Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[bush_cheney2004]

.... All of that government should be brought up on war crimes, along with Tony Blair.

Sure...just as soon as you arrest Chretien and Martin. Lead by example....the dead bodies demand it !!

[waldo]

Oh...the gut wrenching shame of Canadians dropping bombs on Serbs without a UNSC resolution and hallway pass. Will Canada ever overcome this historic wrong and crimes against the peace and humanity ?

there are those apologists who insist NATO came in under the broader 1244 resolution... that it, in conjunction with the UNSC not accepting the Russian draft resolution against NATO's unilateral intentions, provided the legal framework. And, yes, please... let's have more of your "force projection" chest-thumping... rogue nations wear it well!

read it this time! But wait, are you saying NATO claims no legal foundation for Kosovo, that it wasn't working within the confines of existing UN resolution/charter passages? Is that what you're saying? What does NATO have to state about the failed Russian resolution?

[Guest American Woman]

Sure...just as soon as you arrest Chretien and Martin. Lead by example....

Yep. That's the bottom line.

[bush_cheney2004]

read it this time! But wait, are you saying NATO claims no legal foundation for Kosovo, that it wasn't working within the confines of existing UN resolution/charter passages? Is that what you're saying? What does NATO have to state about the failed Russian resolution?

NATO's actions to force Milosevic back to the bargaining table were not authorized by a UNSC resolution to use force, something that fence-sitter Chretien would insist on for Iraq 2003. How convenient....LOL !!

[waldo]

NATO's actions to force Milosevic back to the bargaining table were not authorized by a UNSC resolution to use force, something that fence-sitter Chretien would insist on for Iraq 2003. How convenient....LOL !!

and again, there are those that claim 1244 and the defeat of the Russian resolution provides the legal foundation. You also refuse to answer my direct questions concerning NATO. Is there a problem?

[bush_cheney2004]

and again, there are those that claim 1244 and the defeat of the Russian resolution provides the legal foundation. You also refuse to answer my direct questions concerning NATO. Is there a problem?

So what? There are "those that claim" 1441 "provides the legal foundation for the invasion of Iraq:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (UNSCR 1441), adopted on Nov. 8, 2002 by a vote of 15-0, stated in part:

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation

of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to

international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorizes 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...

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 resolutions 686

(1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting

for Kuwait and third country nationals wrongly detained by Iraq, or to

return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its

obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991),

in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations

inspectors and the IAEA [international Atomic Energy Agency], and to

complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687

(1991)..."

Your nattering questions are a direct deflection from NATO/Canada bombing a sovereign state without UNSC authorization to use force. Oh...the SHAME !

[waldo]

So what? There are "those that claim" 1441 "provides the legal foundation for the invasion of Iraq:

then why all the fuss over the "2nd resolution"... the one that couldn't be realized? If 1441 was there, why did the U.S. /UK try so very, very, very hard to secure the 2nd resolution. And when they didn't get it, why did the UNSC forcefully state there was no support for military intervention? And... and... and... why the circus act in your U.S. Congress, self-sanctioning your invasion? Why was any of that needed... if 1441 covered it?

Your nattering questions are a direct deflection from NATO/Canada bombing a sovereign state without UNSC authorization to use force. Oh...the SHAME !

no - again, apologists reach for 1244 and the defeat of the Russian led resolution against NATO engagement. And again, you refuse to answer my direct NATO related questions to you - is there a problem?

[bush_cheney2004]

then why all the fuss over the "2nd resolution"... the one that couldn't be realized? If 1441 was there, why did the U.S. /UK try so very, very, very hard to secure the 2nd resolution. And when they didn't get it, why did the UNSC forcefully state there was no support for military intervention? And... and... and... why the circus act in your U.S. Congress, self-sanctioning your invasion? Why was any of that needed... if 1441 covered it?

Because the '2nd resolution' was desired, but obviously not required. Just ask Saddam...oh wait...he is dead.

no - again, apologists reach for 1244 and the defeat of the Russian led resolution against NATO engagement. And again, you refuse to answer my direct NATO related questions to you - is there a problem?

There is no problem...your question goes unanswered because it was malformed.

[waldo]

Because the '2nd resolution' was desired, but obviously not required. Just ask Saddam...oh wait...he is dead.

There is no problem...your question goes unanswered because it was malformed.

desired!!! But not required!!! Did you do a double-layout, double-twist, full dismount when you wrote this?

[bush_cheney2004]

desired!!! But not required!!! Did you do a double-layout, double-twist, full dismount when you wrote this?

Yes.....doubled up on everything, like there gunships in Irak....feel the shame:

[waldo]

go with the porn... when ya gots nuthin else!

[Guest American Woman]

Because the '2nd resolution' was desired, but obviously not required. Just ask Saddam...oh wait...he is dead.

