Is it unpatroitic to critize the US?

[caesar]

The wheels of justice roll slowly. The world and the UN have stood back and allowed a bully to try to control the world. The same thing happened with Hitler until that situation just went too far. Of course Bush has bought and paid for support from many weak greedy countries. He has supplied unstable countries with arms; Pakistan is now considered a preferred ally (I forget the correct term) and can now buy modern top of the line weapons from the USA. This came just weeks after Pakistan's top scientist were discovered to have been selling nuclear technologies and parts to rogue nations. It was even after Pakistan completely pardoned these scientists and allowed them to keep their ill gotten gains.

Ghadafi went from one of the top most wanted to American ally within days?????????? A leopard don't change its spots and such a drastic switch should be phased in after a longer prooof period.

[KrustyKidd]

Ahhh! I always love a good rant. Hail Caesar!

[caesar]

Truth,Until the USA comes under more rational leadership we shoulld back off. Even with more rational leadership; we should take care with any long term cooperation and make sure Canada does not get the short end of the stick again. Bush may not be the last egomaniac that is voted in as President in the USA. We may even vote one in here in Canada.

[Reverend Blair]

You can't be argued with because you refuse to advance beyond one point, Krusty. All you will consider are some old UN resolutions. You refuse to acknowledge the actions of the Bush Administration leading up to Iraq or the fact that they refused to ask permission because it would not have been given.

You asked for some proof though. I assume that you mean that Bush administration has been acting in a manner detrimental to most of the planet, sometimes criminally.

Here are some links.

http://www.amnesty.org/

http://hrw.org/

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/uz.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org

http://www.nisat.org/

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/small...ms/salwindx.htm

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/index.html

http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarm.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0303-02.htm

http://www.americas.org/News/Features/2003...nistMurders.htm

http://www.amnesty.ca/stoptorture/actColombia.htm

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia158.htm

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/T...esThatBind.html

http://www.amnesty.org/>Amnesty International

http://www.hrw.org/>Human RightsWatch http://www.un.org/>United Nations

I can supply more if you'd like.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Reverend Blair,

KK always makes some good points, and indeed the legality of everything the US did and does can be disputed(pro or con). When in breach of international law, the US simply refuses to recognize that authority.

The US could not prove material breach of WMD laws, so it simply called Saddam a liar and placed a timeline on invasion that the UN inspectors could not meet. The US inspectors could not meet it either, but once the missles fly, it is too late to worry about 'truth'.

Interestingly, someone posted a quote earlier from Tom Daschle, about Saddam being the only one ever to use WMD's against his own people. Misleading wording at best, and false to be sure. The US experimented with dispersal methods of WMD's on their own people, with (thankfully) minimal loss of life.

Ironically, Tom Daschle was himself later to be a target of WMD's on American soil. He was mailed Anthrax, a particular strain traced back to the US Army WMD factory in Maryland. The US Army using WMD's against their own people? For political assassination no less?

[Reverend Blair]

He sticks to a single point, thelonius. The fact is that the US has, especially under Bush, shown a pattern of disdain for international law and the international community as a whole. There is plenty of documentation that shows that disdain.

This thread is about whether it is unpatriotic to criticise the US, not whether an argument can be made that the US invasion of Iraq was justified or legal.

The invasion can be argued both ways, but given the USA's overall record there can be little doubt that they were acting in a criminal manner in order to gain profits for their corporations. Krusty, apparently fancying himself to be some sort of lawyer for these gangsters, is trying to keep things too narrow. The fact is that the majority of the international community did not feel the US was justified. Neither, clearly, did the UN.

Given all that's transpired...film of wounded Iraqi soldiers being shot, evidence of torture in Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan, illegal deportations of Canadian citizens to third countries to be tortured, evidence that the US hid at least one prisoner from the IRC, and on and on...it is impossible to see the US invasion of Iraq in any but the worst possible light.

Canada should not only be critical of the US, but should push for the ICC to try anybody that the US government will not. That goes all the way up to the Oval Office.

[Hawk]

I read the whole thing and Rev it is you and ceasar who are unable to move past and refuse to address his excellent arguments. He has nicely organized his position in addition to citing and backing up all his arguments, whereas in responce you simply rant the exact same thing that he has just argued against. In the rules of debate you would be drastically defeated, simply because you continue to refuse to acknowledge his points. You must offer up a rebuttal that addresses his sources and points or he gets the point, hence he has around 20 points and you are stuck at 0, he addressed your point on the legality of the war and so far stands in the right, he has stated his reasons and his LEGAL sources not just personal opinion therefore his point stands strong and yours was decimated. Please, continue to make a show, it is rather entertaining to watch you be dismembered word by word =)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hawk,

KK' arguments are technically not entirely correct. There is no proof that Saddam was 'in material breach' of said resolutions. Mind you, he wasn't complying either, that is, until the very end.

One of the biggest beefs many have against the US is that they have violated or vetoed many UN resolutions, and only uphold those that serve their interests.

[Hugo]

One of the biggest beefs many have against the US is that they have violated or vetoed many UN resolutions, and only uphold those that serve their interests.

Oh... a bit like France, Germany, Russia, China, et cetera, et cetera? Can you name me a U.N. member state that does not do that?

And bearing in mind that the correct answer to that rhetorical question is "no", why would "many" have a "big beef" with the U.S. specifically, as you put it, other than for pure bigotry?

