but not crucial. McCain did fight tax cuts in those years. What is crucial is that McCain is a flip flopper, not just on taxes but on the specific tax cuts he is supporting right now. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:43 PM (#2331289) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC I used to like McCain a lot. I even thought I might vote for him in 2000 had he gotten the nomination. As I recall, a lot of the "conservatives" here in the Mudcat back then were calling him a closet liberal and some even were calling him a Socialist. I stopped having any respect for McCain at all when he started parroting the Bush line, with gusto, in order to strengthen his chances of getting elected president. That shows a lack of character on his part, and since I had previously liked him because I thought he had a lot of character, that makes him doubly disappointing. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:48 PM (#2331294) Subject: Maybe McBush would be better? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Also from salon John McCain runs for George Bush's third term Based on his policies and the company he keeps, this year's Republican presidential candidate sounds a lot like the guy who ran in 2000 and 2004. By Juan Cole The most important thing about the endorsements proffered to John McCain by George W. Bush and evangelist John Hagee last week was McCain's reaction to them. The freshly minted Republican nominee for president, who has had harsh words in the past for both Bush's policies and evangelical "agents of intolerance," meekly accepted their support. He knows he cannot win in November if the evangelicals and pro-war conservatives stay home. How far will McCain go in presenting himself as Son of Bush in order to energize his party's base? To date, based on his willingness to embrace the Bush agenda and to associate with religious extremists, the answer seems to be pretty far indeed. When John McCain went to the White House last week, President Bush seemed to be offering him an out. Bush "welcomed" McCain as "the Republican nominee" in his official statement, but didn't initially use the word "endorse." It was McCain who leapt for the e-word. "Well, I'm very honored and humbled," said McCain, "to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection [for]." McCain's strategists, meanwhile, are said to be privately plotting how best to deploy the deeply unpopular Bush, perhaps by quietly sending him to host fundraisers deep inside red states where he would not risk alienating the general population from McCain. But McCain is hewing so faithfully to Bush's legacy he may need no help from the man himself in alienating the population. Whereas in his 2000 presidential bid, the Arizona senator sharply criticized Bush for appearing at the anti-Catholic Bob Jones University, which at that time also still banned interracial dating, he is less vocal about such matters now. He is himself behaving as Bush did then. McCain once dismissed evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." But last week the senator embraced Hagee's endorsement. Talk about an agent of intolerance! Hagee is like Pat Robertson on steroids. The Democratic National Committee was quick to point out that Hagee said that Jews have faced persecution "right up to this very day" because they rejected Jesus and so demonstrated "disobedience and rebellion" toward Jehovah. He said that the difference between a woman with premenstrual syndrome and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist. He said that Katrina was divine punishment on New Orleans for its sinfulness, and on gays for planning a parade there. He said that Roman Catholics were linked with Hitler "in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews," and called the Catholic Church "the Great Whore." He suggested a faux "slave auction" as a church fundraiser. He told a startled Terry Gross on "Fresh Air" that the Quran directs Muslims to kill Christians and Jews. (In fact the Quran recognizes Christians and Jews as "people of scripture" and only urges the early Muslims to fight back against the militant "infidels" or polytheists who were trying to wipe them out.) McCain reacted warmly to Hagee's endorsement, saying, "I am very proud of Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel." (Apparently for Hagee Israel is good, even if Jews are bad.) Pressed by Roman Catholics and others, McCain refused to distance himself from the pastor, saying only, "In no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not." This non-disavowing disavowal has not satisfied most of the people offended by McCain's having associated himself with Hagee. Hagee's endorsement is McCain's "Bob Jones moment," taken from the W. playbook of 2000. In other respects, McCain is trying to repeat Bush's big win of 2004, when he fended off a near-upset by a weak Democratic candidate by doubling down on fear. McCain has adopted foreign policy and domestic stances similar to those of Bush's successful reelection run. In July of 2004, Bush abruptly announced that he was looking into whether Iran played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., and accused the Shiite ayatollahs of Tehran of harboring al-Qaida operatives, who are Sunnis. The whole fantastic set of allegations was immediately denied by Bush's own intelligence officials. Hawkishness toward Iran was one way for Bush to take the focus off his failures in Iraq. Bush by his belligerence appealed to a combination of evangelical holy warriors and so-called national-security conservatives, and McCain seems poised to move in the same direction. Echoing Bush's fear-mongering about the Islamic world, which by August 2006, two years after his reelection, regularly included references to so-called Islamic fascism, McCain maintains that the "transcendent" challenge facing the United States in 2008 is "radical Islamic extremism." McCain alleges that "al-Qaida in Iraq" will "follow us home" if the U.S. withdraws from that country. McCain takes this line even though most Muslim countries are close allies of the United States and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida has been revealed to be a small fringe, now in disarray. Hagee's endorsement, meanwhile, brings more than white Protestant intolerance to the table. The organization he founded, Christians United for Israel, is lobbying for a war on Iran and dismisses last fall's National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program as "incompetent." McCain himself has joked about bombing Iran, to the tune of an old Beach Boys song. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:48 PM (#2331296) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "We all know who sang "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran." " The Capital Steps, during the Carter Administration... Jack, Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No. Or don't you like the question? It seems that YOU want to pick who gets held responsible- after all, Obama voted to fund the war, as well. IMO, ( without the lengthy cut and paste) GIVEN what was known and presented at the time, the vote for the War was the correct thing. I find the label "McWar" to be of the same order of nastiness as "Bushite" and "Democrap" and "O'Bomba" It does NOT advance discussion, nor does it promote the principles that are Obama's greatest strength. It is a disservice TO OBAMA to use the term. But then, I guess Hilary would approve of it... even though she made the same votes. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:57 PM (#2331301) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq Thanks, but I am a "libertarian" (note: not "L") and a registered independant. Also, the "flip-flop" charge is getting so tedious that the eyes of the average citizen glaze-over at its mention. Can anybody discuss issues and get past the character assasination. If liberals hate the "George Bush tax cuts" then tell us what the proper tax level is and maybe people can work out the differences. Just saying "Bush is a_______" is rubbish. Last election we had "anybody but Bush" as the Democratic platform. No policy discussion, just "anybody but Bush". This time we have "Why won't you vote for Obama? Are you a rascist" or " "Why won't you vote for Hillary? Are you a sexist?". The people who need to change are the Democrats, and they can only do that when the Clintons are given the boot. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:59 PM (#2331304) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Donuel Jose Feliciano sings: OOOO Obama |
|
02 May 08 - 01:02 PM (#2331311) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC IMO, ( without the lengthy cut and paste) GIVEN what was known and presented at the time, the vote for the War was the correct thing. A lot of us knew better than that, even back then. A lot of us were exactly right in all of our predictions on this subject. Some of those who were right were even working in government back then and spoke out about it at the time. Obama, votes to fund the war notwithstanding, was correct in his assessment and his predictions about waging war against Iraq. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:09 PM (#2331315) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk How can a "pre-emptive" war of your own FREE CHOICE on a much weaker nation which has never attacked you at all and is not even capable of attacking you be "the correct thing"???? Man, it's just incredible what people can talk themselves into. LOL! I guess Hitler must have been on the right track after all when he marched into Poland in '39. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:13 PM (#2331320) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Quoting myself... Obama, votes to fund the war notwithstanding, was correct in his assessment and his predictions about waging war against Iraq. ...which, in my opinion, makes him more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than either McCain or Hillary. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:15 PM (#2331323) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce LH, When did Germany attack Canada? 1915? 1940? Germany did not have an air force capable of hitting Canada, nor a Navy strong enough, So Canada was wrong to go to war against Germany??? |
