Bush'stradamus

[On Guard for Thee]

When one is so willing to rewrite the history of the UN's adventures in Iraq, nothing that you respond with is worth considering.

Oh were you there too? I don't have to rewrite it.

[cybercoma]

lol

Are we really going to rehash that one???

WMD of course... that one was my favourite... did you know some delusional right-wingers still believe that???

The weapons inspectors, who were let into Saddam's palaces before the fighting broke out, didn't find anything there because he buried it all in the desert. Stooopid.

[On Guard for Thee]

The weapons inspectors, who were let into Saddam's palaces before the fighting broke out, didn't find anything there because he buried it all in the desert. Stooopid.

I had dinner one night in Basra and was sitting with one of the head honcho inspectors on the mission who had also been on the previous UN mission. I asked him simply if are we not finding the "stuff" because it's well hidden, or just not here. Without hesitation he answered it's just not here. And as it turned out of course, he was right.

[sharkman]

How would he know? If he's not finding something, maybe his efforts were just being thwarted again as they were back in the 90's. And if you were there, then your account was all-seeing, all-knowing and a better coverage than the media and press that was all over the region, vs your one person view? Wow, you really must be something.

As to the delusional idea that Bush/Cheney are guilty of war crimes, you let me know when they get arrested.

Edited October 13, 2014 by sharkman

[Wilber]

How would he know? If he's not finding something, maybe his efforts were just being thwarted again as they were back in the 90's. And if you were there, then your account was all-seeing, all-knowing and a better coverage than the media and press that was all over the region, vs your one person view? Wow, you really must be something.

As to the delusional idea that Bush/Cheney are guilty of war crimes, you let me know when they get arrested.

Ah, the old "we can't find it, therefore it must be there" logic. Works every time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah, the old "we can't find it, therefore it must be there" logic. Works every time.

Didn't matter....the US/UK were taking Saddam down no matter what. Canada's protests over UN/WMD were irrelevant, as it had little to offer anyway (already engaged in Afghanistan). Works every time.

[waldo]

Didn't matter....the US/UK were taking Saddam down no matter what.

then why the long drawn out charade at the UN? A brazillion previous MLW threads have exhaustively detailed just how hard the U.S./UK tried to gain a UN sanctioning of the invasion... of the sovereign country of Iraq. Downing Street memos, anyone!

[sharkman]

Ah, the old "we can't find it, therefore it must be there" logic. Works every time.

I don't know about that, and it's not my point. My point is, to assume that when your efforts to find something are being delayed, denied and put off by a systemic government effort, that you can't find it because it doesn't exist, well that's a little naive. You don't know anything at that point, that's all I'm saying. The UN was in a campaign to keep the US from attacking Iraq, so what they were saying at the time needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[jbg]

then why the long drawn out charade at the UN? A brazillion previous MLW threads have exhaustively detailed just how hard the U.S./UK tried to gain a UN sanctioning of the invasion... of the sovereign country of Iraq. Downing Street memos, anyone!

We shouldn't have bothered with the charade. Then again neither of our countries should be bothering with the U.N. It's at best an expensive debating society, at worst it creates a phony "world opinion" on various matters on which no one agrees.

[waldo]

We shouldn't have bothered with the charade. Then again neither of our countries should be bothering with the U.N. It's at best an expensive debating society, at worst it creates a phony "world opinion" on various matters on which no one agrees.

you're just speaking the U.S. rogue nation party line!

Edited October 13, 2014 by waldo

[Wilber]

Didn't matter....the US/UK were taking Saddam down no matter what. Canada's protests over UN/WMD were irrelevant, as it had little to offer anyway (already engaged in Afghanistan). Works every time.

That was obvious. Far from the first time that line has been used to start a war.

[sharkman]

We shouldn't have bothered with the charade. Then again neither of our countries should be bothering with the U.N. It's at best an expensive debating society, at worst it creates a phony "world opinion" on various matters on which no one agrees.

And it can be a tool in the hands of dictators and other refuse.

[bush_cheney2004]

That was obvious. Far from the first time that line has been used to start a war.

If the Americans or British want war...then there shall be war. Nothing Canada or the UN can do about that.

[Wilber]

We shouldn't have bothered with the charade. Then again neither of our countries should be bothering with the U.N. It's at best an expensive debating society, at worst it creates a phony "world opinion" on various matters on which no one agrees.

Better to be debating than shooting. I think it is important for countries to know where they stand when it comes to the opinions of others. If they listen, it might help them from making even more stupid mistakes

[Wilber]

If the Americans or British want war...then there shall be war. Nothing Canada or the UN can do about that.

Bully for the Americans and British.

[waldo]

If the Americans or British want war...then there shall be war.

sure! Just get the U.S. Congress to sanction it... to give it, uhhh... "legal authority"! That's what rogue nations do, right?

[GostHacked]

If the Americans or British want war...then there shall be war. Nothing Canada or the UN can do about that.

And yet Putin is called a 'bully'.

[jbg]

you're just speaking the U.S. rogue nation party line!

Why should the U.S. be tied down like Gulliver in Lilliput?

[Wilber]

Why should the U.S. be tied down like Gulliver in Lilliput?

Do you think there should be no restraints on the US at all when it comes to the way it deals with other countries?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you think there should be no restraints on the US at all when it comes to the way it deals with other countries?

Only the restraints of economics and power. Note that "rogue nation" USA remains Canada's #1 trading partner, despite any pretend "fence sitting" over the invasion of Iraq.

[jbg]

Do you think there should be no restraints on the US at all when it comes to the way it deals with other countries?

Internal politics and the need for support by an educated, toting citizenry is a very large restraint. So is an active free press. There are also institutions such as religious and political organizations with a voice.

Do any of these exist in so-called "rogue" nations such as North Korea, Iran, IS, etc?

[Wilber]

Internal politics and the need for support by an educated, toting citizenry is a very large restraint. So is an active free press. There are also institutions such as religious and political organizations with a voice.

Do any of these exist in so-called "rogue" nations such as North Korea, Iran, IS, etc?

Who's internal politics? Yours? The countries who's affairs you meddle in get no say in the matter? They have to rely on how well informed the US public is about their affairs? That's a bloody depressing thought and precisely why you need a UN. It may be a PITA to great powers like the US but it is the only real forum the little guys have and one of the few ways they can peacefully influence what you guys do.

[jbg]

Who's internal politics? Yours? The countries who's affairs you meddle in get no say in the matter? They have to rely on how well informed the US public is about their affairs? That's a bloody depressing thought and precisely why you need a UN. It may be a PITA to great powers like the US but it is the only real forum the little guys have and one of the few ways they can peacefully influence what you guys do.

That's not really the case. Remember, Britain went over the government's head in WW I, directly through the media to the U.S. people, to get around Wilson's opposition to going to war. In an open society other countries can make their case directly to the U.S. people. I will admit that it would be tough for ISIS to make much of a case on the merits of beheading reporters.

[Wilber]

That's not really the case. Remember, Britain went over the government's head in WW I, directly through the media to the U.S. people, to get around Wilson's opposition to going to war. In an open society other countries can make their case directly to the U.S. people. I will admit that it would be tough for ISIS to make much of a case on the merits of beheading reporters.

Britain was hardly s little guy In WWI it was head of the largest empire in history.

[On Guard for Thee]

How would he know? If he's not finding something, maybe his efforts were just being thwarted again as they were back in the 90's. And if you were there, then your account was all-seeing, all-knowing and a better coverage than the media and press that was all over the region, vs your one person view? Wow, you really must be something.

As to the delusional idea that Bush/Cheney are guilty of war crimes, you let me know when they get arrested.

He, wasn't alone. There was a hotel full of UN inspectors who found nothing. The man I was speaking to was a senior man in charge and who had been there years ago doing the same work so he knew the lay of the land. If you don't know that the ICC found Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes perhaps you are delusional. Theoretically any of them could be arrested if they set foot on soil of a country that is a signatory to the ICC, you know, like Canada for one.