[Hawk]

Dear Hawk,

KK' arguments are technically not entirely correct. There is no proof that Saddam was 'in material breach' of said resolutions. Mind you, he wasn't complying either, that is, until the very end.

One of the biggest beefs many have against the US is that they have violated or vetoed many UN resolutions, and only uphold those that serve their interests.

As was stated earlier the real question at hand is whether or not going into Iraq was 'LEGAL'. It has been proven to be a legal invasion and therefore somewhat justified, while Bush has yet to find WMD that does NOT mean they do not exist. A farmer in Milk River could hide a WMD in an old well on his land and you would never find it, you dont think in Iraq they have even MORE hiding spots like that? I am not saying for certain there is some, but since the issue cannot be proven either way lets not use it as supporting evidence k?

In regards to your commends on the US violating and vetoing UN resolutions... please be more specific and I will address your issues, especially regarding the violations.

Seems to me for one so worried about violations of UN resolutions you should be supporting Bush, since Saddam was in violation of many prior to the invasion =p

[Reverend Blair]

The US invasion of Iraq has NOT been shown to be legal. Experts in international law are still arguing the facts. An international tribunal actually tried Bush and his cronies for war crimes in Afghanistan and there will be another for their crimes in Iraq, including the right to invade. The fact remains that the US does not have the right to enforce UN resolutions without the support of the UN. That's why they refused to take the matter to the Security Council.

As I said so clearly before, this thread is not strictly limited to US actions in Iraq though, especially something so narrow as whether a good lawyer could get Bush off on the charge of an illegal invasion. The fact is that Bush administration has behave in a manner that is criminal. If we support them, then we are aiding and abetting in that criminality.

By refusing to acknowledge the wider scope of the crimes commited, by refusing to criticise the actions of the United States government, whether illegal or just detrimental to the world, we seriously risk becoming seen as nothing more than a satellite state of the US.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

[caesar]

Hawk; Israel was guilty of violating UN resolutions 7x more than Iraq; this despite the vetoing by the USA to protect Israel from accountability. So, do we invade Israel??????????

[KrustyKidd]

All you will consider are some old UN resolutions.

Wow. I can't believe you actually said that. Yes, The UN is nothing to pay attention to. Always interferiing and trying to stop genocide or somthing like that. Silly guys. and their resolutions all have an expiry date too right? Kinda like a carton of milk, best before ...?

Just wondering, if the old resolutions don't mean anything, how do you determine if the US did something legal or illegal? Divining rod? Eight ball?

  The fact remains that the US does not have the right to enforce UN resolutions without the support of the UN.

What fact Rrev? Where is there a sunset clause in the resolutions that are applicable? On second thought, have you even caught up with the resolution idea yet? What support are you talking about Rev? If it is instructions they are all listed in the above links and highlighted in my quotes. Then again, you figure that all the stuff they do is hand out "some old UN resolutions."

Lonius

The US could not prove material breach of WMD laws, so it simply called Saddam a liar and placed a timeline on invasion that the UN inspectors could not meet.

Resolution 707

    Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes. 

Wasn't up to the US to prove a damm thing. Saddam was the only one required to prove stuff, namely he was WMD free. Did he ever open up? Show me Lonius, show me where Blix was happy that Iraq had no WMD or material, facilities or anything. Read his report of Jan 27 where he talks of suspiciously missing chemicals and anthrax agents as well as doctored documents. Tell me where Iraq was cooperating playing hide and seek. If they were clean, they sure didn't let anybody know it.

Resolution 678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Rev

You asked for some proof though. I assume that you mean that Bush administration has been acting in a manner detrimental to most of the planet, sometimes criminally.

Nice try. No, actually we were talking about the invasion of Iraq and how you said it was illegal and had no proof to back it up. Guess things haven't changed much in the last few days. Nice attempt to enlarge the argument and hopefully dodge the issue at hand which is the legality of it.

The US invasion of Iraq has NOT been shown to be legal. Experts in international law are still arguing the facts.

And what are the legal facts there Rev? Skip the pissed off houswives and tell me where the US violated UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Which exact laws? Please provide links to the actual laws themselves, not the lawyers or peaceniks opinions. Let's see what the heck you are on.

An international tribunal actually tried Bush and his cronies for war crimes in Afghanistan and there will be another for their crimes in Iraq, including the right to invade. The fact remains that the US does not have the right to enforce UN resolutions without the support of the UN. That's why they refused to take the matter to the Security Council.

Your tribuanal is a rag tag group of leftist intellectuals from various peace organisations across the planet. LOL, if Bush actuall appeared and allowed himself to be taken away in irons they would shit themselves. Where would they house him, who would pay for his prison uniforms. LOL, and if he did appear, who would guard him during the lengthy trial. Rev, this is what you call a 'WORLD COURT?' It's a bunch of University proffesors and students mixed in with retired activists for crying out loud! I have to confess, at one point I actually was intrigued with your boasting of this event and wondered, now I am disappointed. Did they hold it in some dude's garage pledging alliegience to a Def Leopard Flag or what?

BTW, . I held a court in my recroom today. We decided that you don't have a leg to stand on. That makes it official, unofficially.

