Exploiting The Dead

[I Miss Trudeau]

Bush would never allow for his family to be put in such a position and I don't blame him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not. Thats what poor people are for.

[PocketRocket]

They could have passed two hundred 'acts of congress' and invasions of countries is still against international law.

What are you saying? Is it against international law to enforce international law? Or is there some World Body that control US policy by overruling elected US representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives, i.e., Congress?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who appointed the USA as sole international police force???

When you can answer that, your argument will hold water.

International law should be passed, interpreted, and enforced by an international body.

The fact that Bush and company used UN resolutions as an excuse to start a war, which was NOT approved by that selfsame international body is the height of hypocrisy.

And, according to INTERNATIONAL law, illegal.

Congress can pass domestic law within the USA's borders.

She cannot pass and/or enforce international law.

[Montgomery Burns]

I'm so tired of the chickenhawk VS the liberal chickensh*ts argument.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should give a good argument against it, then, rather than just dismissing it. Fleabag is right, of course, the Bush girls would be walking targets, and their "noble sacrifice" would be all but assured. I don't wish them harm, despite what you might think from my posts, but I also don't see their lives as more valuable than my nephew, or any of the other barely adults who are sent over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since your nephew is an adult, I think he has the ultimate say. Yes or no. It is a volunteer army.

[Montgomery Burns]

They could have passed two hundred 'acts of congress' and invasions of countries is still against international law.

What are you saying? Is it against international law to enforce international law? Or is there some World Body that control US policy by overruling elected US representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives, i.e., Congress?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who appointed the USA as sole international police force???

When you can answer that, your argument will hold water.

International law should be passed, interpreted, and enforced by an international body.

The fact that Bush and company used UN resolutions as an excuse to start a war, which was NOT approved by that selfsame international body is the height of hypocrisy.

And, according to INTERNATIONAL law, illegal.

Congress can pass domestic law within the USA's borders.

She cannot pass and/or enforce international law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well then, who is the sole international police force? The UN? The World Body that passed 16 Chapter VII (binding) reolutions against Iraq - with all of them being ignored or broken. The 17th UN Resolution warned of serious consequences. Even Hans Blix wrote in his book that that was diplospeak for war.

Do you think that it is fair that Russia, France and China (the 3 countries that sold Iraq 82% of its arms--and were owed billions by Saddam), should refuse to enforce the 16 UN resolutions for purely greed purposes?

You brought up UN resolutions against Iraq (I'm surprised you didn't bring up the 150,000 resolutions against Israel ). Do you think it is reasonable for the UN to give a platform to dictators, to in effect, legitamize them, to spew their venom against a beacon of democracy--the USA? Zimbwabe's Robert Mugabe gave a speech to a group of UN delegates about a week ago--where he likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and said they were both the biggest terrorists in the world. Many of the UN Assembly clapped. Do you agree with that?

[Montgomery Burns]

I'm so tired of the chickenhawk VS the liberal chickensh*ts argument.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should give a good argument against it, then, rather than just dismissing it. Fleabag is right, of course, the Bush girls would be walking targets, and their "noble sacrifice" would be all but assured. I don't wish them harm, despite what you might think from my posts, but I also don't see their lives as more valuable than my nephew, or any of the other barely adults who are sent over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Technically" their lives aren't more important than the average American BUT regardless of "that" there is no way they could be allowed to fight in Iraq because, whether you like it or not, they would be the target...

Can you imagine kidnappers capturing them and saying..."troops out or your daughters lives???" Bush would never allow for his family to be put in such a position and I don't blame him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. Jenna and Barbara would have big exes on their back. Just shudder at the thought of one or both of the girls getting beheaded. The terrorist deathcult would do it. Not only would it be terribly demoralizing to the American public, which would make the far left elated, and likley Bush would retaliate with a thunderous military action. He might even go too far.

