How Canadians view our military

[M.Dancer]

What Waldo wants, where his words his and proofs fail, is a legal proof.

To put it simply:

expressum facit cessare taciturn

With that, the argument would be decided in his favour.

[waldo]

By the way, Bush_Cheney2004… don’t you respect Dancer’s dance around the “contract authority” of 1441 providing the force authorization? C'mon guys... which is it, 678 or 1441? Since 678, at least, has the appropriate UN diplomatic phrasing used to convey force authorization, I guess this must be the final nail in Dancer's dance claiming 1441 provided the force authorization. Right Dancer?

You should know by now that I don't care about UN resolution masturbation by you or anyone else

Well, if you don’t care, if you – really - don’t care about UN Resolutions… then why did you offer the following gem attempting to legitimize (cough, cough) the 2003 Iraq invasion with a 1990 Gulf War era UN resolution (678)?

He never will.....Resolutions 678 & 1441 guarantees that. That's how Clinton and Blair could attack Iraq with impunity...and legally. Accordingly, so could Bush.

And why do you seek further solace, if you don’t care, if you – really – don’t care about UN Resolutions…with another reference to post 2003 Iraq invasion UN resolutions presuming to legitimize the actual 2003 invasion of Iraq?

The UN has legitmized the invasion with post invasion (and yet more) resolutions, as if that mattered in the least.

It appears you do care… you really do care… about UN resolution masturbation – it appears you like it very much – watch out you don’t go blind!

But really, c’mon… this is at least the second time you’ve parroted the line about post 2003 Iraq invasion UN resolutions presuming to legitimize the actual 2003 invasion of Iraq. The UN is quite clear in this regard – that post 2003 Iraq invasion resolutions associate to the position of U.S./UK occupying forces… and your country’s more than willing acceptance to the status of an “occupying force” and all the responsibilities that ensue from that acceptance. You see, it’s a very precise distinction being made… no post 2003 Iraq invasion UN resolutions act to legitimize the actual 2003 Iraq invasion. Let’s not see you attempt to parrot that line again, ok?

I only care about Saddam getting screwed for real....and he was...for 12 years. You can watch from the UN peanut gallery like all the rest and cry "foul"....or just cry.

Well, of course, when the fix is in – when the fix is really in… all the UN can actually do is stand by and watch the oppressive vigilantes do their best (rather, their worst). And, of course, the UN gets branded as “ineffective” when subject to under-handed dealings – when subject to “the fix”. Thankfully, leaks occur… details flow… we begin to gain a true sense of the real underpinnings of the illegal Iraq war… and the fix that truly was in:

Downing Street Memo – July 2002:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

.

.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation.

The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult

Bush – Blair Memo – January 2003:

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that

he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons

, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

.

.

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair,

there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected

."

As for the real lack of legitimacy to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan was very precise when he stated the 2003 invasion of Iraq lacked the authority of any of the Chapter 7 articles (39, 41, 42, 51) within the UN Charter… and stated, accordingly, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Kofi Who?

So say the “fixers”… and their toadies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, if you don’t care, if you – really - don’t care about UN Resolutions… then why did you offer the following gem attempting to legitimize (cough, cough) the 2003 Iraq invasion with a 1990 Gulf War era UN resolution (678)?

Don't confuse enjoying a game of Rope-A-Dope with you and caring about episodes in the UN soap opera. By your own admission, the "fix was in", so any whining about legality is not only moot....but double moot.

And why do you seek further solace, if you don’t care, if you – really – don’t care about UN Resolutions…with another reference to post 2003 Iraq invasion UN resolutions presuming to legitimize the actual 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Because it needed a book end to complete the set.

It appears you do care… you really do care… about UN resolution masturbation – it appears you like it very much – watch out you don’t go blind!

If you say so...as an expert on such matters!

Let’s not see you attempt to parrot that line again, ok?