The actual stuff opposed to your goateed warriors and the illegal argument again Rev;

First; Iraq was by order of the UN resolutions to cease all WMD, rid itself of everything. That means not just WMD but all research, refuse, plans, chemicals used to separate compounds or whatever, dual purpose equipment, infrastructure for same, attempts to purchase or acquire WMD.(no secret deals with North Korea) And .... prove it, not wait for everybody to inspect every stinking square foot of Iraq but to actually show how they have done it and where and when.

Second; They were to fully cooperate with UNISCOM.

Third; They were to cease all activity related to missiles and delivery systems in excess of 150 kilometers.

If they refused or didn’t comply with all of the resolution's requirements then they would be in violation and have broken the agreement. The repercussions for that are resumption of hostilities meaning they could be beaten up, invaded or whatever it took to ensure they complied. . The Member Nations assisting the Government of Kuwait were charged with, and authorized to ensure these resolutions were adhered to by Iraq.

What so many do not realize is that Iraq was not simply to give up it’s WMD, but rather EVERYTHING RELATED TO WMD and all aspirations of ever having WMD. The documents and the inspection Regime was built and geared to verify a willing partner in Iraq. Instead they found deception, WMD not declared, intimidation and eventually expulsion. This war might well have started in the nineties and would have been just as legal.

One has only to read Blix’s reports in the later days prior to the war (obviously you have not Rev as it is factual and we all know that you avoid those like the plague), particularly 27 Jan 2003 (quoted in part with explanations above and linked as well) to realize that while not encountering battalions of smoking missiles with WMD warheads there was violations of the UN Resolutions even at that late a date after 12 years. There should have been nothing. One only has to look at South Africa and Lybia to see how quickly things go in WMD dissarmament when you really have a partner that is willing to cooperate and give it up.

The confusion for many as well is that it has something to do with what Bush said when and where. I does not. UN Resolutions apply no matter what anybody says or does until they are rescinded. This means that the UN has to vote on a new resolution. The last minute resolution the US and Britain tried to push through unsuccessfully was an attempt to get the blessing of the world, not it’s permission. When certain countries on the security council defeated it, it meant that they did not support THAT PARTICULAR RESOLUTION. It also leaves all other resolutions such as those applying to Iraq and the enforcement of the ceasefire (yes, even those condemning Israel) in effect.

  In cooperation with two US anti-war organizations, International Action Center (IAC) and Global Exchange, we will make every single effort to abolish war and violence entirely on earth. In so doing, we call upon all those who value peace to help us achieve our goal.

Rev. I really hate to burst your bubble but these people do not make up the Security Council of the UN, nor do they represent the International Court at the Hague. I am sure they are all nice people who hate Bush and America immensely and have ears in many circles but in official circles don’t mean a darn thing.

By refusing to acknowledge the wider scope of the crimes committed, by refusing to criticize the actions of the United States government, whether illegal or just detrimental to the world, we seriously risk becoming seen as nothing more than a satellite state of the US.

Yes indeed. We can go into that at another time. Right now we are discussing why you are wrong about the INVASION OF IRAQ BEING ILLEGAL. I am still waiting for your proof which, scince the UN authorised it as the highest authority on the planet, they are the only ones who can change the order. They haven’t. Rev, you actually have to understand the laws before you can say anything is illegal. . As much as you want it to be illegal, it is a legal issue that stands on it’s own. If you want to do a moral thing with it, sure, it can be tied in with events going back to WWI and even the birth of Israel. You can even say Bush was an idiot, not elected, America is imperialistic or whatever. The UN resolutions stand on their own, no matter what the political winds blow in.

KK' arguments are technically not entirely correct. There is no proof that Saddam was 'in material breach' of said resolutions. Mind you, he wasn't complying either, that is, until the very end.

From Blix's report 27 Jan 2003

  Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As I said before, it was not up to the US to prove anything but rather the Iraqis to prove that they had given up all WMD programes and hopes of ever possessing them. Where is that proof? How do you know he was complying? He never did before. How did anybody know? He destroyed a few missiles (which he didn't have a week earlier) and was friendlier to inspectors. So what? As Powell said about disarmement as this was occuring "This isn't brain surgery." And then went on how this was to little and too late. And really Lonius, the Iraq thing had a spirit of cooperation to it written into the resolutions. One that has been proved to not have been honored by the Iraqis. That is material breach right there as is the missing mustard precursor and the unaccounted for BX nerve gas. The 6,000 shells filled with chemicals and so on.

One last thing. Bush called Tenent up to the Oval Office and asked him straight out if there were WMD in Iraq. He replied "It's a slam dunk Mr President. There are WMD in Iraq." This is probably the moment Iraq's fate was sealed. If a president cannot trust the head of the CIA to provide him with intelligence that is accurate then who can he go to? There is no higher authority to ask that question of. For all intents and purposes, Bush went to war believeing there were lots of WMD there.

[Reverend Blair]

What support are you talking about Rev?

It was very clear that the UN did not support the invasion of Iraq, Krusty. The US did not prove that Iraq was a clear and immediate threat. Even the Bush Administration has backed away from those claims.

The argument that the US was just enforcing an old UN resolution ignores the fact that you cannot enforce those resolutions without the consent of the UN.

No, actually we were talking about the invasion of Iraq and how you said it was illegal and had no proof to back it up. Guess things haven't changed much in the last few days. Nice attempt to enlarge the argument and hopefully dodge the issue at hand which is the legality of it.