When I see people advocatating for the Bush twin daughters to go fight in Iraq--knowing that they would both have big exes on their backs--I sometimes think that these people want the Bush twins killed by the terrorists.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Do you think that it is fair that Russia, France and China (the 3 countries that sold Iraq 82% of its arms--and were owed billions by Saddam), should refuse to enforce the 16 UN resolutions for purely greed purposes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that anything to do with the security council is "fair."

Zimbwabe's Robert Mugabe gave a speech to a group of UN delegates about a week ago--where he likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and said they were both the biggest terrorists in the world.  Many of the UN Assembly clapped.  Do you agree with that?

The hitler part is hyperbole, but the rest is pretty much dead on.

[Melanie_]

Since your nephew is an adult, I think he has the ultimate say.  Yes or no.  It is a volunteer army.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be great, if they took no for an answer. But no matter how many times he says no, they keep calling back, questioning his patriotism, his committment to democracy, etc.

[Montgomery Burns]

Exploiting the dead: It's worse than grave-robbing

[Montgomery Burns]

Since your nephew is an adult, I think he has the ultimate say.  Yes or no.  It is a volunteer army.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be great, if they took no for an answer. But no matter how many times he says no, they keep calling back, questioning his patriotism, his committment to democracy, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh please. No one is falling for your overly dramatic posts. It doesn't even make sense.

I've been watching you for a while and your contempt for the Iraqis is plain for all to see.

Why?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

I've been watching you for a while and your contempt for the Iraqis is plain for all to see.

Why?

Using the 'false dichotomy' ploy is one thing, but this is dangerously close to 'flame' posting. Attack the point, not the person.

[Black Dog]

Using the 'false dichotomy' ploy is one thing, but this is dangerously close to 'flame' posting. Attack the point, not the person.

He's a troll, fleabag. It's what he does. He's not here to debate. He's not here to discuss issues in an intelligent manner. He lives to flame. Which is why you need to make the "ignore" button your friend.

[Melanie_]

Why, Monty, I'm flattered!

Should I pin my hopes on an Oscar??

But I don't think you've been paying close attention, as I haven't really talked about the Iraqis at all - maybe you need to go back and re-read the thread?

[Montgomery Burns]

Using the 'false dichotomy' ploy is one thing, but this is dangerously close to 'flame' posting. Attack the point, not the person.

He's a troll, fleabag. It's what he does. He's not here to debate. He's not here to discuss issues in an intelligent manner. He lives to flame. Which is why you need to make the "ignore" button your friend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical insults from you. It's your MO.

[Montgomery Burns]

Melanie:

Why, Monty, I'm flattered! 

Should I pin my hopes on an Oscar??

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Most Oscar winning thespians are believeable.

[PocketRocket]

Well then, who is the sole international police force?  The UN?

Apparently so. That body passed all the resolutions which Bush so eagerly used to justify his war.

If the UN is relevant enough for its resolutions to be cause for war, then they should be relevant enough to make the decision on when and how to begin the war.

And yet Bush said they were irrelevant, but not until after he used their resolutions as justification.

Who is the bigger hypocrite??? The UN, or Bush???

The World Body that passed 16 Chapter VII (binding) reolutions against Iraq - with all of them being ignored or broken.  The 17th UN Resolution warned of serious consequences.  Even Hans Blix wrote in his book that that was diplospeak for war.

Yup. And then the UN said that there should be no war, at least not yet.

But Bush took it upon himself to use, as detailed above, selective UN resolutions to bypass the UN's ruling.

Do you think that it is fair that Russia, France and China (the 3 countries that sold Iraq 82% of its arms--and were owed billions by Saddam), should refuse to enforce the 16 UN resolutions for purely greed purposes?

Oh well, if you want to talk about playing fair, do you think it's fair that Haliburton got the multi-billion-dollar contract to rebuild much of Iraq without ever having to bid against other companies for the contract???

The UN is not a perfect organization. But then again, neither is the USA. Or Canada. Or the YMCA.