I think any desire that the Bush administration had for a second resolution was in regards to the mindset of some of the rest of the world; I don't think they ever felt it was 'needed' from a U.S. point of view, and obviously their actions would back that up - and the same goes for Blair and Howard - who were both re-elected, just as Bush was. To me, though, it's either right or wrong - how are the deaths of innocents any less tragic/moral if the UN sanctions the war?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think any desire that the Bush administration had for a second resolution was in regards to the mindset of some of the rest of the world; I don't think they ever felt it was 'needed' from a U.S. point of view, and obviously their actions would back that up - and the same goes for Blair and Howard - who were both re-elected, just as Bush was. To me, though, it's either right or wrong - how are the deaths of innocents any less tragic/moral if the UN sanctions the war?

Agreed.....the US Congressional resolution sought to obtain a UN resolution if possible, but it was not required. Troops were already staged and ready to go with Congress' blessing. Saddam was going down one-way or another.

[bush_cheney2004]

go with the porn... when ya gots nuthin else!

So much 'shame' about porn.....so much being downloaded !!

[Guest Derek L]

So much 'shame' about porn.....so much being downloaded !!

Guess where the 30 mike-mike and (IIRC) Hydra warheads are made?

GD-OTS makes them in a place that starts with a Q and ends with a uebec…………

[waldo]

I think any desire that the Bush administration had for a second resolution was in regards to the mindset of some of the rest of the world; I don't think they ever felt it was 'needed' from a U.S. point of view, and obviously their actions would back that up.

that "mindset" you speak of was the rest of the UNSC refusing to grant "force authorization". So the U.S., the rogue nation, passed it's own internal U.S. Congressional law to self-authorize force and invade Iraq. You either consider and respect the UN workings... or you don't. Canada did and refused to participate in your country's illegal invasion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Guess where the 30 mike-mike and (IIRC) Hydra warheads are made?

GD-OTS makes them in a place that starts with a Q and ends with a uebec…………

Hmmmmm....I wonder which other provinces in a country with name starting with 'C' and ending with an 'anada' make such arms and weapons systems components.

[bush_cheney2004]

... You either consider and respect the UN workings... or you don't. Canada did and refused to participate in your country's illegal invasion.

...but not when it came to bombing Serbs....no suh ! Didn't need no steenkin' UN workings then.

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmmmm....I wonder which other provinces in a country with name starting with 'C' and ending with an 'anada' make such arms and weapons systems components.

Well to be fair, the Quebec plant only produces the brass and primers............The DU penetrator is added in the States.......We have standards you know

But all the 5.56, 7.62 and 50BMG you can use.....

[waldo]

...but not when it came to bombing Serbs....no suh ! Didn't need no steenkin' UN workings then.

no - again, apologists reach for 1244 and the defeat of the Russian led resolution against NATO engagement. And again, you refuse to answer my direct NATO related questions to you - is there a problem?

[Guest American Woman]

that "mindset" you speak of was the rest of the UNSC refusing to grant "force authorization". So the U.S., the rogue nation, passed it's own internal U.S. Congressional law to self-authorize force and invade Iraq. You either consider and respect the UN workings... or you don't. Canada did and refused to participate in your country's illegal invasion.

Except for the fact that Canada did participate; it heads the list of the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” Keep pretending it didn't, though - as that surely erases your country's actions and shame.

Edited March 24, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

Except for the fact that Canada did participate; it heads the list of the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” Keep pretending it didn't, though - as that surely erases your countries actions and shame.

[Guest American Woman]

That's too funny!

[bush_cheney2004]

Well to be fair, the Quebec plant only produces the brass and primers............The DU penetrator is added in the States.......We have standards you know

But all the 5.56, 7.62 and 50BMG you can use.....

Right....but guess where the DU comes from ? Want some hockey pucks to go with that ?

[waldo]

Except for the fact that Canada did participate it heads the list of the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” Keep pretending it didn't though; that erases your countries actions and shame.

no - your false equivalencies will not prevail. You own this, no matter how hard you try to push your/your country's accountability and responsibility onto others! Own it!

in light of this weeks 10 year anniversary, even if you choose to ignore the Neocon lies, the illegal war status, the coincident dropped ball in Afghanistan, the devastation of Iraq, the loss of life (4400+ U.S. troops, 320 "coalition of the willing" troops, 16,000 Iraqi military/police, 100,000+ Iraqi civilians***), the thousands of life-impacting wounded, the direct and ongoing monetary costs to both Iraq and the U.S. ($2 trillion+ to the U.S.), the corruption, the negative world-wide reputation hit to the United States, the reinforcement of cowboy diplomacy, etc...... the best that can be said is, the Arab Spring has truly arrived in Iraq! Oh, wait... the government the Iraqi people are increasingly rising up against, is the puppet government installed by the U.S.! --- the same government forging alliances between the majority/ruling Shiites and the predominantly Shiite Iran. Iran thanks you for your service!!!

(*** depending on 'official' versus 'other sources', the direct impact to Iraq rests with claims that more than 1.5 million Iraqi have been killed, 800,000 civilians are missing, 4 million were forced to exile outside Iraq, with another 2 million forced to relocate internally within Iraq).