I'm not trying to dodge anything. Read the title of the thread.

Is it unpatroitic to critize the US?   

That implies a larger argument, not the selcetive and narrow one that you are presenting. The US has shown an overall disdain for international law, treaties and conventions they have signed, human rights, and the general well-being of the planet. That includes, but is by no means restricted to, the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

My argument is that it is unpartriotic, and to the detriment of the entire planet, to NOT criticise the US when they act in such a manner. That you are reluctant to argue the entire shows you to be the one practising avoidance.

Your tribuanal is a rag tag group of leftist intellectuals from various peace organisations across the planet.

It was led by a former US cabinet member. It looked at the evidence presented. Bush did not show to defend himself. He was tried and found guilty in absentia.

One has only to read Blix’s reports in the later days prior to the war (obviously you have not Rev as it is factual and we all know that you avoid those like the plague), particularly 27 Jan 2003 (quoted in part with explanations above and linked as well) to realize that while not encountering battalions of smoking missiles with WMD warheads there was violations of the UN Resolutions even at that late a date after 12 years.

Blix did not feel that the violations were severe enough to give the US the right to invade. As the guy in charge the call was really his, not George Bush's.

I am still waiting for your proof which, scince the UN authorised it as the highest authority on the planet, they are the only ones who can change the order.

The US, and likely Britain, would have vetoed any such attempt. I'm not sure where you were during the lead up to the war, but it was all pretty obvious, so I assume you were someplace without any form of media except maybe a Johnny Horton 45 and an antique record player.

We can go into that at another time.

No, we can go at it now. The thread is about whether we should criticise the US, not whether we should be bound by your narrow boundaries or whether the US is guilty of war crimes in the invasion of Iraq.

As I said before, it was not up to the US to prove anything but rather the Iraqis to prove that they had given up all WMD programes and hopes of ever possessing them.

Actually it was up to the US to prove something. That's why Colin Powell went to the UN. He had no evidence, so they laughed at him. Bush went to war anyway.

but rather the Iraqis to prove that they had given up all WMD programes and hopes of ever possessing them. Where is that proof?

They submitted evidence, but it was not believed. They did not have hard proof of the sort that the US was willing to accept, but the inability of the Bushites to find anything kind of backs up the evidence submitted.

One last thing. Bush called Tenent up to the Oval Office and asked him straight out if there were WMD in Iraq. He replied "It's a slam dunk Mr President. There are WMD in Iraq." This is probably the moment Iraq's fate was sealed.

You require evidence from us, but all Bush required of his CIA chief was a colloquial basketball reference?

For all intents and purposes, Bush went to war believeing there were lots of WMD there.

For all intents and purposes, Geoerge Bush went to war because his PNAC buddies told him to. If he was at all critical of the information he was being given he would not have accepted it. He lied about yellowcake from Nigeria, somebody in his office tried to destroy a CIA agent (a criminal act) because her husband said so in public. He sent Colin Powell to the UN with "evidence" so embarrassingly stupid that children were laughing at him. His "proof" was so disturbingly weak that the only way he could garner support for his coalition of the bribed and bullied was by bribing and bullying smaller nations. Even with that, most told him to piss off.

Still though, you have to give the man some credit. I don't why, Krusty, but apparently you do feel that need. So lets get on to the larger argument, the one the thread is actually about....that it is very Canadian, American, British, French, German, Spanish, and just plain old human to criticise the policies of a government that makes the world a more dangerous place in order to enrich a few close friends of that government.

[KrustyKidd]

It was very clear that the UN did not support the invasion of Iraq, Krusty. The US did not prove that Iraq was a clear and immediate threat. Even the Bush Administration has backed away from those claims.

The argument that the US was just enforcing an old UN resolution ignores the fact that you cannot enforce those resolutions without the consent of the UN.

Quote applicable resolution excerpts, your contention that the resolutions get old is false. Just in case there are idiots interpreting these resolutions the UN always refers to the applicable resolutions and states that they are still in effect. That way, morons that don’t quite get what the heck is going on can understand that the old ones are still effective. In this case, they even made a new resolution 1441 that once again reiterated dire consequences is Iraq did not adhere to it’s part of the cease-fire.

I'm not trying to dodge anything. Read the title of the thread.

I am more than willing to argue the entire thread, however, when I encounter a bald face lie and a person that cannot back it up with nothing but heresy and opinion (you have not once cited a quote from a law, resolution, UN order) there is no point in arguing or addressing the overall thread as it is probably crap as well. Either you recant or prove me wrong. There is nothing wrong with simply saying that this war was ‘immoral’ or ‘unwarranted’ I can deal with that as it is arguable. To say it is ‘illegal’ is false. There is no authority on the planet that has stated that it is illegal and backed it up with the applicable laws and addenendums as well as resoltutions that make exceptions to existing laws. Some opinions say that it may be illegal, or that it may not be legal. However, these opinions are not international law. In any case, even if by some stretch of the imagination it were ever found to not be legal, it does nothing to prove it was ‘illegal.’ You have a long way to go to prove your point. To start, try reading the UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Then try to find out where they say they have a sundown clause. They don’t. Or do they? Tee hee. You don’t have a clue do you?.

KK

Your tribuanal is a rag tag group of leftist intellectuals from various peace organisations across the planet.

It was led by a former US cabinet member. It looked at the evidence presented. Bush did not show to defend himself. He was tried and found guilty in absentia.

  former US cabinet member

And I looked at this and laughed. Which cabinet I wonder? The one with the left handed pipe dreams? Anyhow, I did some looking and came up with this;

Room 215 BYOB

Speaking at a press conference at the Peshawar Press Club on Wednesday, co-representative of the ICTA Prof Akira Maeda said his organization was to hold a public hearing against President Bush at a hotel in Islamabad but the authorities denied them permission. He said this would have been the 7th public hearing against the US president.

  Hello! It is a great pleasure for me to speak about the criminal acts committed by US President Bush to so large an audience. My name is Masakatsu Adachi, Professor of Criminal Law at Kanto Gakuin University Incidentally, US aggression into Iraq should not be tolerated by any means although this is not today’s subject.

And make sure you brush your teeth after every meal.

  President Bush is being "indicted" for war crimes allegedly committed against the Afghan people since the U.S.-led coalition began its antiterrorism campaign in October 2001, a group of Japanese lawyers announced.

    "We believe that attacks on Afghanistan led by the U.S. forces, such as aerial bombings and killings, were a violation of international law," said Haruhisa Takase, secretary general of the Tokyo-based International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan.

    The lawyers are a non governmental private group and have neither official status nor authority, according to Takase.

      "It is a civil tribunal, so it is not binding," Takase said. "For this reason, I believe we can morally carry out the tribunal."

Yes Rev. Bush must be quaking in his boots. BTW, are they supplying the pizza or should I grab a Big Mac before I go?

Unofficially, without authority, they found your love of Johnny Horton somewhat weird as well.

The ICTA had been established by Japan-based human rights and it with support and association of Revolutionary Association Women of Afghanistan(RAWA) and Sarah Flanders(International Action Center) went for a detailed reports regarding war crimes committed by the United States of America in Afghanistan..

Sarah Flanders Organization Picture (re-enactment)

Here’s a picture of a Sarah Flanders. Don’t think it’s the same one. Not a bad looking girl although I like my Klazzy Kruella much better . I guess the one you have here is not too famous.

Blix did not feel that the violations were severe enough to give the US the right to invade. As the guy in charge the call was really his, not George Bush's.

Blix was an inspector. He reported to the UN security council. He had as much to do with decision making on war and peace as your car mechanic does on telling you when to take your vacation. Some relevance, but not the decision itself. I quoted his findings, they gave the proof the US needed to carry out the action. Obviously you have not even looked at them. I suppose you figure that the usual limp arguments you and your left wing buddies rant back and forth ad nausium wash just as well here as long as you bash the US as day to day fodder are valid points. Sorry, they don't. They do if you supply proof and in this particular argument you need some. I quoted them above for you but you said you had read them all so you have to dig them up yourself.

The US, and likely Britain, would have vetoed any such attempt. I'm not sure where you were during the lead up to the war, but it was all pretty obvious, so I assume you were someplace without any form of media except maybe a Johnny Horton 45 and an antique record player.

Kidding right? You must have been out playing with your chickens or something as there was never even a rumor of rescinding these resolutions. Matter of fact, it was only the wording of the US/British resolution that stopped it from being passed. Not the intent. It required 9 out of the 15 security members to approve and the US had 7 for sure and 6 undecided. 1 no and France was going to veto it for sure in it’s present form. That is hardly an international condemnation considering the fact that the coalition has over fifty members in Iraq alongside the US.

No, we can go at it now. The thread is about whether we should criticize the US, not whether we should be bound by your narrow boundaries or whether the US is guilty of war crimes in the invasion of Iraq.

Sorry Rev, while there is a stated inaccuracy or lie being portrayed as truth we have to stay and get this done. That is why it is essential that you hit the books and get some proof in the form of laws, resolutions and cease-fire agreements, that type of thing. Give the law and quote it. Make sure you supply the link so we can all see it in context. It isn’t a lot to ask. I know you are new here but if you want to be taken seriously you have to do more than rant.

Actually it was up to the US to prove something. That's why Colin Powell went to the UN. He had no evidence, so they laughed at him. Bush went to war anyway.

Pick up a paper sometime. He went to the UN to make a case for UN support for the invasion, not permission. The UN knew that Saddam had been in material breach for the past twelve years as he thrwarted inspectors time and time again and had just finished passing an extremely strong resolution which re-enforced all the previous ones. The US wanted more than the legal right they aolready had. They wanted unequivocal support. UN support would mean more troops, more assets, more support in the form of money, resources so it would take some pressure off the US. Also it would send a definite message to Saddam to back down and thus possibly prevent this war altogether as right up to the end he didn't think the US was gong to attack. He actually told Dan Rather the week before that the demonstrators in the streets of cities around the world were on his side and because of this the US would never attack. Blood on their hands? The resolutions that gave the US the authority to carry out the military action were already in place from a decade before and had been updated with each subsequent resolution, the last being 1441 in 2002 which maintained in the first portion that all ‘previous and subsequent resolutions pertaining to this matter shall be in effect. Just so idiots don’t assume that the old ones are to be discarded.

They submitted evidence, but it was not believed. They did not have hard proof of the sort that the US was willing to accept, but the inability of the Bushites to find anything kind of backs up the evidence submitted.

Were you someplace with a Johnny Horton record and a 45 antique record player? No media of any sort? BLIX’s reports tell you of missing pages from reports, doctored pages, non cooperation all material breaches. Then he tells you about the missing tons of mustard and VX agent as well as missing warheads. None of which can be accounted for. Put it together with the deception and the doctored reports as well as history of anything but co-operation and what do you get? I know. Somebody I can sell a Johnny Horton Jubilee 45 to - Rev Blair.

You require evidence from us, but all Bush required of his CIA chief was a colloquial basketball reference?

After a lengthy trial, the Judge asks the Jury Foeman how he finds the defendant. The Judge has seen all the evidence, heard all the pros and cons but needs the weigh in order to make his decision. What if the Foeman turned and said to the judge that it “Was a slam dunk” and that “we, the jury find the defendant guilty.”?

Still though, you have to give the man some credit. I don't why, Krusty, but apparently you do feel that need.

Rev, I actually dislike the man strongly. I bet more than you. I wouldn’t be able to stand being in the same room with him. It is a personal thing really and has no bearing on his ability to be president.

So lets get on to the larger argument, the one the thread is actually about....that it is very Canadian, American, British, French, German, Spanish, and just plain old human to criticize the policies of a government that makes the world a more dangerous place in order to enrich a few close friends of that government.

Great idea! Let's do it. Before we move on though, just a small detail, provide the proof that makes this war illegal. Quote the link, article, paragraph of the actual law or resolution that rescinds the resolutions that give member states the authority to take whatever action necessary to ensure that Iraq adheres to the cease-fire agreement of 1991. Then we can move on.

Here is a way to get around actually having to do all that work researching only to find out you have squat and then saying something embarrassing like “I was mistaken” or “gee, whar did that thar dam resoloochun cum frum? Haw haw?” .

Instead of saying

Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded.

Say

Iraq was an IMMORAL or DUBIOUSLY LEGAL war, I BELIEVE the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded.

Simply say that. If you keep it the way it is, it must be proved whether I am right or wrong. BTW, like I told you before, I am not wrong. The reasons, rationale, morality may be complete garbage, but the legality is sound.

Rev, you are starting to look like a pansy dicking around with this. Fess up with the goods or stand down.

[Reverend Blair]

I quit reading when you accused me of inaccuracies and lies Krusty.

[Reverend Blair]

Richard Perle felt the invasion of Iraq was "probably illegal."The Guardian had this article on it at the time. In the same article Kofi Annan is quoted questioning the legality of US actions.

The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF) feel that the invasion was illegal. Their reasons are simple...Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US. You can find an article on that

here.

"Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier UN resolutions nor that the UN Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat."- - [Associated Press, 3/19/03]

I found that quote at this page which uses the UN Charter to back its arguments.

Now I could go on Krusty. There are many authorities, all of them as valid as yours, all basing their arguments on established international law, who say that the invasion was illegal. The reasons given by the Bush administration were just excuses made up by slick gangster lawyers to back a regime that wanted to go to war to reward their corporate buddies.

There really isn't much point in my going on though because you will just deny the validity of any source that does not back you up. If I continue to argue you will again accuse me of being less than honest.

Now, whether you are satisfied or not, I proven my position to be at least as valid as yours. You can either admit that and carry on the conversation like a human being, or continue to hide behind a narrow interpretation of reality that only those with even less capicity for thought than George Bush would even consider.

[caesar]

Reuters Photo

Bush Arrives In Ireland

(Reuters Video)

"The bitter differences of the war are over," Bush told a news conference

Yeah, maybe for him; not for me nor many others. By the way; it was NOT a war; it was an invasion.

Who does he think he is? Oh, yes, I forgot; he has God"s ear.

[caesar]

Krusty; Read all of what Blix said; don't take one little section taken out of context of the whole report. That was only put in to mollify Bush and co. Read what Blix has to say about the whole situation. Geesh.

The legality of the invasion was very dubious. It was morally wrong and strategically nuts. It has not done anything towards putting an end to terrorism; it has made the world much more dangerous.

[KrustyKidd]

Now I could go on Krusty. There are many authorities, all of them as valid as yours, all basing their arguments on established international law

Just as valid as mine? My dear Rev, none of them are the UN security council which is the higest authority on earth. The one that gave the US and member states assisting the government of Kuwait the authority to do what ever is necessary to ensure that Iraq complies with all the resolutions pertaining to it.

I looked at your authorities, even after you stopped reading my posts I do read yours to see what little twists and turns you are trying to wiggle out of this with and none of them look like an actual law or resolution. Matter of fact, they look like opinion and conjecture. So where, at the base of this tower of rumor that you have built is the actual law or resolution that recsinds all the resolutions that authorize military action in Iraq?

Now, show me the actual laws that say that the US cannot carry out the resolutions as perscribed by the UN.

Koffee Anon questioning the legality? Hmmm Rev, that sounds like he is not sure if it was legal or illegal. Guess maybe it isn't a 'slam dunk' for your argument. Bone up on your facts instead of searching for opinions and get back to us.