But the USA could well have bided its time and continued to push for war.

Eventually the UN would have caved, or Saddam would have been proven to have none of the WMD's he was purported to have stockpiled.

The USA was hardly a military target for Iraq. There was no threat to America from Iraq, at least not from the Iraq military.

IOW, "fair" has little to do with the issue. The UN has certain rules, which the USA played a large part in establishing.

If Bush wants to play by UN rules, then he should observe ALL the rules, not just those which are convenient to his purposes.

You brought up UN resolutions against Iraq (I'm surprised you didn't bring up the 150,000 resolutions against Israel  ). 

The discussion you and I are having is not about Israel. No need for obfuscation.

Do you think it is reasonable for the UN to give a platform to dictators, to in effect, legitamize them,  to spew their venom against a beacon of democracy--the USA?  Zimbwabe's Robert Mugabe gave a speech to a group of UN delegates about a week ago--where he likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and said they were both the biggest terrorists in the world.  Many of the UN Assembly clapped.  Do you agree with that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Politics is a matter of perception. How does the world perceive Bush and Blair???

It appears that many within the UN agreed with Mugabe's statements, else they would not have applauded his comments.

You say Mugabe "likened (them) to Hitler".

Before stating whether it was justifiable, I would prefer to hear the Muagbe's comments for myself.

It is, after all, called The United Nations. Any member nation should have a voice here.

Whether or not we agree with that voice is a different matter.

But an international body whose mandate is to help move toward world peace would be pretty pointless if it only included a group of nations who all agree on everything.

[Guest eureka]

That was a very well reasoned and measured post, PR>

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

Apparently so. That body passed all the resolutions which Bush so eagerly used to justify his war.

If the UN is relevant enough for its resolutions to be cause for war, then they should be relevant enough to make the decision on when and how to begin the war.

Resolution 1441 (the 17th one) warned of serious consequences. What in the world do you think that meant--another (18th) UN Resolution against Iraq--perhaps a sternly written letter? Even the pacifist Hans Blix admitted - in his book - that that was diplospeak for war.

What UN Resolution was passed that vioded the previous 17?

It is clear that the only reason why Russia, France, China, Germany, and Canada wanted to keep Saddam in power because of their oil and arms deals with him.

Oh well, if you want to talk about playing fair, do you think it's fair that Haliburton got the multi-billion-dollar contract to rebuild much of Iraq without ever having to bid against other companies for the contract???

You changed the subject, but were you complaining when Halliburton got bid-free contracts for Bosnia during the Clinton administration? The fact is that Halliburton is the best at what they do, and have the best capibilities when it comes to responding to emergencies. Besides, they've made a paltry profit out of Iraq.

The UN is not a perfect organization.

Congratulations on winning the Understatement Of The Day™ award.

The USA was hardly a military target for Iraq.

Militarily? No. But things have changed in the post 9-11 world. I wish you could understand that.

There was no threat to America from Iraq,...

Oh but there was. Saddam ran a terrorist haven, he was linked with Al Qaeda, he sponsored international terrorism, and he might have been involved in 9-11 (he allowed Al Qaeda to use a passenger jet for training purposes at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp). Clinton-appointed federal judge Harold Bear apparently thought so, as he awarded two 9-11 families a $109 million judgement against the state of Iraq for their complicity in the terrorist attack that killed 3000 Americans. You might not have known about Baer's ruling because the liberal media - typically - has put a blackout on the story.

Politics is a matter of perception. How does the world perceive Bush and Blair???

What "world"? The part ruled by dictators/kings who offer only state-run propaganda for their serfs?

European and Canadian sheep who are, for the most part, brainwashed by hard-left news from the likes of the BBC and CBC?

Or the part of the world where the people know these two best: i.e., the US and the UK. Seems to me that both Bush and Blair were re-elected.

Ditto for John Howard.

It appears that many within the UN agreed with Mugabe's statements, else they would not have applauded his comments.

