Bush knew detainees were innocent

[bloodyminded]

Guess again....dual citizen Marines have died in combat for the eeeeevil Americans.

"Oh why, oh why can't y'all just support the troops?"

[waldo]

There was no illegal invasion of Iraq. Only a complete and utter moron would suggest the Iraq invasion was illegal, when their litany of sanction violations, as well as cease-fire violations is observed.

let's play a little game Shady... after we ignore the self-serving American legislation used to grant their own dispensation, let's have you bring forward the foundation of legality behind the invasion of Iraq. Hint: use the MLW search function

I'm not referring to any American legislation. I'm referring to international laws regarding cease-fires and sanctions, and United Nations resolutions. You remember the United Nations right?

Bump!

that's right Shady... you just bump it on along, lil doagy! Sir Bandelot nailed your revisionist game, spot on. Instead of justa bumpin n' grindin, why not actually step up and substantiate your legality claims based upon, as you stated, "international laws regarding cease-fires and sanctions, and United Nations resolutions"... you remember the United Nations, right? Oh... wait... that's right... you can't substantiate anything - ever. Don't forget those questions, Shady (gentle reminder #7).

[sharkman]

that's right Shady... you just bump it on along, lil doagy! Sir Bandelot nailed your revisionist game, spot on. Instead of justa bumpin n' grindin, why not actually step up and substantiate your legality claims based upon, as you stated, "international laws regarding cease-fires and sanctions, and United Nations resolutions"... you remember the United Nations, right? Oh... wait... that's right... you can't substantiate anything - ever. Don't forget those questions, Shady (gentle reminder #7).

Whoa, dude, you had me at, "Bush Knew..."!

[bush_cheney2004]

nope... none are required. You've said it all. Oh... wait... in your view, will there ever be a tipping point where you're not prepared to flaunt your rogue nation status?

Of course not....I celebrate American hegemony every goddamn day, and so do you, even though you refuse to admit it.

In the end, Canada has always been complicit, even if a nice cover story keeps the locals thinking otherwise....suckers.

[Shady]

Why do I need to use MLW search? I don't have to query a forum to know that firing on planes patrolling a no-fly zone is a direct violation of a cease-fire. And I don't have to query a forum to know that Iraq was in direct violation of its sanctions either.

You speak of the invasion being "illegal." Illegal to what? Illegal to whom? And if you're going to quote some international law, then why haven't you applied those same international laws to Iraq in the first place? You know, the international laws they were breaking for close to a decade. I'll tell you why. Because you're a hypocrite. In your world, only freedom-loving democracies have to abide such laws. While serial killing dictators are allowed to skirt the law. It's pretty pathetic. But it definitely sheds light onto your AGW religious devotion. I'm guessing that deep down inside you admire the power and control the dictators you coddle. Am I right?

Bumpity bump!

you just bump it on along

Yep. I'll continue to bump my comments as long as you deniers refuse to acknowledge them.

why not actually step up and substantiate your legality claims based upon

Sure.

But the zones have been breached by Iraq on several past occasions, with varying consequences.

December 1992 - a combat aircraft shot down an Iraqi fighter which had entered one of the exclusion zones.

13 January 1993 - Western forces attacked targets in southern Iraq following Iraqi military activity in the exclusion zone. Further attacks took place in late January 1993.

July/August 1993 - US planes strike against Iraqi anti-aircraft missile sites in a series of attacks in the no fly zones in southern and northern Iraq.

August/September 1996 - Iraqi armed forces deployed in the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq. The US Launches missile attacks on targets in southern Iraq and extends the no-fly zone.

April 1997 - During the Muslim pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, known as the Hajj, Saddam flies pilgrims both to and from Mecca. US refrains from action saying: "We're not prepared to stop what seem to be small-scale and reasonable humanitarian actions." The pilgrimage is due to begin again in early 1999.

June 31 1998 - US F-16 fires a missile at a radar site in southern Iraq after Iraqi radar locked onto Allied jets flying a routine mission over the Iraqi no-fly zone.

Link

[waldo]

Bumpity bump!

Yep. I'll continue to bump my comments as long as you deniers refuse to acknowledge them.

you truly are a simpleton - of the highest order. Quick someone tell Shady what year Dubya's Iraq invasion began

imagine... Shady's come up with the legality that the UN Secretary General missed - go figure. Really, after the previous long extended MLW thread (that I linked for you, Shady)... it's most surprising that neither Dancer or the Bush toady managed to push the no-fly zone 'infractions' as the basis for the Shrub's invasion... just how did they miss that Shady? Why... how did BushCo miss that one Shady?

here - chew on this link Shady... and if you'd like to take up the referenced Gulf War I era UN resolution 688... see the previous thread (that I linked for you, Shady).

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the United Nations and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

keep on bumpin, lil buddy!

[waldo]

Bumpity bump!

[M.Dancer]

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the United Nations and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

keep on bumpin, lil buddy!

They did not need a redundent seal of approval.

France, the United Kingdom and United States used Resolution 688 to establish Iraqi no-fly zones to protect humanitarian operations in Iraq, though the resolution made no explicit reference to no-fly zones.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688

I am not aware of any UN SC resolution forbidding them.

[bloodyminded]

They did not need a redundent seal of approval.

France, the United Kingdom and United States used Resolution 688 to establish Iraqi no-fly zones to protect humanitarian operations in Iraq, though the resolution made no explicit reference to no-fly zones.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688

I am not aware of any UN SC resolution forbidding them.

The US and the UK were not much about "protect[ing] humanitarian operations in Iraq." That's kind of a perverse joke.

The US and the UK, alone, continually disallowed necessary items into Iraq; items that were allowed under the sanctions rules. They kept stopping them, on "dual-use" claims...even as experts in the matter derided the dual-use claims and criticized US/UK efforts to undermine humanitarian operations.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US and the UK, alone, continually disallowed necessary items into Iraq; items that were allowed under the sanctions rules. They kept stopping them, on "dual-use" claims...even as experts in the matter derided the dual-use claims and criticized US/UK efforts to undermine humanitarian operations.

Yup...and Canada helped them do it....from sanctions to enforcement actions. Salute!

[Shady]

They did not need a redundent seal of approval.

France, the United Kingdom and United States used Resolution 688 to establish Iraqi no-fly zones to protect humanitarian operations in Iraq, though the resolution made no explicit reference to no-fly zones.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688

I am not aware of any UN SC resolution forbidding them.

Exactly. And if Iraq didn't like the new set of rules, they had two options. Live with them. Or declare war. When you're on the losing end of a war you started, you're in no position to dictate terms of surrender or cease-fire.

Especially when the no-fly zones are instituated to protect people from Iraqi military aggression. It's sad to see waldo take up the defense of a murderous dictator. But he still won't answer the question. You speak of the invasion being "illegal." Illegal to what? Illegal to whom?

[waldo]

They did not need a redundent seal of approval.

France, the United Kingdom and United States used Resolution 688 to establish Iraqi no-fly zones to protect humanitarian operations in Iraq, though the resolution made no explicit reference to no-fly zones.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688

I am not aware of any UN SC resolution forbidding them.

WTF! I thought you were the guy that was for Resolution 1441... before you were against it!

Youse guys must have selective memory/recall - otherwise known as Dubya revisionism. Dancer, we can play this dance all over again... you can lead if you'd like. By the way, if Res 688 was all that was needed, why the long and winding road towards the 2nd UN resolution (that never transpired)... such a nasty fly in the revisionist spin - hey? Should I put up Downing Street Memo quotes for you? How about Bush/Blair memo quotes?

[M.Dancer]

WTF! I thought you were the guy that was for Resolution 1441... before you were against it!

Youse guys must have selective memory/recall - otherwise known as Dubya revisionism. Dancer, we can play this dance all over again... you can lead if you'd like. By the way, if Res 688 was all that was needed, why the long and winding road towards the 2nd UN resolution (that never transpired)... such a nasty fly in the revisionist spin - hey? Should I put up Downing Street Memo quotes for you? How about Bush/Blair memo quotes?

The comment is regarding no fly zones...