Ceasar, Blix found enough discrepancies to provide a legal basis for the action. Iraq submitted a twelve thousand page document that had lies, reconsituted falicies and doctored pages in it. That document alone was basis for this action. The drones while pretty minor was also an infraction that allowed for legal invasion. The inability to account for percursor agents and the wherabouts of thousands of pounds of VX and chemical agent also legalized it. Not even mentioning the Anthrax (which would have been inert by then still was an infraction.)

The legality was certainly there. As you agree with me, the rest is debatable. If you and Rev can agree on that then we can move on, if not, come up with the applicable laws that don't exist changing the security councils authority. i am glad there is two of you now, possibly that will increase your chances of finding the non existent varience in the resolutions.

As for saying that you statement of the invasion being illegal was a bald faced lie, I am sorry. I was wrong. Like Bush saying that there was WMD in Iraq, he was mistaken and spoke an inaccurazcy as fact fully believing it to be true and therefore not a lie. Same thing. You thought that that is accurate and it is not, therefore, it is an inaccuracy and non factual statement, not a lie. Sorry. I guess that Bush did not lie and either did you. I wonder if you will be the man that he is and admit that you are wrong. He did after all say that he has not found any large quantities of WMD in Iraq, I figure that to be of the same moral fibre as he you could at least say that you cannot find any laws that state that the war was illegal although you are still looking.

Are you the man that Bush is Rev?

[Reverend Blair]

My dear Rev, none of them are the UN security council which is the higest authority on earth.

The Security Council did not support the invasion of Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.

It is you that is doing the wiggling here, child. Most of the world opposed this action. The US lied, more than once, to try to get them to support it. The support was not there so the US refused to ask permission.

Now that I've refuted your silly little argument at least as much as you've refuted mine, perhaps you'd be willing to move on to the basic argument, if it is unCanadian to criticise the United States of America.

I realise that you are, for reasons of your own, reluctant to do that. I am not reluctant though.

[KrustyKidd]

The Security Council did not support the invasion of Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.

Your point? What are you talking about, the security council legalized action in Iraq fourteen times in as many resolutions. The last did not fail but also did not pass with more voting for it then against it. (7 - 1) so your little theory of how the world was against the US might be true if it were a congeniality contest but it is law that you and I are talking about. Only the securtiy council has say on what is legal or not in this aspect. Scince nothing was passed or rescinded it left all the other resolutions in effect. The ones that made this action legal, please provide proof that they were not still in effect Rev.

As for this being wiggling I have maintained the same strong position scince you made the statement that the action in Iraq is illegal. You have attemped to pass off opinion as fact, sidetrack this with a larger argument and even wanted me to go on a scavenger hunt with some voluteer organization who's sole raison d'etre is to bash the Bush administration. Even their own lawyers admitted to having no official status nor authorityl even though you were attempting to pass it off as more than what it actually was but have offered no legal proof of an argument that is a legal one only. ("Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded. ")

Scince you contend that the above is true, I would have you submitt the applicable laws that have been broken rather than opinion from people that are not on the UN security council. You have not, and even tried to use Koffee Anon to make your point forgetting that he holds no vote on the security council or any other portion of the UN body whatsoever and therefore, has no say. He is a chairman only, with no voting rights. (Which makes me wonder if you even have a clue about what the hell is going on overall)

So I can only surmise that you have no proof other than opinion and ask that you retract your statement or state it for what it actually is - your opinion and and based on others opinions as well. Not fact.

Now that I've refuted your silly little argument at least as much as you've refuted mine, perhaps you'd be willing to move on to the basic argument, if it is unCanadian to criticise the United States of America.

I quote law and you quote opinion and say that it refutes fact. Hmmm, something missing here Rev. Opinions are not relative to the argument on their own. They possibly might carry a bit of wieght if they were supporting a fact but in your case, you have not provided one so they have nothing to support and hence, are meaningless. As evidence, they are proof of nothing. My 'silly little argument' on the other hand isw UN law. Surely you have heard of international law and the United Nations? If you haven't then I would suggest dropping this thread altogether Rev as it is beyond you. Besides, all the quotes you provided all say that they are not sure that this action was legal and none of them say with absolute certainty that "Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded. " instead they use guarded terms like "not certain,' "possibly' "may not be entirely" and so on and forth. Hence, even your own supporting miscillania does nothing to strenthen your factual statement where you are absolutely certain that it was illegal and these guys are not sure it was entirely legal and rarely touch on the 'illegal' part of your statement.

Again, quote the law or UN Security Council Resolution that recsinds all the resolutions pertaining to Iraq that give member states authority to take any action necessary to ensure Iraq complies with resolution 660. No opinion, no conjecture, just the resoulution or laws themselves. This is not unreasonable as it is the crux of the whole point you put forth when you stated this as fact

Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded.

Are you trying to tell us that you did not know which actual law they broke or you make such strong factual statements based only on the opinion of others? Surely you have a law to back this up with, after all, you did not say that 'a lot of high up opeople think the action was illegal.' No, you said it was and therefore you are expected to quote laws and facts that counter the existing laws which stated that 'member nations assisiting the government of Kuwait are to take whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complies with resolution 660.'

We are all still wating Rev. It's easy, just cite the law that you used as research when you made this statement.

"Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded.

[Reverend Blair]

The Security Council, very pointedly, did not support the US invasion of Iraq. You can try to sidestep it all you want, but we all watched it unfold on the news, including the lies, the spying, the bullying, and so on. The US, using the same incredibly questionable argument you seem to stuck on, then decided that it did not need to ask permission.