The only parrot here is you...squawking the same irrelevant conclusions in the face of reality from 1991 to the present. Does it bug you that the US and UK thumbed their nose at your ilk and naive expectations? Gee....I sure hope so.

So say the “fixers”… and their toadies.

Mr. Ignatieff will do nicely.

Edited October 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

If you say so...as an expert on such matters!

[xul]

To the war in Afghanistan, if the purpose is merely to reduce the casualty of the troops, more tanks is a better solution--maybe staying in the millitary fortresses only firing missiles is more better.

If the purpose is to win the war and defeat Taliban, I think General Petraeus's proposal is right---the soldiers should get out of their tanks and armored vehicles to go into Afghan people to protect them and show them the determination and perseverance that they will stay and help them.

But I read in some Chinese media, since Obama can not recruit more troops from his allies, and of course from America itself, he will look for more missile attacks and unmanned aerial vehicles raids instead. Such strategy may be helpful to him to win the next election, but obviously can not help American to win the war.

Anyway, I feel that most Canadians don't think the war is an Canadian war. And except the war in Afghanistan, it seems like there are not any urgent needs to spend more nomey on military. Most equipments of Canadian armed forces are purchased from foreign manufacturers, that means there will not be many voters gaining from the increase of military budget like American, so politicians can not gain much votes from "supporting soldiers" except in word only. It obviously is a negative factor to Canadian armed forces to persuade their government to spend more on military.

Edited October 2, 2009 by xul

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The thing to keep in mind here folks is that the military goes where it is told to go and does what it is told to do and the government of Canada is the one doing the telling. The military folks put their lives on the line in the service of their country, for you and I. With that in mind I think we should spend as much as possible to protect those folks in their efforts. They are more than worth their weight in gold, because they are willing to give their lives to protect us.

[waldo]

Don't confuse enjoying a game of Rope-A-Dope with you and caring about episodes in the UN soap opera. By your own admission, the "fix was in", so any whining about legality is not only moot....but double moot.

The only parrot here is you...squawking the same irrelevant conclusions in the face of reality from 1991 to the present. Does it bug you that the US and UK thumbed their nose at your ilk and naive expectations? Gee....I sure hope so.

Notwithstanding your penchant for attaching the “whine” label to that which you have difficulty refuting, it’s certainly telling that you respond to the legalities of the Bush Iraq war debacle in terms of “games and soap opera”. In the legal context, moot… or even your “double moot”, is most inappropriate as the scenarios involved were – and are – anything but hypothetical, particularly set against the underpinnings of a war based on lies and false pretences.

Yes, most certainly the fix was in – for the most part that “fix” has been uncovered through the passage of time and concerted efforts by critics of the war… although your own country is loath to formally investigate the circumstances behind the Iraq war, the UK is not. With findings due toward the end of 2010, Britain's Iraq Inquiry Opens With a Vow to Be 'Rigorous"

Speaking of your book ends, I doubt the voluminous results from this UK inquiry will be warmly received by those bent upon revising history in the name of shaping a positive Bush historical legacy

Best you bookmark the following link as all hearing testimony will appear… The Iraq Inquiry

I’m quite sure there will be many conclusions drawn from the inquiry… we’ll see if they’ll stand the test of your “irrelevant” labelling. Your stated “naive expectations” and “thumb nosing” best categorizes the standing your country held within the broader world community of nations. I say “held” as I expect the degree of that naivety to the way the U.S. operates within the world community is diminishing – ever increasingly. As you say, “Gee….I sure hope so.”

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Notwithstanding your penchant for attaching the “whine” label to that which you have difficulty refuting, it’s certainly telling that you respond to the legalities of the Bush Iraq war debacle in terms of “games and soap opera”. In the legal context, moot… or even your “double moot”, is most inappropriate as the scenarios involved were – and are – anything but hypothetical, particularly set against the underpinnings of a war based on lies and false pretences.

Yes, most certainly the fix was in – for the most part that “fix” has been uncovered through the passage of time and concerted efforts by critics of the war… although your own country is loath to formally investigate the circumstances behind the Iraq war, the UK is not. With findings due toward the end of 2010, Britain's Iraq Inquiry Opens With a Vow to Be 'Rigorous"

Speaking of your book ends, I doubt the voluminous results from this UK inquiry will be warmly received by those bent upon revising history in the name of shaping a positive Bush historical legacy

Best you bookmark the following link as all hearing testimony will appear… The Iraq Inquiry

I’m quite sure there will be many conclusions drawn from the inquiry… we’ll see if they’ll stand the test of your “irrelevant” labelling. Your stated “naive expectations” and “thumb nosing” best categorizes the standing your country held within the broader world community of nations. I say “held” as I expect the degree of that naivety to the way the U.S. operates within the world community is diminishing – ever increasingly. As you say, “Gee….I sure hope so.”

W started that war because Sodamned Insane tried to whack his daddy, George H. Bush after the first round. It was vengence, pure and simple.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I’m quite sure there will be many conclusions drawn from the inquiry… we’ll see if they’ll stand the test of your “irrelevant” labelling. Your stated “naive expectations” and “thumb nosing” best categorizes the standing your country held within the broader world community of nations. I say “held” as I expect the degree of that naivety to the way the U.S. operates within the world community is diminishing – ever increasingly. As you say, “Gee….I sure hope so.”

...and I'm sure it will not matter in the least. The "broader" community is bombing the crap out of non-deserving souls and you are satisfied because it is "legal" ? And yes...that includes "your country"....oh my!! (sobbing).

[waldo]

Notwithstanding your penchant for attaching the “whine” label to that which you have difficulty refuting, it’s certainly telling that you respond to the legalities of the Bush Iraq war debacle in terms of “games and soap opera”. In the legal context, moot… or even your “double moot”, is most inappropriate as the scenarios involved were – and are – anything but hypothetical, particularly set against the underpinnings of a war based on lies and false pretences.

Yes, most certainly the fix was in – for the most part that “fix” has been uncovered through the passage of time and concerted efforts by critics of the war… although your own country is loath to formally investigate the circumstances behind the Iraq war, the UK is not. With findings due toward the end of 2010, Britain's Iraq Inquiry Opens With a Vow to Be 'Rigorous"

Speaking of your book ends, I doubt the voluminous results from this UK inquiry will be warmly received by those bent upon revising history in the name of shaping a positive Bush historical legacy

Best you bookmark the following link as all hearing testimony will appear… The Iraq Inquiry

I’m quite sure there will be many conclusions drawn from the inquiry… we’ll see if they’ll stand the test of your “irrelevant” labelling. Your stated “naive expectations” and “thumb nosing” best categorizes the standing your country held within the broader world community of nations. I say “held” as I expect the degree of that naivety to the way the U.S. operates within the world community is diminishing – ever increasingly. As you say, “Gee….I sure hope so.”

...and I'm sure it will not matter in the least. The "broader" community is bombing the crap out of non-deserving souls and you are satisfied because it is "legal" ? And yes...that includes "your country"....oh my!! (sobbing).

nonsense - you know very well the UK inquiry results will bring it all forward... all the lies and deception. Simply stated, the way your country handles political investigations, Obama couldn't afford to lose 2 years of his first term going after Bush/Cheney... thankfully, the UK will expend the time/dollars. Certainly, the inquiry will have a UK slant/emphasis; however, the significant wrong-doing will still from forward.

to what end? Lessons learned and painting the appropriate backdrop for history - and to severely tarnish the ongoing concerted efforts to paint Bush positively... to severely counter the attempts to "build that positive Bush legacy".

sad and rather pathetic on your part... your one constant theme... your continued go-to whenever you're backed up against it, is to bring up Serbia/Kosovo and NATO bombing. Start a thread if you want to debate that issue - just do it. Make sure you properly state your position at the onset - thanks in advance.

[bush_cheney2004]

nonsense - you know very well the UK inquiry results will bring it all forward... all the lies and deception. Simply stated, the way your country handles political investigations, Obama couldn't afford to lose 2 years of his first term going after Bush/Cheney... thankfully, the UK will expend the time/dollars. Certainly, the inquiry will have a UK slant/emphasis; however, the significant wrong-doing will still from forward.

Certainly, you are desperate for any kind of inquiry, even if it's done by Estonia (34 troops in Iraq). Meanwile, a better exhibit will be available at the Bush Presidential Library.

to what end? Lessons learned and painting the appropriate backdrop for history - and to severely tarnish the ongoing concerted efforts to paint Bush positively... to severely counter the attempts to "build that positive Bush legacy".

Too late for that, President Bush has already "bottomed out" and domestic issues are eclipsing Iraq....a love story.

sad and rather pathetic on your part... your one constant theme... your continued go-to whenever you're backed up against it, is to bring up Serbia/Kosovo and NATO bombing. Start a thread if you want to debate that issue - just do it. Make sure you properly state your position at the onset - thanks in advance.

Because it always works....and makes your moral compass spin wildly. Still waiting for the "UK inquiry" on that.

[waldo]

Certainly, you are desperate for any kind of inquiry, even if it's done by Estonia (34 troops in Iraq). Meanwile, a better exhibit will be available at the Bush Presidential Library

desperate? As in a Bush desperate to hide the facts from the inquiry kind of desperate?

Those draft plans for the "W Library" look interesting... will there actually be books... other than My Pet Goat? There are some grand ideas out there though!

- The Alberto Gonzales Room - Where you can't remember any of the exhibits.

- The Hurricane Katrina Room - It's still under construction.

- The Texas Air National Guard Room - Where you don't have to even show up.

- The Walter Reed Hospital Room - Where they don't let you in.

- The Guantanamo Bay Room - Where they don't let you out.

- The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room - Nobody has been able to find it.

- The War in Iraq Room - After you complete your first tour, they can force you to go back for your second and third and fourth and fifth tours.

- The K-Street Project Gift Shop - Where you can buy an election, or, if no one cares, steal one.

- The Men's Room - Where you could meet a Republican Senator (or two).

- etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

desperate? As in a Bush desperate to hide the facts from the inquiry kind of desperate?

There will be no inquiry in America, as none is needed. Anyone who wants satisfaction denied will just have to be satisfied with kissing President George Bush's ass...and PM Blair's. What part of toppling Saddam's regime, per US Public Law, are you still confused about up there in the peanut gallery?

[waldo]

There will be no inquiry in America, as none is needed. Anyone who wants satisfaction denied will just have to be satisfied with kissing President George Bush's ass...and PM Blair's. What part of toppling Saddam's regime, per US Public Law, are you still confused about up there in the peanut gallery?

I thought the official line was "you need to look forward - not back"

excellent! Now that we've completely dispensed with your pretense about legalities... that you'll just write your own U.S. laws to cover "Bush-Doctrine like" preemptive invasions. Of course, why should you recognize the international law/UN illegality of preemptive war/regime change. Yes - certainly... rogue nations will attempt to do anything they want.

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought the official line was "you need to look forward - not back"

The official line changes with poltical circumstance.

excellent! Now that we've completely dispensed with your pretense about legalities... that you'll just write your own U.S. laws to cover "Bush-Doctrine like" preemptive invasions. Of course, why should you recognize the international law/UN illegality of preemptive war/regime change. Yes - certainly... rogue nations will attempt to do anything they want.

Good....you now have the adult perspective. In the end, you will understand that reality is more interesting than your fantasies....at least for the rest of the planet. "International Law" is just another tool for those with power, and those who want power. But cutting to the chase, and echoing Sec'y Albright, what is the point of having a $500 billion military if you can't use it? The United States of America is the same as it ever was, the only difference is your convenient, issue dependent moral sensitivities.

How does it feel to live in a "rogue nation"? It's fine...right? Please pass the ketchup.