You have the complete freedom to be as irrelevant as you feel you need be.

Edited April 12, 2010 by M.Dancer

[waldo]

The comment is regarding no fly zones...

You have the complete freedom to be as irrelevant as you feel you need be.

and you can be as obtuse and evasive as you feel you need to be... let's narrow it down for you - in the context of the legality of the Dubya invasion, what's the relevance of you sounding off about UN Resolution 688?

[M.Dancer]

imagine... Shady's come up with the legality that the UN Secretary General missed - go figure. Really, after the previous long extended MLW thread (that I linked for you, Shady)... it's most surprising that neither Dancer or the Bush toady managed to push the no-fly zone 'infractions' as the basis for the Shrub's invasion... just how did they miss that Shady? Why... how did BushCo miss that one Shady?

here - chew on this link Shady... and if you'd like to take up the referenced Gulf War I era UN resolution 688... see the previous thread (that I linked for you, Shady).

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the United Nations and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

keep on bumpin, lil buddy!

- in the context of the legality of the Dubya invasion, what's the relevance of you sounding off about UN Resolution 688?

To correct your comment of course.

[waldo]

To correct your comment of course.

trying out an evasive dance step routine, hey Dancer?

[Shady]

You speak of the invasion being "illegal." Illegal to what? Illegal to whom?

Hey waldo, stop the filibustering, and answer the question!

[waldo]

Hey waldo, stop the filibustering, and answer the question!

hey lil inconsequential buddy, it was your grand assertion that the Dubya Iraq invasion was legal... you presumed to tout the UN... and UN resolutions as the foundation for that legality. As is your standard MLW existence, you're speaking out of your ass-end. Support your legality premise, hey lil buddy!

[bloodyminded]

Yup...and Canada helped them do it....from sanctions to enforcement actions. Salute!

i haven't heard that Canada was on board with murderously disallowing items that were supposed to be allowed. Perhaps you have a link?

[Shady]

it was your grand assertion that the Dubya Iraq invasion was legal

Actually, the original grand assertion was by you, asserting that the Iraq invasion was illegal.

is that as a country we had an official position that countered an overt support for the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Page 3.

[GostHacked]

Actually, the original grand assertion was by you, asserting that the Iraq invasion was illegal.

Just because the US had a policy towards regime change in Iraq does not make it legal by any means. Bush lied, people died.

And I will preempt BC by saying 'canada'. Because, you know. Canada.

[waldo]

Actually, the original grand assertion was by you, asserting that the Iraq invasion was illegal.

Page 3.

Shady, your back-peddling... is not a pretty sight!

Let's play: Page 5 (of this thread) ... let's start there - hey lil buddy.

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.

your turn... support your legality assertion... and remember, you've already indicated the self-serving American legislation used to grant their own dispensation... isn't what you're referring to. Support your legality assertion, Shady.

let's play a little game Shady... after we ignore the self-serving American legislation used to grant their own dispensation, let's have you bring forward the foundation of legality behind the invasion of Iraq.

I'm not referring to any American legislation. I'm referring to international laws regarding cease-fires and sanctions, and United Nations resolutions. You remember the United Nations right? It's the institution you like to source for your fraudulent global warming scam.

[Shady]

Support your legality assertion

I already have. Iraq violated sanctions, as well as the cease-fire negotiated after it's imperialistic invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Once those negotiations are breached, military action is completely legitimate.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but firing on patrolling aircraft is an act of war. Which Iraq was in violation of several dozen times during the 90's.

[bloodyminded]

I already have. Iraq violated sanctions, as well as the cease-fire negotiated after it's imperialistic invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Once those negotiations are breached, military action is completely legitimate.

In that case, you would assert that the US and UK, who repeatedly violated the sanctions (with murderous effects), could legitimately be attacked?

Edited April 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

In that case, you would assert that the US and UK, who repeatedly violated the sanctions (with murderous effects), could legitimately be attacked?

Absolutely. But as I've already stated. If Iraq didn't like the set of rules, they had two options. Live with them. Or declare war. When you're on the losing end of a war you started, you're in no position to dictate terms of surrender or cease-fire.