Bush knew detainees were innocent

[Shady]

When a country breaks a cease-fire. Military action is completely legal and legitimate. Case closed.

[bloodyminded]

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.

So...it's not about principle. At all. It's about power.

So your "moral" arguments concerning the behaviour of Iraq compared with the US/UK is really nothing more than obedience to Power.

[Shady]

So...it's not about principle. At all. It's about power.

No, it's completely about principle and legality. If cease-fires aren't enforced after they're broken, they become as worthless as the paper they're printed on. You break a cease-fire, you're committing an act of war. It's not rocket science, pun intended!

Iraq was allowed to violate the cease-fire for several years. They were even allowed to expel weapons inspectors for 4 years, without out any response. Legally, the very second weapons inspectors weren't allowed to do their job, military action was legitimate.

[bloodyminded]

No, it's completely about principle and legality. If cease-fires aren't enforced after they're broken, they become as worthless as the paper they're printed on. You break a cease-fire, you're committing an act of war. It's not rocket science, pun intended!

Iraq was allowed to violate the cease-fire for several years. They were even allowed to expel weapons inspectors for 4 years, without out any response. Legally, the very second weapons inspectors weren't allowed to do their job, military action was legitimate.

And the very second that the United States and the UK violated the sanctions rules--undoubtedly causing further hardship and death--they deserved to be attacked.

This is by your standard, by the way.

It was illegal. It was criminal. It was murderous.

Yet you refuse to condemn them; you certainly don't state that they should have been attacked.

Why not?

Why are you holding Saddam's Iraq to a higher standard than you hold the US and the UK?

[waldo]

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.

ah yes, quite telling... when ya got nuthin else, always revert back to the Gulf War era. Dubya apologists will try anything. Ya see, lil buddy - this puts you squarely into the backing UN Resolution 688 camp... that one doesn't fly. To save yourself any further embarrassment, back away and take a breather to investigate the mammoth failed pursuit by the U.S./UK to secure the "2nd UN resolution" as a foundation to support the (missing) legality... the missing legality since nothing related to the Gulf War era could be used to support the Dubya invasion. It's all really academic... moot... since the fix was in, regardless --- we've been down this path in the previous MLW thread I linked you to, Shady. You should read it... no wait, don't read it - we can have some more fun at your expense

[Shady]

And the very second that the United States and the UK violated the sanctions rules

Which sanction rules? But yes, definitely. As I've already stated. Iraq could choose to live with the rules. Seek action through the UN. Or declare war.

It was illegal. It was criminal. It was murderous.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Yet you refuse to condemn them; you certainly don't state that they should have been attacked.

Condemn them for what?

always revert back to the Gulf War era.

But that's the cease-fire that was broken. Why wouldn't it be relevant?

[bloodyminded]

Which sanction rules?

There were items and foodstuffs that were allowed into Iraq under the dual-use provisions. The US and the UK decided that many of these items would not be allowed. The weapons and dual-use professionals complained, and said these weren't a threat. But the moral degenerates said no. And because they are so powerful, what they say goes.

Anyone who supports this is either a moral relativist, or is simply a drooling worshipper of Power. I'm assuming it's mostly the latter.

But yes, definitely. As I've already stated. Iraq could choose to live with the rules. Seek action through the UN. Or declare war.

We're not talking about "liv[ing] with the rules"...we're talking about living with the effects of having the rules broken. By the US/UK co-conspirators.

And of course Iraq could not declare war, because of course they would lose. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have had a case.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Condemn them for what?

Murder, for one.

[M.Dancer]

trying out an evasive dance step routine, hey Dancer?

It's only evasive for someone not smart enoughb to follow their own posts.

[M.Dancer]

Bush lied, people died.

Oh please...how jejune

[Shady]

There were items and foodstuffs

Exactly what foodstuffs stopped being permitted? As far as I'm aware, there are no types of foods that can also be used as weapons. Your defense of Iraq is a joke. Unless of course they were building an arsenal of potato cannons!

You're completely wrong in blaming the US and UK for the suffering of Iraq. That responsibility lies directly with Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Starving Iraq, U.N. Rights Expert Says

AP - Saddam Hussein's refusal to sell oil to buy food is causing hundreds of thousands Iraqis to go hungry.

Link

The Iraqis Are Victims Of Saddam, Not Of The Outside World

When the United Nations first imposed sanctions against Iraq, immediately after the invasion of Kuwait, it exempted food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. Soon after the Gulf War, the United States took the lead in proposing that Iraq be allowed to sell controlled quantities of its oil to pay for these critical humanitarian needs.