|
02 May 08 - 01:15 PM (#2331324) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Yeah, that's basically how I see it too. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:17 PM (#2331328) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Yet, Iraq DID attack Kuwait. And there were NEVER any peace terms SAVE THE CEASEFIRE THAT IRAQ violated. So the US was still acting under it's 1992 UN Madate. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:41 PM (#2331340) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Amos The people who need to change are the Democrats, and they can only do that when the Clintons are given the boot. Well, it is pretty clear that somebody has to turn the helm, and the 'publicans ain't a-gonna because they are getting their pockets lined nicely by staying the course toward the big iceberg, with subcontracts for deckchair-arrangement. So it is up to the Democrats to resurrect the fundamentyal lessons of human decency, co-prosperity, innovation and hope for future successes which have been so badly trashed in the last eight years. Which we will, accordingly, undertake to do. Just don't stand in the way, okay? A |
|
02 May 08 - 01:44 PM (#2331341) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Peace The people who need change are the citizens of the USA. They have been ill-served by both Republicans and Democrats. Note the present state of the National Debt in the USA. I think those folks argung one side or the other ougta start thinking of triangles instead of lines. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:53 PM (#2331350) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor McCain is pro-Iraq war and has completely reversed himself on a large number of issues because he would rather be President than do what is right. He used to be a good man, now he is just a shill. Another soul stolen by George W. Bush. |
|
02 May 08 - 01:55 PM (#2331351) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Your OPINION, which others may or may not agree with. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:05 PM (#2331359) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor It is not MY OPINION that McCain is pro Iraq war. It is not MY OPINION that he has reversed himself and pandered to the Republican base. If others do not agree with those simple statements then they are very poorly informed. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:08 PM (#2331360) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: dick greenhaus BB- "I want someone who has *some* military service to make the decisions. Proof that at least once he placed the country above himself." I assume that you supported Kerry on those grounds. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:09 PM (#2331361) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "because he would rather be President than do what is right. " MAKES it your opinion.... since you have yet to show that you can accurately read anyone's mind. Perhaps he has been given new information, or has some other reason to alter is viewpoint? IMO, his character ( which is what I would be voting him into office on) leads me to believe that he is still making decisions based on what HE believes is best for the country. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:12 PM (#2331362) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce Dick, I am NOT a one issue voter. As a middle of the road conservative ( pro-choice, against drugs laws, for limited government) I held my nose on the last election and voted for the candidate I felt would damage this country the least. Can you say otherwise? |
|
02 May 08 - 02:21 PM (#2331368) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>>"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."--John McCain, May 2001<< What has changed since then? Are the "less fortunate" more fortunate? Are the middle class now NOT in need in tax relief? And now we have the Bush/McCain war to pay for. Barack Obama is now where McCain was then. McCain is where Bush was. The thing that has changed is that Bush is running for President. Yes it is my opinion that he has changed BECAUSE he wants to be elected. But it is obvious that he has rejected his old principles. It is also obvious that he wants to be elected and that he can't win without Bush's base. So my opinion is not at all without foundation. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:22 PM (#2331370) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ebbie "As a middle of the road conservative ( pro-choice, against drugs laws, for limited government) I held my nose on the last election and voted for the candidate I felt would damage this country the least."bb And that led you to vote for George W Bush? Good gracious. You must feel bad. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:24 PM (#2331371) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief" Perhaps he does not consider this point to be valid any more- If he believes the tax cut WILL benefit the middle-class, a reasonable person would think that he HAD to support the tax cut ( given his previous statement) Your opinion is as valid as mine. No more so, nor any less. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:25 PM (#2331373) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce And I blame the Democrats for that! This time they might even run someone FOR something, instead of against. We shall see. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:26 PM (#2331375) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >> I held my nose on the last election and voted for the candidate I felt would damage this country the least. << Given your stated position, If you voted for Bush, I don't think much of your judgement. He put in anti-abortion judges, expanded government obscenely and his justice department used the Patriot act to enforce drug laws. He did an astounding amount of damage to the prestige and infrastructure of the country, not to mention the dollar. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:29 PM (#2331380) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce The good thing about a democracy is that it is the MAJORITY that decides about judgement... YOU seem to have poor judgement BY MY STANDARDS, but so what? The ballot box will decide, not YOUR opinion. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:34 PM (#2331384) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>From: beardedbruce Date: 02 May 08 - 02:24 PM "a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief" Perhaps he does not consider this point to be valid any more- If he believes the tax cut WILL benefit the middle-class, a reasonable person would think that he HAD to support the tax cut ( given his previous statement) Your opinion is as valid as mine. No more so, nor any less.<< I have to disagree. My opinion is based on a logical look at the facts. Yours seems to be based on mind reading of McCain. If he were to actually repudiate his previous statements and EXPRESS the thoughts you hypothetically credit him with, you may have a point. But since he HAS NOT repudiated these statements, the preponderance of the evidence points to pandering. |
|
02 May 08 - 02:38 PM (#2331385) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Bruce, If you are using this logic to get someone to vote for McCain, I doubt you will succeed. If you state your positions then vote exactly against the positions you have expressed, I am not only confident that your judgement is poor, I am also gleefully pleased to point out that you are a Republican. |
|
02 May 08 - 03:14 PM (#2331408) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "My opinion is based on a logical look at the facts. Yours seems to be based on mind reading of McCain. You know, I was thinking that exact thought. I don't know what McCain was thinking: Why do you think you do? It is logical that if his actions are not what a CONDITIONAL statement would lead one to think he would do, then the CONDITIONS may have changed- I DON"T KNOW- WHy do you think YOU do??? Nobody died and made you GOD, at least this century. |
|
02 May 08 - 03:35 PM (#2331427) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk "Yet, Iraq DID attack Kuwait. And there were NEVER any peace terms SAVE THE CEASEFIRE THAT IRAQ violated. So the US was still acting under it's 1992 UN Madate. " LOL!!!!!!!!! to the 1000th power! Give me a break. Surely you jest! You don't? Look, BB, Iraq's attack on Kuwait was utterly repulsed and completely and decisively defeated by the USA, Britain, and allies in 1998, was it not? End of frikkin' story on that little episode. I don't give a good goddamn about some selfserving lawyers bullshit about the "1992 UN Mandate". That's no excuse at all for a unilaterally launched brand new all-out war of invasion and aggression by the most powerful country in the goddamn world on Iraq, which was nothing but a helpless debilitated punching bag in 2003, and no threat to any other sovereign nation in the world at that time. Your fucking 1992 UN Mandate excuse is a worthless stinking fig leaf tacked over a great power engaging in naked aggression for its own self-interested purposes. Just like Hitler. |
|
02 May 08 - 03:40 PM (#2331433) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce LH, I disagree. |
|
02 May 08 - 03:48 PM (#2331438) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk I made one typo there....it should say 1991 where I typed 1998. The Gulf War was in 1991, and it was a complete defeat of Iraq's military ambitions regarding Kuwait (or any other neighbour of Iraq). It rendered Iraq quite ineffective as a real threat to any its neighbours from that point on. The 2003 attack was completely unnecessary, completely unjustified, and based on completely false evidence of "WMDs", evidence which I am quite sure was known to BE false by the US administration at the time, because it was nothing more than a phony PR excuse to justify what they wanted to do anyway all along. Occupy Iraq. They didn't do it to bring democracy to Iraq. They did it to bring American control over Iraq and its resources, and to establish military bases there for further operations in the region, in my opinion. America never goes anywhere in the world to "bring democracy" and never has done so. America doesn't even frikkin' well HAVE a real democracy of its own. (It just has the superficial pretense of one run by an oligarchy, a rich elite who control both the Democratic and the Republican parties, and who make sure that both those parties serve the will of that elite without exception, once in office.) |
|
02 May 08 - 03:50 PM (#2331439) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce You are correct- that IS your opinion. Not mine. |
|
02 May 08 - 03:50 PM (#2331441) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk And, yes, of course, we disagree on this, BB. We disagree completely on it. I don't see any likelihood of that changing. You have faith in some people whom I have no faith whatsoever in, so you believe them and I don't. Naturally. We all tend to believe those whom we have faith in. |
|
02 May 08 - 03:52 PM (#2331443) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce And THAT I do agree with. |
|
02 May 08 - 04:05 PM (#2331451) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC I'd like to see the wording in the 1992 mandate that authorizes the US government to do to Iraq whatever it sees fit, whenever it sees fit, with no further authorization from the UN. I expect that such wording will not be produced, because it doesn't exist. |
|
02 May 08 - 04:10 PM (#2331455) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "that authorizes the US government to do to Iraq whatever it sees fit, whenever it sees fit", The ceasefire terms declared that the ceasefire REQUIRED Iraq to perform certain actions, which the UN has declared that Iraq did NOT. So, the authorization of force to put Iraq into compliance with the UN Ceasefire terms ( the authorization to remove Iraq from Kuwait) gave the US the power to enforce the UN resolutions. IMO, and under debate with arguments FROM BOTH SIDES. Making up lies and then asking where they are authorized is NOT a valid arguement. |
|
02 May 08 - 04:20 PM (#2331459) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq In 1991, the United States military, along with about 40 other countries as minor players, evicted Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army from Kuwait. The UN asked us to. From 1991 to March of 2003, the same military forces controlled all of Kuwait and 70% of Iraq. They set aside a notherrn safe zone to protect Kurds and a southern (larger) area to protect the Shiite majority. Still, Saddam spent the next 12 years thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and violationg the ceasefire agreement he had signed at Safwan. Please go back and read about that agreement. In 2003, the US Congress voited to evict Saddam Hussein which resulted in the coalition forces occupying the remaining 30% of Iraq. How anyone can call the "unprovoked" or "premptive" is beyond rational reason. The ouster of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was successful as was the ouster of the Hussein government in 2003. The current government is democratically elected, and has been told that we are there at their disgression. I they tell us it is time to leave, we will leave. The time to verbally attack the US, the US military or the politicians who made those decisions ended in March, 2003. Hard decisions had to be made and they were. It is long past time for this type of partisan sniping. The decisions were made for the right reasons and, once made, should be supported by all of us. |
|
02 May 08 - 04:22 PM (#2331464) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Please show me the language that authorizes the US to enforce compliance in the future without any further authorization from the UN. In fact, please show me the language that authorizes the US to do anything at all on it's own to Iraq. |
|
02 May 08 - 04:58 PM (#2331482) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>From: beardedbruce Date: 02 May 08 - 03:14 PM "My opinion is based on a logical look at the facts. Yours seems to be based on mind reading of McCain. You know, I was thinking that exact thought. I don't know what McCain was thinking: Why do you think you do? It is logical that if his actions are not what a CONDITIONAL statement would lead one to think he would do, then the CONDITIONS may have changed- I DON"T KNOW- WHy do you think YOU do???<< McCain's statement is what it is. He said he was against the tax cuts and said why. The reasons that he gave still exist. He has not repudiated the statement. He has not given the reasons that you credit him with. the reasons you gave came from your head and your head only. While the fact that McCain is running for President and has no chance of winning without the Republican base is plain and apparent for all to see. You can say that your opinion is valid until the cows come home. You have your right to your opinion. If your opinion of McCain is backed only by you own vague, unsupported feelings of what a fine man he is, while his own actions belie that opinion, then your opinion is not going to carry much weight with others. |
|
02 May 08 - 05:10 PM (#2331491) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce One can say that one's opinion is valid until the cows come home. one has thr right to one's opinion. If one's opinion of Obama is backed only by one's own vague, unsupported feelings of what a fine man he is, while his own actions belie that opinion, then one's opinion is not going to carry much weight with others. Is just as true. So? |
|
02 May 08 - 05:22 PM (#2331508) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC No one's going to provide the specific language from the 1992 mandate that authorizes the US to do what it did in 2003? I didn't think so. Because such language doesn't exist. |
|
02 May 08 - 05:23 PM (#2331510) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce In fact, CarolC, there is nothing that requires ANY UN approval. The Constitution says the President requires Congressional approval- WHICH HE GOT. End of discussion. |
|
02 May 08 - 05:28 PM (#2331516) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC You said this, beardedbruce... Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 02 May 08 - 01:17 PM Yet, Iraq DID attack Kuwait. And there were NEVER any peace terms SAVE THE CEASEFIRE THAT IRAQ violated. So the US was still acting under it's 1992 UN Madate. I'm asking you to provide some documentation to support this assertion. The reason you aren't doing so is because there is no documentation in support of this assertion. |
|
02 May 08 - 05:45 PM (#2331534) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce But if you want ONE reference that has the UN authorizing such , here it is... "all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq" 24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of: (a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment; (b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not otherwise covered above; (c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above; (d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above; 25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements, licences or any other arrangements; http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm |
|
02 May 08 - 05:55 PM (#2331546) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>From: beardedbruce Date: 02 May 08 - 05:10 PM One can say that one's opinion is valid until the cows come home. one has thr right to one's opinion. If one's opinion of Obama is backed only by one's own vague, unsupported feelings of what a fine man he is, while his own actions belie that opinion, then one's opinion is not going to carry much weight with others. Is just as true. So?<< Bruce, You are smarter than that. You know I have expressed no opinion similar to your support of McCain's apparent flip flopping based on your vague feeling that he would have a good reason even though he has given no such feeling. There are a lot of reasons that I think Obama will be a better President than McCain. None of them have much to do with how fine a man he is. I happen to agree with specific policies and proposals, most notably his pledge to actually go after Al Qaeda where they live. I would be happy to have the discussion be on those terms, but since McCain is running for Bush term three, I don't expect such a debate from A Republican. |
|
02 May 08 - 05:59 PM (#2331553) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce As Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate ( from his voting records) I would rather see McCain, who has DEMONSTRATED repeatedly that he can work with BOTH sides of the aisle. Actions rather than words. And it is YOUR statement that this is Bush's 3rd term - I do not see any indication that that is so. feel free to provide evidence beyond your own warped viewpoint. |
|