Since you apparently were unable to read the link I supplied:

International Laws Violated.

    * Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

          o Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” [uN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]

          o Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

    *

      Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.

          o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [uN Charter]

          o Violation. The United States and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Bush administration chose not to take the issue to the council because it knew that a resolution to use force against Iraq would not pass.

    * Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

          o Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one –until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war.

          o Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. [Read more] UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions. [Read More] The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation. [Read More]

    *

      Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928.

          o Summary of Article 51. The Kellog-Briand treaty, ratified by the United States in 1929, requires that all disputes be resolved peacefully. It prohibits war as an instrument of foreign policy. [Kellog-Briand Treaty of 1928] As a testament to this fact, in 1932, the secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson stated, “War between nations was renounced by the signatories (including the US and Britain) of that Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter when nations engage in armed conflict... we denounce them as law breakers.” [cited in Dawn, 11/13/01]

          o Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

Is that clear enough for you, Krusty? It lists the articles and how they were violated. You can agree or not, but until you show up on my doorstep with a degree in international law and a huge resume, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the experts. Their opinions and interpretations of international law are worth far more than that of some anonymous poster on the Internet.

Nopw either address the real issue at hand, whether it is unpatriotic for a Canadian to criticise the US or show us all your degree in international law and a resume showing you aren't just mob lawyer trying to pick up a side job.

[KrustyKidd]

I did read the link you provided. This is the same bogus 'unofficial' 'have no authority' group that you were going on about earlier. Also, where does it state that UN resolution 660 - 1441 which were all unanimously approved by all members of the UN security council has been nullified?

If you recall, the UN passed 660 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The approval for military action was outside the articles you just posted and made legal by the security council. Scince that time, thriteen more resolutions have been passed all authoising further action against Iraq. This did not mention any of them. Are we to assume that UN law and Security Council Resolutions mean nothing to these 'unofficial' and 'without authority' lawyers?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the experts. Their opinions and interpretations of international law are worth far more than that of some anonymous poster on the Internet.

Oh yes, the experts that cannot hold a meeting. I suppose that these guys who can't even get past security to hold a meeting are your type of people? No wonder you don't respect international law and United Nations Resolutions.

Speaking at a press conference at the Peshawar Press Club on Wednesday, co-representative of the ICTA Prof Akira Maeda said his organization was to hold a public hearing against President Bush at a hotel in Islamabad but the authorities denied them permission. He said this would have been the 7th public hearing against the US president.

    The lawyers are a non governmental private group and have neither official status nor authority, according to Takase.

      "It is a civil tribunal, so it is not binding," Takase said. "For this reason, I believe we can morally carry out the tribunal."

Let's see, not allowed in a hotel to meet, no official status and any finding is not binding. Wow Rev, these guys are earth shakers. Their words carry so much weight against UN resolutions that provide for the basis of international law on this planet.

Anyhow, here are a few resolutions. As you have read them indside and out, back and forth .... side to side whatever, this will probably put you to sleep. Can you go over these one more time and show me where this 'unofficial' and 'no authority' group has the authority to overturn the rulings of the highest body on earth? Show me the UN resolution that has nullified the following please.

687

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

Para 2 of 678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

and, for people like you who think these resolutions just fade away......

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Resolution 670

1. Calls upon all States to carry out their obligations to ensure strict and complete compliance with resolution 661 (1990) and, in particular, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof;

Resolution 686

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

Just in case you forgot what para 2 of 678 was.....

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

and just in case you still don’t get it that these resolutions are still valid until voted out by the security council they let morons that may not get it know that nothing has been dismissed.

Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990), 665 (1990), 666 (1990), 667 (1990), 669 (1990), 670 (1990), 674 (1990), 677 (1990), and 678 (1990),

Resolution 686

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

What was that paragraph? You probably forgot, I will quote it again for you .....

Resolution 678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Resolution 1441 (This is November 2002 BTW)

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,

and ....

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

and ..... here it is, a few of the reasons why it is legal after the US has been given authority. Triggers that don’t have anything to do with WMD (Which BTW provide ample justification on their own.)

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

BTW, seeing how you don't like to get your news and facts from the source itself, I give you an interpretation form a source that doesn't get booted out of hotels. And, I might add, does have authority and who's findings are binding within his realm.

STATEMENT BY LORD GOLDSMITH

I eagarly await your next FACTUAL yet full of only opinon post. And a quote of the laws that nullify the resolutions pertaining to Iraq. The ones you cited (I mean your unoffical guys cited) were wrtitten before the UN resolutions and hence, are subject to exceptions which came in the form of umpteen resolutions. Resolutions which you purport to be oh, oh, oh so familiar with. Please provide the laws or resolutions that the UN Security Council passed to nulify those resolutions. They must be right at your fingertips ..................

[Reverend Blair]

I see that you are still unwilling to concede that, despite the many opinions given by people who specialise in international law, that your only point is open to argument, Krusty.

The US did not have a right to lift a finger against Iraq without the express approval of the Security Council. The former resolutions do not matter because they did not provide enough evidence that Iraq was a real and immediate threat.

Claim victory if you like, child. That doesn't make you right.

Now can we move on to another subject? The one the thread is supposed to be about? Are you capable of that or are just a robot that posts the same drivel over and over again?