For five long years, Saddam refused to do so, hoping to manipulate international opinion by perpetuating the misery of his people

Link

[waldo]

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

... 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.

ah yes, quite telling... when ya got nuthin else, always revert back to the Gulf War era. Dubya apologists will try anything. Ya see, lil buddy - this puts you squarely into the backing UN Resolution 688 camp... that one doesn't fly. To save yourself any further embarrassment, back away and take a breather to investigate the mammoth failed pursuit by the U.S./UK to secure the "2nd UN resolution" as a foundation to support the (missing) legality... the missing legality since nothing related to the Gulf War era could be used to support the Dubya invasion. It's all really academic... moot... since the fix was in, regardless --- we've been down this path in the previous MLW thread I linked you to, Shady. You should read it... no wait, don't read it - we can have some more fun at your expense

Bumpity bump!

[Shady]

No, it's completely about principle and legality. If cease-fires aren't enforced after they're broken, they become as worthless as the paper they're printed on. You break a cease-fire, you're committing an act of war. It's not rocket science, pun intended!

Iraq was allowed to violate the cease-fire for several years. They were even allowed to expel weapons inspectors for 4 years, without out any response. Legally, the very second weapons inspectors weren't allowed to do their job, military action was legitimate.

Bumpity bump!

Breaking cease-fires lead to legal military action. Always have, always will.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

It makes it very legal in the United States. Real legal like....yessuh! What y'all going to do 'bout it?

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

Ha! I have you guys trained very well. Don't forget "illega" Operation Allied Force by NATO (Kosovo). We don't need no steenkin' UN!

[waldo]

Bumpity bump!

Breaking cease-fires lead to legal military action. Always have, always will.

standard Shady evasive back-peddling response... you can't provide the foundation for your expressed legality that supports the Dubya invasion of Iraq... of course - nothing new here.

[waldo]

It makes it very legal in the United States. Real legal like....yessuh! What y'all going to do 'bout it?

rogue keyboard warrior supporting rogue nation - hee haw!

[bush_cheney2004]

There were items and foodstuffs that were allowed into Iraq under the dual-use provisions. The US and the UK decided that many of these items would not be allowed. The weapons and dual-use professionals complained, and said these weren't a threat. But the moral degenerates said no. And because they are so powerful, what they say goes.

Nope...not allowed...even Canada was killing them softly with your song.

Anyone who supports this is either a moral relativist, or is simply a drooling worshipper of Power. I'm assuming it's mostly the latter.

Today Iraq...tomorrow....zee Vorld!!

We're not talking about "liv[ing] with the rules"...we're talking about living with the effects of having the rules broken. By the US/UK co-conspirators.

...but never Canada...right?

And of course Iraq could not declare war, because of course they would lose. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have had a case.

They did have a case...a case of dictator blues. I wonder what he was thinking about his "case" for invading and killing Kuwaitis?

Murder, for one.

Book 'em Danno....Murder One! (cue music)

[bush_cheney2004]

rogue keyboard warrior supporting rogue nation - hee haw!

What part of this reality do you choose to ignore? Is that all you have? "Rogue nation"...that's ...so...Canadian!

Don't forget..."Bully".

Meanwhile..back at the CanAm border, the Americans fearfully wait for brutal Canadian trade sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. Bound to happen any day now...seven years is long enough!

Edited April 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

What part of this reality do you choose to ignore? Is that all you have? "Rogue nation"...that's ...so...Canadian!

Don't forget..."Bully".

what reality... bully boy?

[bush_cheney2004]

what reality... bully boy?

Geo-political and economic reality. Don't shine me on waldo....do you really think that Bush or Blair lose sleep at night worrying about your piss ant moral condemnations?

Study some history for chrisakes. The United States has done it before and it will do it again. I don't know why you have a special hard-on just for one president along a continuum that goes back 200 years.

Still waiting for those punishing trade sanctions from...gulp....Canada!

[Shady]

you can't provide the foundation for your expressed legality that supports the Dubya invasion of Iraq

I already have. But if you missed it, I'll certainly do it again.

This is what breaking a cease-fire looks like...

Iraq Fires at U.S. Plane Over Kuwait

Iraqi forces fired a surface-to-air missile at a U.S. Navy aircraft over Kuwait, the first such incident since the Gulf War, a Pentagon official said today.