Does that tell you anything?

You say Mugabe "likened (them) to Hitler".

Before stating whether it was justifiable, I would prefer to hear the Muagbe's comments for myself.

Here's the Reuters link for you to read before you state whether the comparison of Bush and Blair to Adolph Hitler - is "justifiable".

It is, after all, called The United Nations. Any member nation should have a voice here.

Good grief.

You think that Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mohammar Khaddafi, Syria's Assad, Yassir Arafat (from the fictious nation called "Palestine"), etal, should be given a platform at world events?!

But an international body whose mandate is to help move toward world peace would be pretty pointless if it only included a group of nations who all agree on everything.

That int'l body has helped move towards peace by doing nothing in Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, etc. That int'l body allows states like Libya, Syria, China, Cuba to sit, and even chair that int'l body's Human Rights Commission. That int'l body passed 12 years of resolutions against Iraq was virtually toothless when it came to enforcing its own resolutions. There was one reason for this. The billions of dollars that the UN illegally made in the Oil For Food Program. Like Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada, etc, it was all about their insatiable greed for money. Typical socialists--leeching off the blood of the Iraqi people.

[Yodeler]

  Like Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada, etc, it was all about their insatiable greed for money.  Typical socialists--leeching off the blood of the Iraqi people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, PocketRocket must be sweating bullets by now.

Hey, Monty, do you mind if I enter you in NP's "Beautiful Minds" contest?

Thx.

[Guest eureka]

I doubt that Pocket would be very worried. It is merely M.B. repeating the same lies as he has uttered a dozen times.

They are lies because he knows better having been corrected and informed of the facts over and over again. I doubt that anyone has the interest to do it again.

[Montgomery Burns]

I doubt that Pocket would be very worried. It is merely M.B. repeating the same lies as he has uttered a dozen times.

They are lies because he knows better having been corrected and informed of the facts over and over again. I doubt that anyone has the interest to do it again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual, I state facts, data and reason.

But Eureka tore apart my arguement so brilliantly and effortlessly:

They are lies!! (but I'm not going to prove that they are lies)

I find the far left so amusing.

[Guest eureka]

Your arguments (is that what you call them?) were torn apart long ago and many times since; quite convincingly and correctly.

I really doubt that any one wants to hear all over again the dismantling of your Iraq war support rhetoric.

[PocketRocket]

PocketRocket:

Apparently so. That body passed all the resolutions which Bush so eagerly used to justify his war.

If the UN is relevant enough for its resolutions to be cause for war, then they should be relevant enough to make the decision on when and how to begin the war.

Resolution 1441 (the 17th one) warned of serious consequences. What in the world do you think that meant--another (18th) UN Resolution against Iraq--perhaps a sternly written letter? Even the pacifist Hans Blix admitted - in his book - that that was diplospeak for war.

What UN Resolution was passed that vioded the previous 17?

It is clear that the only reason why Russia, France, China, Germany, and Canada wanted to keep Saddam in power because of their oil and arms deals with him.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush declared the UN "irrelevant", but not until after using part of their rulings to walk around other parts.

Is the UN relevant or not??? Either way, it's a losing argument to use the UN's resolutions as justification for Iraq.

Oh well, if you want to talk about playing fair, do you think it's fair that Haliburton got the multi-billion-dollar contract to rebuild much of Iraq without ever having to bid against other companies for the contract???

You changed the subject, but were you complaining when Halliburton got bid-free contracts for Bosnia during the Clinton administration? The fact is that Halliburton is the best at what they do, and have the best capibilities when it comes to responding to emergencies. Besides, they've made a paltry profit out of Iraq.

You deride someone else for changing subject??? Perhaps you should read back over some of your own posts.

As for Haliburton/Clinton/Bosnia, I was not really following politics at the time and so was unaware of that deal.

If that's the way it went down, then it was no better then than this is now.

The UN is not a perfect organization.

Congratulations on winning the Understatement Of The Day™ award.

Well thank you. And I'd like to thank my producer, and the academy, and.....

The USA was hardly a military target for Iraq.

Militarily? No. But things have changed in the post 9-11 world. I wish you could understand that.

I understand that very well. Things always change. That's the only constant.

One of the things that's changed is that according to Mr Bush, we're either with him or against him.

Hmmm. I don't recall any president in the past who has been so determined to polarize the entire world into two opposing camps.

[PocketRocket]

There was no threat to America from Iraq,...

Oh but there was. Saddam ran a terrorist haven, he was linked with Al Qaeda, he sponsored international terrorism, and he might have been involved in 9-11 (he allowed Al Qaeda to use a passenger jet for training purposes at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp). Clinton-appointed federal judge Harold Bear apparently thought so, as he awarded two 9-11 families a $109 million judgement against the state of Iraq for their complicity in the terrorist attack that killed 3000 Americans. You might not have known about Baer's ruling because the liberal media - typically - has put a blackout on the story.

You went to a lot of effort to refute my comment, but only after carefully taking it out of context.

The full comment read "There was no threat to America from Iraq, at least not from the Iraq military".

More obfuscation???

It appears that many within the UN agreed with Mugabe's statements, else they would not have applauded his comments.

Does that tell you anything?

Well, yes; that several nations within the UN disapprove of the methods of the current adminiistrations of USA and Britain.

You say Mugabe "likened (them) to Hitler".

Before stating whether it was justifiable, I would prefer to hear the Muagbe's comments for myself.

Here's the Reuters link for you to read before you state whether the comparison of Bush and Blair to Adolph Hitler - is "justifiable".

Thanks for the link. After reading it, I actually agree that Mugabe was out of line, and over the top in his comments.

He could better have got his message across without the "Hitler" rhetoric.

It is, after all, called The United Nations. Any member nation should have a voice here.

Good grief.

You think that Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mohammar Khaddafi, Syria's Assad, Yassir Arafat (from the fictious nation called "Palestine"), etal, should be given a platform at world events?!

Let me guess, you think they should not be allowed to speak at all???

By letting them speak, they can either justify their actions, or, by putting their collective feet in their collective mouths, make asses of themselves.

Mugabe freely made an ass of himself with this speech, and did so for all the world to see.

I think this tends to make America's case better than all of Bush's speeches.

But an international body whose mandate is to help move toward world peace would be pretty pointless if it only included a group of nations who all agree on everything.

That int'l body has helped move towards peace by doing nothing in Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, etc. That int'l body allows states like Libya, Syria, China, Cuba to sit, and even chair that int'l body's Human Rights Commission. That int'l body passed 12 years of resolutions against Iraq was virtually toothless when it came to enforcing its own resolutions. There was one reason for this. The billions of dollars that the UN illegally made in the Oil For Food Program. Like Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada, etc, it was all about their insatiable greed for money. Typical socialists--leeching off the blood of the Iraqi people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And speaking of over-the-top rhetoric...

[PocketRocket]

  Like Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada, etc, it was all about their insatiable greed for money.  Typical socialists--leeching off the blood of the Iraqi people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, PocketRocket must be sweating bullets by now.

Not really, but hey, thanks for thinking about me.

Hey, Monty, do you mind if I enter you in NP's "Beautiful Minds" contest?

Thx.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh heh. Don't quit your day job.

[PocketRocket]

Exploiting the dead:  It's worse than grave-robbing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I pointed out earlier in this same thread, the guy you cite in your link in the opening post does exactly the same thing by saying "If the American left and its media sympathizers want someone to blame for our combat losses, they should begin with themselves."

Accusing the left of "exploiting the dead", while doing the same thing, IN THE SAME ARTICLE.

How hypocritical can you get???

Get over it, MONTY. Both sides use the dead as political currency.

One side by saying they should still be alive.

The other side accusing the first of being responsible simply because of their disagreement with the war.

Pot, kettle.