02 May 08 - 06:13 PM (#2331559) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq October 28, 2002 Disarming Iraq: The Lessons of UNSCOM by James Phillips "The Bush Administration is pressing the United Nations Security Council to get tough on Saddam Hussein's regime, which has violated 16 of its resolutions since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. The United States presented a resolution to the U.N. Security Council on October 23 that would require Iraq to disclose and surrender its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and long-range missiles, or face "serious consequences," including possible military action by U.N. member states. In particular, Washington is pushing the Security Council to put teeth behind Resolution 687--long violated by Baghdad--which required Iraq to dismantle its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers. To deflate international pressure for a new and tougher U.N. Security Council resolution and to deflect the United States from war, Iraq recently agreed to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, which it had blocked since 1998. But the crucial issue is to disarm Iraq, not merely to inspect it. Inspections can work effectively only if Iraq is cooperative. As the timeline in the appendix shows, Baghdad has been far from cooperative in the past, and there is little reason to presume that it will be more accommodating in the future. Although Iraq disingenuously announced on September 16 that it was pleased "to allow the return of United Nations inspectors to Iraq without conditions,"2 it has already tried to impose conditions on what the inspectors can do after they return. Indeed, the Iraqis already are backpedaling away from unconditional inspections. In the formal notification that Iraq sent to the United Nations later that week, it stipulated that inspectors must respect Iraq's dignity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and that the U.N. must apply the rules governing the elimination of Iraq's WMD programs to Israel as well.3 Iraq also proclaimed on September 21 that it would not abide by any new U.N. Security Council resolution that altered its prior agreements with the U.N.4 Acceding to this demand would result in a stillborn inspection system. It would allow Baghdad to retain the increasingly tight restrictions it had placed on U.N. inspectors through renegotiations, which watered down the effectiveness of the original inspection regime. Washington cannot permit Saddam Hussein to make a charade of Iraq's disarmament obligations, as he did from 1991 to 1998..." |
|
02 May 08 - 06:20 PM (#2331564) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Hitler got domestic approval to attack Poland too. He didn't get approval from the general community of nations around him. Same basic principle. The USA only quotes the will of the UN when it's specifically convenient for the USA and thwarts it, defies it or simply ignores it when it's not. They use the UN as a rubber stamp for what they want to do, when and if enough of the UN's members can be cajoled, bribed or badgered into it. When the UN agrees to something, they say, "Look! We have UN backing for this." When the UN disagrees, they ignore that fact and simply quote the last time in the past that the UN still was agreeing with them, and they blandly ignore the fact that they NO LONGER have the UN's support or agreement. The UN did not authorize or agree with the USA's 2003 attack on Iraq, it was made in defiance OF the will of the UN...while quoting earlier UN statements from prior to that time. How pathetically transparent. How utterly self-serving. How dishonest. Pretty well no one is fooled by this rank duplicity except some people in the USA, I guess... The UN Security Council withheld approval for the 2003 attack on Iraq. They did not authorize it. You can't change that. It's history. It's on the record. The USA still attacked Iraq anyway, regardless. That was an illegal act of aggression, just as illegal as Hitler's attacks on Poland, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Russia, and various other places during WWII. The only places Hitler ever had a legal basis for attacking were the UK and France, given that they had declared war on him first...and they did that over the illegal German attack on Poland. Remember? |
|
02 May 08 - 06:29 PM (#2331572) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Let me see if I have this right??? Bush invaded Iraq because he was a fraid that Iraq was going to unleash it's WDM's on US... I think that was the original retionale... There was talk of alumimun tibes and nuclear devices and nasty chemicals and, oh yeah, mushroom clouds over our heads... That was "Excuse Package #1" for invading Iraq... Does anyone diasgree so far??? If so, there's plenty of Google-able stuff from 2002 that should get everyone, at the very least, to this point... (For those of you who haven't gotten this far, or refuse to accept this basic bit of history, I am truly sorry for you... Really...) Okay, so Bush orders up the invasion and as LH has pointed out the superior US military trounced Iraq'a military in a matter of days... The 5 years ago yesterday, after trouncing Iraq's military We had the big "Mission Accomplished" celebration... (Everyone still on board???) Then the hunt for WMD's began and, low and behold, just as many anti-war folks had said, there weren't any??? Hmmmmmmmm??? Okay, given that the "Excuse Package #1" was proved to be wrong and Americans could again sleep well without the threat of waking up to a mushroom cloud, any thinking person, given the "Mission Accomplished" would have have thought, "Great... War is over... Lets go home... Nuthin' here too scarey" That isn't an opinion... That is just pure simple fact coupled with basic logic... So tell me again why were are still in Iraq??? I'm serious... B~ |
|
02 May 08 - 09:31 PM (#2331695) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Who is "they"? "They" is those whom the American invasion and its political aftermath has placed temporarily in power (so to speak) in Baghdad. The survival of those individuals depends on a continued American military presence to protect them. No wonder "they" don't want the US forces to leave! ;-) I guess I wouldn't either, if I was in their position. Similarly, Karzai's survival in Afghanistan depends on the continued presence of foreign troops from the USA, Canada, and the UK to protect his administration. Without them, he wouldn't last long. The Taliban and the tribal warloads would be fighting over the place and Karzai would soon be dead or have fled the country. Face it, these are puppet governments created by foreign intervention. They are doing what all puppet governments do, because their continued survival is dependent upon the puppet master who created them. That's the way it was in South Vietnam too. The American puppet master finally left, and not too long after that Saigon fell and the Vietnamese puppet show was over. The same thing will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan when the foreign armies leave. It won't be Communism that makes it happen. It won't be Al Queda that makes it happen. It will be plain old conventional nationalism that makes it happen, and when it does, the local people will be back in control of the situation (for better or for worse). |
|
03 May 08 - 12:35 AM (#2331780) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Nice try, beardedbruce. No cigar. This language only charges States to make sure they are not themselves contributing to the sale, supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such supply, etc. It does not in any way authorize the US to take any action against Iraq on its own. Take note of the part in bold... 24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, (etc.) |
|
03 May 08 - 06:59 AM (#2331887) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert The "delicate balance of power" was Saddam... All we are doing now is using large slices of our wealth occupying Iraq and paying off whichever side is currently pissed at US to not shoot at US... What kind of insanity is this??? How do you spell quagmire??? B~ |
|
03 May 08 - 09:10 AM (#2331935) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq UN resolution 661 was an embargo against Iraq (and occupied Kuwait) and banned the purchase of oil (and any other commoditiy). It also banned the supply of any material other than medical, food, or humatarian aid. From UN resolution 687 (3 APR 1991): 34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region |
|
03 May 08 - 09:32 AM (#2331940) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert The problems here isn't with UN resolutions... The problem is a president with psycological problems who thinks his purpose in life is to one-up his daddy... There were diplomatic ways to deal with Saddam that Bush bypassed on his way to impress papa... B~ |
|
03 May 08 - 01:11 PM (#2332065) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Ok, pdq. Now show me the language that specifies what steps will be taken, by whom, and when. |
|
03 May 08 - 01:13 PM (#2332067) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert hunnert... |
|
03 May 08 - 01:18 PM (#2332070) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC By the way, pdq, that quote you posted is saying that the UN "Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required", not "the UN decides to remain seized of the matter and the US is authorized to take such further steps as may be required". With that language, the UN is saying what it will do. It does not authorize any individual States to do anything at all. |
|
03 May 08 - 01:56 PM (#2332101) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk The USA went through intense diplomatic efforts, guys, in the last few days before their attack on Iraq in 2003 to get the UN to endorse such military action. They never got that endorsement. The UN clearly did not feel that it was a good idea to launch that war. You can't change that or fudge it by referring to wording in much earlier UN resolutions and twisting them around to try to prove that the UN endorsed an invasion which they did not endorse! The fact that the USA failed to get the UN to endorse the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was embarrassing for the Bush administration...no doubt quite frustrating for them...but it did not stop them from doing what they had already decided to do anyway. Of course not. They don't give a tinker's damn about the UN or about international law or anything else like that, and to imagine that they ever did would be naivete of the highest degree. |
|
03 May 08 - 03:40 PM (#2332185) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Not to me4ntion that Dr. Blix went before the UN proir to Bush's orderes to invade and told the UN that the Iraqis were "cooperating" and letting the inspectors inspect whereever they wanted??? But lets not let those little details derail mad-man Bush in his quest to show up his father... |
|
04 May 08 - 12:53 PM (#2332680) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus Essentially BB is right the President of the United States of America did not required UN approval for any action that he may decide to take in order to defend and protect the people and interests of the United States Of America he needs approval of Congress which he obtained. |
|
04 May 08 - 01:12 PM (#2332693) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Funny I thought that Bruce was saying that the justification was the terms of peace for gulf war I. |
|
04 May 08 - 01:45 PM (#2332703) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Little Hawk Well, of course the President of the United States of America does not require UN approval for any action that he may decide to take! ;-) Nor does the leader of any other country. Countries take whatever action they decide to, because they are sovereign entities, and it's their decision. Then they meet the consequences, whatever those may be... Mussolini didn't require approval of the League of Nations to attack Ethiopia either. Hitler didn't require anyone's approval to invade Poland or Russia. Saddam Hussein didn't require anyone's approval to attack Kuwait (Although he did try to get a green light from Washington first, so he obviously was concerned somewhat about it...and he appeared to get just that very approval from April Glaspie, the American ambassador! She told him in so many words that the USA was not concerned about inter-Arab quarrels. Hmmmm. Interesting, isn't it?) George Bush did not require the approval of the UN in 2003 to attack Iraq. Duh! LET'S STATE THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS, SHALL WE? ;-) But......he sure would have liked the UN's approval to do so, wouldn't he? And he tried like hell to get it, didn't he? That was an important part of the PR game. There's nothing that feels nicer than being able to tell your deluded public, who were silly enough to imagine that the debilitated state of Iraq in 2003 was a threat to the USA, that "we have the approval of the UN to attack Iraq". That's like tying a big red bow around the nicely wrapped package of lies you are presenting them. It's the icing on the cake. He didn't get it. Too bad. "any action that he may decide to take in order to defend and protect the people and interests of the United States Of America" That's funny! And it's sad. By no stretch of the imagination was Iraq a threat to the people and interests of the USA. Not in 2003, not ever. They had no such capability. Iraq was not capable of threatening the people and interests of the USA...unless you mean by their decision to start pegging their oil sales to Euro instead of the US dollar. And if they did so decide, well, that was their business, not America's. They own their own oil and can decide what to do with it. The real truth, then and now, was that the USA is a real and ongoing threat to the people and interests of Iraq. The USA planned to attack Iraq and did so. The USA is the one with the WMDs. The USA is the one that does to others exactly what it accuses others of doing...or planning to do to the USA. It's the Nazi technique, right down the line. Always accuse the other guy of being THE dire threat in the world to you when it is in truth you who are THE dire threat to him, and then do to him what you said he was planning to do to you. The big, giant lie. And your people will believe it. After all, the Germans did. |
|
04 May 08 - 01:53 PM (#2332708) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC People keep using the UN as an excuse for the US attack on Iraq (as beardedbruce did in this thread, and Teribus has done in other threads) and only fall back on "the president didn't need UN approval in order to attack" line after the UN line of argument has been thoroughly debunked, as we can see in this thread and numerous other threads. I wonder why this is. If the argument that the president didn't need UN approval is so solid, why do people like Teribus and beardedbruce only use it as their fall-back argument? |
|
04 May 08 - 03:53 PM (#2332784) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq Is PBS a good enough source for you, CarloC? THE 1991 GULF WAR During the early morning hours of January 17, 1991, an American-led strike began in the skies over Baghdad that damaged Iraqi air bases, missile sites and chemical and nuclear plants. Hundreds of aircraft from the U.S., Britain and other allies participated in the massive raid on the Iraqi capital. The strike represented the moment that the allies' "Operation Desert Shield" — aimed at protecting other nations from Iraq's alleged aggression — became "Operation Desert Storm", a war with the specific goal of freeing the small emirate of Kuwait from Iraqi forces. The conflict that led to war had intensified in July 1990, when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein accused the Persian Gulf states Kuwait and United Arab Emirates of flooding the oil market and costing Iraq billions in lost revenue. On July 31, envoys from Iraq and Kuwait met to discuss oil and other contentious issues, but talks broke down just a day later. Iraq invaded Kuwait, breaking through the country's borders in a pre-dawn raid and quickly seizing control. In an unanimous vote, the United Nations Security Council — including the U.S. — condemned Iraq's incursion and ordered Saddam to pull his troops out of Kuwait. When the Iraqi leader refused to comply, the U.S., Britain and their allies began to mass troops in nearby Saudi Arabia. By December, the U.N. Security Council had approved a measure authorizing use of "all necessary means" to pry Iraq from Kuwait if Saddam refused to withdraw his troops by Jan. 15, 1991. When the deadline passed with no Iraqi withdrawal, U.S. President George H.W. Bush had a congressional war resolution in hand and hundreds of thousands of troops prepared for war. During the early days of the war, U.S. and allied forces focused on neutralizing Iraqi Scud missile sites, but despite this Iraq struck targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia, both U.S. allies. By Jan. 30, Allied Commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said the U.S.-led force had control of the skies over Iraq and Kuwait. Air battles with Iraqi jets continued in succeeding days. On February 10, 1991, Saddam addressed the Iraqi people, promising victory and applauding them for "steadfastness, faith and light" in battling the allied "warplanes of shame." Just five days later, Saddam offered to withdraw from Kuwait, but only under certain conditions, including an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and an allied payment of Iraq's rebuilding costs. President Bush rejected the offer, calling it a "cruel hoax." President Bush also rejected a Soviet-brokered peace plan and, on Feb. 22, announced a next-day deadline for Iraq to retreat from Kuwait and avoid a ground war. Saddam's forces remained in place, and had by that point set fire to one-sixth of Kuwait's 950 oil wells, according to press reports. The U.S.-led ground assault on the Iraqi military began in the early morning hours of Feb. 24, with President Bush telling Americans in a televised address he had authorized General Schwarzkopf to use "all forces available, including ground forces, to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait." Allied forces reached the capital, Kuwait City, the following day. By Feb. 26, Brigadier General Richard Neal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia told "USA Today" that Iraqi forces were "in full retreat." Saddam said his forces were leaving Kuwait in accordance with the Soviet-backed peace plan. On Feb. 27, the Kuwaiti flag was again raised over Kuwait City. In the wake of the U.S.-Iraq conflict, tensions continued for the next decade. Periodic sparring over military issues, such as U.S. enforcement of U.N.-mandated "no-fly" zones over Iraq's northern and southern regions, have led to several skirmishes, such "Operation Desert Fox" in late 1998. In 2002, with another President George Bush in the White House expressing concern about Iraq's military strength and Iraq still bristling from harsh U.N. economic sanctions, questions remain about whether another U.S.-Iraq conflict looms on the horizon. -- By Greg Barber, Online NewsHour |
|
04 May 08 - 04:52 PM (#2332826) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Amos PDQ: Are you asserting that the enforcement of no-fly zones was the REAL reason President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq? How disingenuous of you!! A |
|
04 May 08 - 05:22 PM (#2332850) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert What a joke... Here the US was under this so-called security threat from Saddam so Bush's PR team cranked out it's firsy intsllment of the "sales job" in August, 2002 only to have to retreat because it wasn't sticking and the PR folks decided to wait until after labor day when school was back in and the American people would be more apt to buy the war... That's the way it went down and if that's the case then the "45 days" lie about Iraq being able to attack US essentially has to be a known lie at the time or Bush would have hit Iraq in August... There was just way too much fishy stuff going on at the time... As for Bush's decision to "defend America against Saddam" I am almost speechless to here people here still trying to get that dog to hunt... Not only ain't that dog gonna hunt but that dog has been dead for about 5 years now... You folks who keep making these arguments justifying the invasion probably feel you havi no other choice... You are like a gambler who has a pair of deuces and you've got everythign plus the farm bet and now there is no turning back... I mean, no dis intended, but don't you folks even wonder just how "ignore"ant you sound here... You ignore the bulk of evidence that Bush got US into a mess on false pretenses... You ignore the facts... You ignore Blix... You now even ignore your own justifications which turned out false... You move the goal posts at will and there is nothing short of Bush sayin' "Hey, I messed up" that will turn you around??? Man, it must suck to be ya'all... B~ |
|
04 May 08 - 05:28 PM (#2332857) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC No it's not good enough for me, pdq. I don't trust PBS. Having said that, your copy-paste is in reference to 1991, not 2003. In 2003, the UN specified that all member nations were to honor the sovereignty and borders of Iraq, and to not interfere with the inspectors doing their job. |
|
04 May 08 - 05:37 PM (#2332867) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq I have been talking about 1991 all along. If people want to think seriously about the Iraq problems, they can get all the UN resolutions in pdf form from several sources including Wikipedia and the UN site. Anyone who thinks we were not asked by the world community to evict Saddam's boys from Kuwait in 1991 is simply wrong. The UN Security Council gave unanimous approval as did the US Congress. We removed the worst mass murderer since Stalin and I, for one, am glad we did. |
|
04 May 08 - 05:39 PM (#2332869) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC You may have been talking about 1991, but beardedbruce has been using the UN to try to justify our invasion of Iraq in 2003, and that is what I have been responding to in this thread. |
|
04 May 08 - 05:44 PM (#2332873) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies The main issue is not whether the UN had authority to attack Iraq, but whether it ever delegated this authority to the US. The UN can choose to authorize another party to use force, as it did in the Korean War--or it can choose not to authorize another party to do so. It is the burden of Teribus, BB, pdq, et al. to give the exact quote whereby the UN authorized the US to attack Iraq in March 2003. So far, despite their mighty labors--and very impressive pillaging of the local lake stocked with red herring it is-- they have brought forth precisely--zero--quotes doing this. I suppose the middle initial of all 3--Teribus, pdq, and BB --is S. For Sisyphus. But we're still waiting patiently for the above-cited quote. Good luck. |
|
04 May 08 - 05:47 PM (#2332875) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq Well, CarolC, you were discussing UN resolution 661 which predates the 1991 Gulf War. Just for the record, will you tell us whether or not the US was asked to evict Hussein from Kuwait in 1991? Do you personalyl support our efforts to do that? Was leaving Hussein in power a correct choice? |
|
04 May 08 - 05:54 PM (#2332877) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies Gee pdq--you must be taking lessons from Rig on the fine art of dodging questions. Where's the quote I was asking for--authorization by the UN for the US to attack Iraq in 2003? Though I have to admit that since no Bush apologist has managed to come up with one, despite being to do so for years, the portents are not good for your doing it either. But you must have a factory ship on Red Herring Lake--you're all amazingly efficient in providing that delectable fish. |
|
04 May 08 - 05:59 PM (#2332881) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus Little Hawk - 04 May 08 - 01:45 PM - our student of matters historical - for that read "war gamer" "Well, of course the President of the United States of America does not require UN approval for any action that he may decide to take! ;-) Nor does the leader of any other country. Countries take whatever action they decide to, because they are sovereign entities, and it's their decision. Then they meet the consequences, whatever those may be..." Absolutely correct. "Mussolini didn't require approval of the League of Nations to attack Ethiopia either." Totally irrelevant. "Hitler didn't require anyone's approval to invade Poland or Russia." Also totally irrelevant. "Saddam Hussein didn't require anyone's approval to attack Kuwait (Although he did try to get a green light from Washington first, so he obviously was concerned somewhat about it...and he appeared to get just that very approval from April Glaspie, the American ambassador! She told him in so many words that the USA was not concerned about inter-Arab quarrels. Hmmmm. Interesting, isn't it?)" This is one of the looney lefts myths, misrepresentations and half-truths. If our "student of history" wants to get into the details of this, it can be clearly demonstrated exactly what the official US position was with regards to Kuwait. "George Bush did not require the approval of the UN in 2003 to attack Iraq. Duh! LET'S STATE THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS, SHALL WE? ;-) But......he sure would have liked the UN's approval to do so, wouldn't he? And he tried like hell to get it, didn't he?" If you believe what you have written why on earth do you and those of like mind keep wittering on about UN approval and an "illegal war". From what you have said above there is no such animal. "That was an important part of the PR game. There's nothing that feels nicer than being able to tell your deluded public, who were silly enough to imagine that the debilitated state of Iraq in 2003 was a threat to the USA, that "we have the approval of the UN to attack Iraq". That's like tying a big red bow around the nicely wrapped package of lies you are presenting them. It's the icing on the cake. He didn't get it. Too bad." Totally irrelevant bullshit, he didn't need it (UN approval) get over it. He did the right thing at the time on the best advice available at that time. And guess what? the chips would have fallen exactly the same way irrespective of who had been in the "White House" in 2001, because the advice would have remained the same. "any action that he may decide to take in order to defend and protect the people and interests of the United States Of America" - Teribus "That's funny! And it's sad. By no stretch of the imagination was Iraq a threat to the people and interests of the USA." Really? Then best take that up with those who identified exactly what sort of threat Iraq posed in 1998 Little Hawk. Take it up with them, please note you will not find yourself questioning anyone who was appointed by GWB - it was their advice that remained constant to the incoming President and his Administration. "Not in 2003, not ever. They had no such capability. Iraq was not capable of threatening the people and interests of the USA...unless you mean by their decision to start pegging their oil sales to Euro instead of the US dollar. And if they did so decide, well, that was their business, not America's. They own their own oil and can decide what to do with it." 2003 Little Hawk? "their own oil and can decide what to do with it."?? Student of History has obviously forgotten about the UN "Oil for Food" thing?? "The real truth," Little Hawk you would not know the real truth if it jumped up and bit you. |
|
04 May 08 - 06:08 PM (#2332887) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies Teribus-- Are you also taking lessons from Rig on the fine art of dodging questions? Too bad you're not American--GWB might have a place for you in the wreckage of his "administration". Now: where is that quote by the UN which authorized the US to use force against Iraq in March 2003? |
|
04 May 08 - 06:15 PM (#2332891) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC pdq, why are you trying to draw me into a question that I have said I was not addressing in this thread? |
|
04 May 08 - 06:24 PM (#2332899) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus Ron, according to Little Hawk they (The USA) needed no authorisation from the UN, so why should there be a quote from the UN in 2003 authorising anything? The UN is not really in the business of authorising things is it Ron? Where was the UN directive authorising any corrective action for Rwanda? Bosnia? Kosovo? There has been none relating to the situation in Darfur? or in Zimbabwe?. Stop waving the UN like some bloody flag Ron, it is nothing other than a total waste of space and an irrelevant talking shop. Should it ever get it's collect act together and do something, THEN and only THEN, will it be worth paying any heed to at all. But I'll give you a bit of advice - Don't hold your breath, 'cos it ain't goin' to happen, far too many little pigs with their noses firmly wedged in the trough and things suit them fine just they way they are. |
|
04 May 08 - 06:38 PM (#2332906) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq CarolC, I never thought of you as a coward before but that last post proves it to be the case. We have soldiers risking their lives and you cannot give the slightest support? To do so risks nothing. Bye. |
|
04 May 08 - 06:40 PM (#2332908) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Ed T 1) If another front was opened, just how would it be maintained? Does the USA have enough ectra troops for a new front? 2) It would likely turn Pakastani's against the USA, and could be viewed as agression by even those opposed to terriorism. Other Muslim countries may see this unfavourably. 3) It could likely undermine the new coalition government. 4) With current uncertainity as to who really governs, who knows what chaos could result internally President Musharraf mostly controls the military, and seems to have a shakey relationship with the Prime Minister and the current government. In the past, he has warned the USA not to launch military actions in Pakistan. Would he use any USA military action as an excuse to re-establish his control of the government and to undermine the skakey democracy? 5) It could result in a total loss of Pakastan as an ally against Terriorism and eventually cause greater problems. 6) Drones, bombs cause colateral damage and potentially innocent citizen deaths. Special Forces could have real difficulty in a close-knit troibal area like this. |
|
04 May 08 - 08:25 PM (#2332950) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC What's cowardice got to do with anything, pdq? I don't currently have an opinion on whether or not the US was asked to do what it did in 1991. |
|
04 May 08 - 08:29 PM (#2332953) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Same ol' loosing argument by T & Co. Face it, T, you were wrong then and you are wrong now... Bush made this decision the day that his daddy's Supreme Court called off the Florida recount... Former Republican Se3ctretary of Treasury said that all that Bush wanted to do from "Day One"... At some point in time- maybe when yer 90- you will quit lieing to yourself... As for the rest of us??? We figured it out back in '02... B;~) |
|
04 May 08 - 08:31 PM (#2332955) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC BTW, on the subject of leaving Saddam in power, my opinion is that we shouldn't have helped install him in the first place, and we shouldn't have helped prop him up. Since we were responsible for all of that, it is clear that we could not be trusted to remove him in such a way that would not cause more harm than good. And that has proven to be the case. We were not the ones to do that job. We had too many secondary agendas to be able do the job conscientiously and well. |
|
04 May 08 - 10:35 PM (#2333019) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies So sorry, Teribus, that you don't like it pointed out that there was no authorization by the UN for the US to use force against Iraq in 2003. Since there was no such authorization, would you be good enough to state clearly that you realize such authorization did not exist? That would be a good start in injecting some sense into this discussion. Now was there such authorization in 2003 or not? Yes or no will do. No fish from Red Herring Lake, please. Simple question, simple answer. |
|
04 May 08 - 11:03 PM (#2333035) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies pdq-- Could you please give me--or anybody-- a reason to open a PM from you titled "you are still a complete baffoon" (sic). You may as well save your precious time, and wear and tear on your fingers--I'm not about to open a missive from you along those lines. I certainly wouldn't want to bruise your tender ego, so please take this, as it's meant, in the kindest way. But in fact I slightly suspect that any PM from you would not be worth my time. It's interesting that you are so bankrupt of ideas--and perhaps, based on past history, a bit lacking in guts--that you have no actual evidence to share on the specific issue: Did the UN give the US authorization to attack Iraq in 2003 or not? I'm terribly sorry it seems to be an embarrassing question for you to deal with, or perhaps too complex for you. I'll try to make the next question a bit simpler. All it really requires, however, is a simple yes or no. It's really too bad giving such an answer--either one-- seems to be such a trauma for you. |
|
05 May 08 - 01:23 AM (#2333076) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus "you don't like it pointed out that there was no authorization by the UN for the US to use force against Iraq in 2003." - Ron Davies to me. "Did the UN give the US authorization to attack Iraq in 2003 or not?" - Ron Davies to pdq Now Ron states that his simple question deserves a simple answer. OK Ron what does your simple question actually ask? 1) Was there any UN authorisation for the US attack on Iraq in 2003? OR 2) In 2003 did the UN authorise the US to attack Iraq? Which is it Ron? Your, "Now was there such authorization in 2003 or not?" would seem to favour 2) above, and in that you are correct, the authorisation to "do whatever is necessary" predates 2003, but for the sake of good order was included by reference in the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which was passed in 2002. I believe that authorisation did exist because of the broken Safwan cease-fire agreement. I also realise that UN authorisation was not required, nor will it ever be required by any country in the decision making process when that country is faced with what is perceived as being a clear external threat, to itself, its allies or to its national interests. You are not going to convince me of anything different, nor I you, so I will gladly accept that on this issue we agree to differ. |
|
05 May 08 - 01:32 AM (#2333083) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC I believe that authorisation did exist because of the broken Safwan cease-fire agreement. Please show the wording in the Safwan cease-fire agreement that you believe authorizes the US to do what it did in Iraq in 2003. |
|
05 May 08 - 01:36 AM (#2333086) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC but for the sake of good order was included by reference in the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which was passed in 2002. Resolution 1441 instructs all member nations to honor the borders and sovereignty of Iraq, and to not interfere with the inspectors' ability to do their job. In other words, it says exactly the opposite of what you are saying it said. |
|
05 May 08 - 05:31 AM (#2333163) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq CarolC, With all due respect, if you cannot admit that the United Nations and its member states asked the US to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, then there is little to be accomplished in talking to you about the Iraq war. Simple fact: all the military conflict in Iraq has stemmed from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The Safwan surrender agreement would not exist if the military conflict it stopped (temporarily and conditionally) did not exist. |
|
05 May 08 - 07:42 AM (#2333201) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Yes, "there is little to be accomplished in talking to (you) about the Iraq war", if the pro-war faction is going to use the Gulf War resolution as a blank check for and nation to unilaterially decide to invade and occupy Iraq... That clearly was not the intent and it using it a justification is a massive legalistic stretch... (But, Bobert, we are talking Bush & Co. here... Massive leagalistic stretches is their M.O....) Like I said, this is legalezee mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to to with the realities on the ground in current Iraq... It's also some very creative revisioonism... If the Safwan agreement was Bush's legal justificatioon then why would he send Powelll back to the UN to try to hammer out some current resolution justifying the invasion... And why would he hammer a resolution thru a post 9/11 beat-down Congress??? There seems to be a synapse-void here and a complete disonnect of logic... (That's why it's in the BS section, Bobz...) Well, okay.... Good place for it... B~ |
|
05 May 08 - 09:07 AM (#2333238) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>Simple fact: all the military conflict in Iraq has stemmed from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.<< Really?? Including the 11 year war with Iran and the hundred year battle for Kurdish independence? |
|
05 May 08 - 11:01 AM (#2333273) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC With all due respect, if you cannot admit that the United Nations and its member states asked the US to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, then there is little to be accomplished in talking to you about the Iraq war. Simple fact: all the military conflict in Iraq has stemmed from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The Safwan surrender agreement would not exist if the military conflict it stopped (temporarily and conditionally) did not exist. Please show me the language in the Safwan agreement that authorizes the US to do what it did to Iraq in 2003. |
|
05 May 08 - 11:02 AM (#2333276) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC P.S. I expect that you won't be able to do that, pdq. |
|
05 May 08 - 11:10 AM (#2333279) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq Well, CarolC, You can't get to the 2003 decisions if you ignore the 1990 invasion of Kuwait or refuse to accept the 1991 authorizations of the UN and the US congress to evict Saddam's forces. Your choice to stop the logical discussion there, not mine. |
|
05 May 08 - 11:30 AM (#2333297) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC You can't support your claim that any future action on the part of the US emerged out of the Safwan agreement unless you can produce the specific language in the Safwan agreement that applies to such actions, pdq. |
|
05 May 08 - 12:32 PM (#2333357) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert Don't Bogart that joint, pdq, passs it over to me so... ...I can have such a distorted view of history... If the Safwan Agreement was the green light for the invasion then why did Bush go back to the UN and why did Bush go to a brow-beat post 9/11 Congress to get resolutions to invade Iraq if he allready had authority??? You, my friend, have missed much of the real story... I guess you also believe that Obama has stated he will bomb Pakistan if he is elected??? That's what John McCain says... Problem is that the US is allready using sergical strikes in Pakistan aginst targets when it has good intellegence... So, if one can wrap their minds around what Obama says in saying he too would order such strikes then it is Obama who is in line with current policy??? Hmmmmmmm??? So where does that leave John McCain??? That is a very good question and one that he has not yet had to answer... But the day will come and McCain will say the same thing that Obama has allready said and then the subsequent question will obviously be: "Well then, Senator, why did you criticize Obama for a policy that you also support???" Hmmmmmmmm??? See how it's gonna work, pdq??? Elementary, Watson... B~ |
|
05 May 08 - 12:37 PM (#2333364) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: beardedbruce "So, if one can wrap their minds around what Obama says in saying he too would order such strikes then it is Obama who is in line with current policy???" EXACTLY! Obama has stated that he will continuet the present Bush administration in Pakestan- So it looks like another "3rd term" Bush administration to me, IF Obama is the winner. And I both compliment him on his wisdom and support that effort. |
|
05 May 08 - 12:42 PM (#2333369) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Personally, I don't like this part of Obama's foreign policy. But of the remaining candidates, there is so much more that I do support in Obama's platform and history than the other two, that felt that a vote for him would not be wasted. |
|
05 May 08 - 12:45 PM (#2333371) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert He hasn't said that at all, BB... He has said he will get the heck outta Iraq... That isn't "EXACTLY!" following Bush's policis in the region... He will use some of those troops to bolster the troops that are in Pakistan while the rest will be coming home... That is Obama's position and it is a very different view that that of Bush... B~ |
|
05 May 08 - 12:46 PM (#2333372) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: pdq I think somebody means "pass me the joint Chiefs of Staff", since they are the center of all US military decisions. If elected president, Obama will follow the best plan we have, crafted by the DOD, CIA, State Department, et al. If elected president, Hillary will follow the best plan we have, crafted by the DOD, CIA, State Department, et al. If elected president, McCain will follow the best plan we have, crafted by the DOD, CIA, State Department, et al. Perhaps it is time to find another issue? |
|
05 May 08 - 12:55 PM (#2333382) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus "If the Safwan Agreement was the green light for the invasion then why did Bush go back to the UN and why did Bush go to a brow-beat post 9/11 Congress to get resolutions to invade Iraq if he allready had authority???" - Bobert OK Bobert I will repeat once more for your benefit what the realities of the situation are/were, so that you do not have to repeat such stupid questions. The President of the United States of America, charged as he is with being responsible for looking after the security, safety and interests of the United States of America does not need a "green light" from anyone at the UN to act in order discharge his responsibilities. He does however require the approval of Congress - Which by the way he got Bobert, unless that bit had skipped your notice, hence all that hogwash about "illegal" wars is exactly that hogwash. |
|
05 May 08 - 01:06 PM (#2333387) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Amos Except that the approval was based on intentionally falsified information, in order to fulfill a pre-fabricated decision based on factors he has not been forthcoming about. A |
|
05 May 08 - 05:04 PM (#2333557) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Bobert You are correct, GUEST... No "green light" is required from the UN... The invader, however, may be in violation of internatuional law but seein' as the US didn't sign onto the World Court for fear it might get hauled up before it there is no way that anyone can enforce international laws against the US short of beating US in a war... The the victors go the spoils... One of the spoils that the US enjoys (bad word) is that they are not held accountable by anyone other then the US... B~ |
|
05 May 08 - 10:31 PM (#2333773) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Ron Davies Gee, Teribus, still having problems giving us the exact quote-- from the Safwan agreement, since that's your chosen vehicle--which authorized the US in 2003 to attack Iraq on behalf of the UN? Poor boy. I wonder if your problem might have something to do with the fact that the quote does not exist. And don't bother to give us your song and dance about the responsibility of the US president to defend the country. That's not the issue yet--we'll get to whether that justified his action later. Right now the question is a very narrow one: did the US have authorization--BY THE UN-- (hate to shout, but your deafness is getting worse)--to attack Iraq in 2003? And of course the exact language. And pdq--you don't read very carefully. Looks like I'll have to be a little more direct. Sorry, I make it a rule not to read PM's from semiliterates. And it really won't do you much good to send me a third one. You haven't really given me much incentive to change my rule. Perhaps if you have so much time to waste, you could actually do some research and find the elusive language by the UN authorizing the US to attack Iraq in 2003. Thanks so much. And any other Bush apologist is welcome to join in the fun. |
|
05 May 08 - 11:00 PM (#2333787) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC This is why I don't like to try to resolve issues through PMs. Some people don't understand the word "private". |
|
06 May 08 - 12:59 AM (#2333821) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus I know that it is rather difficult for you Ron, but I believe you should read through the back-ground which might cure your fixation on single points. For someone who by his own admission does not read source material and who relies on others to tell him what to think via sound-bytes, the following may appear as a bit of a chore. I would advise you to start at UN Security Council Resolution 660 and work forwards from that to UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Look up what a "Cease-Fire" Agreement means and determine whether or not Iraq did comply with the conditions it agreed to at Safwan as laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. |
|
06 May 08 - 01:15 AM (#2333824) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC I just read UN Resolution 660 and 687, and I've read 1441. There is nothing in any of those resolutions that authorizes the US to anything whatever to Iraq. There is, however, language in 687 and 1441 that instructs the US to honor its commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq. In other words, those resolutions say exactly the opposite of what you are saying they say. |
|
06 May 08 - 01:34 AM (#2333826) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus OK, I'll now direct you to UN Security Council Resolution 678 I believe in that there is in Para2 the phrase "all means necessary" My advice to Ron was to read through all UNSC Resolutions starting from 660 and running through to 1441. Had Germany or Japan failed to comply with the "Cease-Fire" terms agreed prior to their unconditional surrender hostilities would have resumed. If North Korea violates the "Cease-Fire" agreement reached at the end of the Korean War hostilities would be resumed. Now what makes Safwan so much different? |
|
06 May 08 - 02:03 AM (#2333829) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Instructions in more recent resolutions replace instructions in older resolutions, Teribus. The resolutions that instruct the US to honor its commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq are more recent than the one that authorized member nations to use all means necessary (etc.). Therefore, the instruction to the US to honor its commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq is the one that the US was obligated to obey. This means that not only did the US not have authorization from the UN to do what it did to Iraq in 2003, but it means that the US had explicit instructions from the UN to not do what it did to Iraq in 2003. |
|
06 May 08 - 02:04 AM (#2333830) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC By the way, please post the text of the Safwan agreement so we can see just exactly what it is that Iraq agreed to in that agreement. |
|
06 May 08 - 11:58 AM (#2334103) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Wolfgang Instructions in more recent resolutions replace instructions in older resolutions, Teribus. The resolutions that instruct the US to honor its commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq are more recent than the one that authorized member nations to use all means necessary (etc.). (Carol) That's a bit of misinformation. Nearly all resolution regarding Iraq recall the old resolutions explicitly Let's go to UNSCR 687 Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII [the one about using armed force] of the Charter, 1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below... Let's go to 1441. It starts Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661(1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, ... Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area... New resolutions quite often do not replace old resolutions. Wolfgang |
|
06 May 08 - 01:55 PM (#2334185) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC New instructions replace the old instructions if they conflict, Wolfgang. I'm sure even you can understand that. |
|
06 May 08 - 02:20 PM (#2334201) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Teribus "New instructions replace the old instructions if they conflict, Wolfgang. I'm sure even you can understand that." - CarolC Well not so in the case of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 CarolC "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..." - Wording UN Security Council Resolution 1441. If the substance of any "New" UNSC Resolution differed from any previous Resolution relating to the same subject it would be clearly stated that the previous resolution was void. |
|
06 May 08 - 02:41 PM (#2334226) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC What you quoted is not an instruction, Teribus. It says "recalling". It's a summarization of the situation up until that date. "Recalling" indicates something that happened in the past. The following are the instructions to the member States. They indicate what is to happen from the date of the resolution, forward... "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States... ...10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;" Invading and occupying Iraq (violating its sovereignty and territorial integrity) and, in the process, kicking the inspectors out, is a violation of these instructions. |
|
07 May 08 - 09:42 AM (#2334854) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: Wolfgang Carol, you just don't seem to know that the technical meaning of "recalling" in that context cannot be inferred from your everyday use of that term. Wolfgang |
|
07 May 08 - 12:01 PM (#2334972) Subject: RE: BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan! From: CarolC Ok, Wolfgang, you tell me what it means. |