The plane, a Navy E-2C surveillance aircraft, was monitoring a "no-fly zone" in Iraq patrolled by the United States since the 1991 Gulf War.

Link

Iraq fires missiles at US jets

According to the US Department of Defense, Iraqi air defence forces fired three surface-to-air missiles at US F-16s over northern Iraq. "There was an aggressive Iraqi action against US fighter aircraft in support of Operation Northern Watch," a spokesman said.

Link

Iraq Again Fires Upon Patrol Jets

For the second day in a row, allied war-planes patrolling a no-fly zone in northern Iraq came under fire from anti-aircraft artillery.

Link

These are all acts of war.

[Bonam]

The permission of an irrelevant and powerless organization like the UN is not necessary for a war to be justified. "Legality" of war is an idiotic concept. War is an ugly, messy, business, that involves a lot of death and suffering. Trying to mask it under the cloak of "legality" is the height of hypocrisy. One fights a war when it is necessary, not when lawyers approve of it.

[waldo]

The permission of an irrelevant and powerless organization like the UN is not necessary for a war to be justified. "Legality" of war is an idiotic concept. War is an ugly, messy, business, that involves a lot of death and suffering. Trying to mask it under the cloak of "legality" is the height of hypocrisy. One fights a war when it is necessary, not when lawyers approve of it.

you best take that up with the U.S. & UK governments over their failed attempts to secure that second UN resolution over and above 1441... apparently... they felt your described "irrelevant and powerless permission" was needed. As did the UN Security Council members that voted against the second UN resolution, while reinforcing their positions that 1441 did not include 'force authorization'. You may view the UN process as a dismissive "parlor game"... certain countries may arbitrarily take it upon themselves as a self-serving measure to dismiss their obligations to the UN Charter (Article 2 Number 4); however, at the end of the day, the UN is the recognized and accepted body of record/account. It would appear you sanction any/all wars of aggression since... 'war is hell'!

[waldo]

I already have. But if you missed it, I'll certainly do it again.

This is what breaking a cease-fire looks like...

These are all acts of war.

baseless noise from the library of inconsequential Shady ramblings... your cut&paste links don't mention, as do you, the foundations for that missing legality.

[bloodyminded]

Exactly what foodstuffs stopped being permitted? As far as I'm aware, there are no types of foods that can also be used as weapons.

True, it wasn't actual foodstuffs. It was merely items that made foodstuffs more than worthless. For example, the United States blocked milling equipment needed to produce flour. Weapons inspectors said there was no dual-use issue, but the the Us didn't care. So, lots of chronic and acute malnutrition among Iraqi children, worsening by the day.

And this is a drop in the bucket.The US, often with the UK's approval (but no one else's--no one else's), blocked massive amounts of items that Iraq needed for food production, sewage treatment, child vaccines, and other crucial items. Again, dual-use experts consistently objected, saying, for example, that it was "flatly impossible" to constitute weapons from the child vaccines, which was the laughable and perplexing American claim.

So, lots and lots more death. Awesome.

Your defense of Iraq is a joke.

Your defense of child-killers, contrarily, is not funny at all.

Unless of course they were building an arsenal of potato cannons!

Ha ha ha ha! hilarious! Untold thousands of Iraqi children killed for no sensible purpose! That's so bloody amusing!

You're completely wrong in blaming the US and UK for the suffering of Iraq. That responsibility lies directly with Saddam Hussein.

I see you've not been schooled in elementary moral principles, Christian or otherwise, so let me inform you of something every five year old understands:

We are responsible for the terrible actions we commit, not for those that others commit. Any coward can pretend to clean hands (or, more accurately, avoid the issue entirely) while shouting with high sanctimony about the crimes of official enemies.

In fact, every coward does exactly that. Often, it's termed "patriotism."

Anyhooo...now that you're aware of the facts of American-led mass murder of Iraqis (mostly children), I await your humble retraction of your morally relativist remarks.

You can no longer pretend to have no clue about any of this.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Nope...not allowed...even Canada was killing them softly with your song.

It was your song, an American song. Of needless mass killings, officially objected to by everyone. Including Canada.

...but never Canada...right?

Not "never." Just not in this particular case. You guys were the mass murderers, occasionally with the UK's help.

They did have a case...a case of dictator blues. I wonder what he was thinking about his "case" for invading and killing Kuwaitis?

Yeah, that's entirelly irrelevant to any of the points I made. Even your efforts at distraction are weak.

Book 'em Danno....Murder One! (cue music)

Murder one, exactly so.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded