Outstanding article. Yet, all the visionary soothsayng and partisand hagiography aside - the sad truth remains that as of this day, there is no democracy in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, and certainly not in Saudi Arabia.



Two issues are never discussed. Imposing democracy militarily on any nation is tyranny not liberation. Military imperialism and predation will never win the hearts and minds of the victim societies. America is loathed in the ME. Why? Many Muslims want freedom and a voice in thier government, and some code of human rights, - yet most Muslims every where on the planet - and particularly in those the nations mentioned above despise America - and for good reason.




Decieving the American people about the reasons, necessities, and justifications for the waywar misadventure and colonization of Iraq is an absolute and grievous abuse of power for which the neocrusaders in the Bush government must and will be held accountable.



As to the flowerinig of democracy in the ME, please check the fine print. Voting does not a democracy make. Excluding women from participation is not democracy. We witness in Iraq the borning of a civil war, not democracy. Today, the Iraqi people live in hardship and constant terror. Iranian backed Shi'a are seeking a theocratic mutation of democracy, the Kurds want complete autonomy, and the Sunni's and Ba'athist want to continue slaughtering anyone who disagree's with them - so right now, there is no democracy in Iraq.




We all want peace on Earth and good will toward men, and we must indeed aplaud the Bush government for any progress toward those noble ends. But so far, the progress has been minimal and stained with unknown unknowns relating to what exactly is emerging as demcracy in Iraq or beyond, the future is rife with uncertainty and assuredly costly and bloody, and the approach, policies, and actions of the Bush government have done more harm than good to America's credibility and legitimacy as the beacon of hope for the free world.



Only in America, and only by 51% of the population are the neocruaders in the Bush government excused for the deceptions, failures, abuses, and dereliction of duty of the Bush government. The rest of the world, and particularly the Muslim world may desire freedom and democracy (what sane person would not) but America is no longer viewed in a positive light. Why?

For those who may be interested in something other than "The Sky is Falling"

"Imposing democracy militarily on any nation is tyranny not liberation."

Thus the first order of business for the left must be to topple those tyrannical regimes in Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Eastern Europe, the United States. That explains it.

You twist the meaning and miss the point pbswatcher. The first order of bussiness for theleft does not in any way involve toppling any nation.

America has the right to defend our security and prosperity if attacked. (Why are we not in Saudi Arabia?) We have the right, (and one the neocrusaders in the Bush government only inherited from EVERY previous US administration) to act preemptively to thwart imminent threats. There are a universe of potential responses to thwarting threats, and all but one do NOT involve invading, occupying, and colonizing soveriegn nations that posed no legitimate or immediate threat to American interests for the singular profits of the oligarchs beholden to the neocrusader Bush government.

Nor does America have to right to colonize a soveriegn nation, maraud said nations resources, slaughter many thousands of said nations INNOCENT civilians, and allow our fraudulent, deceptive, secretive, and unaccountable leadership to personally and singularly profit obscenely in and from the costly bloody process.

That my friend is tyranny not democracy.

Tony Foresta once again demonstrates his mental confusion.

If "democracy" is to be broadly characterized as "representative government accepted by the people at large as legitimate", then to say "imposing democracy by force is tyranny" is a contradiction in terms.

Hey, Tony, tell us how Saddam Huseein came to power. Did he hold a referendum saying "Vote for me to be dictator", and win a majority of a free and fair vote? Or did he seize power with thugs?

Do explain how Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq and accepted by its people as such, when any of those who voiced any dissatisfaction with the way he ran things ended up in the mass graves, which so far have been found to contain 300,000 people?

If you go with the latter, Tony, how can then removing a tyranny be itself a tyrannical act?

Unless the US is forcing Iraqis to vote for candidates who are forced to run, how is this "tyranny"?

But since you have no idea what words mean, you just have a farrago of confused nonsense in your post.

But how many times have we heard it from Tony?

"Democracy is tyranny! Ignorance is strength! Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc!"

etc, etc, etc, except there is usually something about "robopathic neoconservatives" and "slime".

Tony, for someone who professes to know so much about the middle east should know the problem with democracy there is that Islam does not allow a democracy. Therein the fault lies within the religion of the region. The hatred of the US is from our protection of Israel and not allowing the barbarians to kill all the Jews and take over their country. The arabs are suppressed by their religion, not America. Do you get it now big boy? Arabs are not even permitted to mix with members of the opposite sex, so they are raised in an abnormal, unhealthy society and taught to hate all those who don't practice their faith. So, can you imagine all those frustrated male muslims running around? No wonder we have terrorism in the world. They have to vent somewhere. If arab males were permitted to socialize with women, there would be a lot less terrorism today. Research your subjects more thoroughly before blaming everything on the Bush Administration. Go live in Saudi Arabia...........

Thanks for you colorful replies. Let me clarify a few points. Obviously in this comment ("If "democracy" is to be broadly characterized as "representative government accepted by the people at large as legitimate", then to say "imposing democracy by force is tyranny" is a contradiction in terms.") - the confusion originates in your camp. Imposing any government on any society by miitary force is tyranny and imperialism, - not liberation or democracy.



Saddam came to power by slaughtering all his enemies. Yet Saddam's legitimacy was no issue for theright, and Rummy, and Cheney and all the Reagan boyz when Saddam was warring with Iran and being well armed and funded by the US government.



You commentary Gabriel Hanna seems to suggest that America attacked and occupied Iraq because Saddam was a tyrant and a really bad man. First if America is going to attack tyrants and really bad men, then what about the Sudan, NK, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekastan, and numerous other nations run by tyrants who slaughter thier people and exploit thier nations resources for personal gain?



Secondly, the neocrusaders in the Bush government did NOT, could NOT, and NEVER would gain the approval for a costly bloody war and occupation based on the desire to rid the world of a tyrant. You seem to forget, (though you might want to visit todays Chicago Tribune and the Downing Street Memo for you recollection) - that neocrusaders in the Bush government decieved America into supporting the costly bloody unaccounted for wayward misadventure in Iraq by terrrorizing Americans and exploiting the dead and the horrors of 9/11 by pimping a relentless chari vari of "days of horror like none we have ever known", "mushroom clouds", "known WMD stock piles", and imminent threats.



Removing tyranny is not tyrannical. Occupying Iraq, slaughtering thousand of innocent Iraqis, imposing a puppet government beholden to the neocrusaders in the Bush government, marauding Iraq resources and profiteerinng obscenely in and from the war occupation, and woefully inadequate resonstruction process is indeed tyranny.



You make excellent points Bonnia. You are most correct that Isreal and Islams primitive and perverted sexual repression is the cause of much of the ire muslims hold for America - but not all.



I aggree with you wholeheartedly that "The arabs are suppressed by their religion, not America.", and that "If arab males were permitted to socialize with women, there would be a lot less terrorism today."


My point is that the neocrusaders in the Bush government have grieviously damaged America's credibility, legitimacy, and good standing all over the world and most particularly amongst the worlds Muslims. Thanks however for your insightful criticism.

Okay, Tony. More lies and bullshit.

The fact that you did not listen to the arguments that the Administration made about ending tyranny in Iraq before the war, is no evidence that they did not make them.

I and others who used to post regularly here have provided for you time after time after time links to arguments made for war in Iraq that don't involve WMD, before the war began, most prominently being two State of the Union addresses.

We have also shown you over and over again that if the WMD evidence were lies, they did not originate with the "neocons". We proved this with links to statements from foreign governments and the previous administration.

But you lie over and over again, saying they never existed, despite the fact that we have repeatedly shown them to you. We were there. You were there.

WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE LYING.

But, like Joseph Goebbels before you, you keep telling bigger and bigger lies in the hope that they will stick.

But WE KNOW YOU and WE KNOW YOUR LIES.

You can call names and make up new definitions of tyranny all you like, Tony Foresta, and continue to refuse to answer questions that would make your position problematic if you answered them.

Just more duckspeak from you--AND WE ALL KNOW IT.

You're wasting your time. Whenever you post, people either ignore you, or they just want to bait you.

Nobody respects anything you have to say, because it consists entirely of lies and bullshit and nonsensical ravings and made-up words.

Hell, people don't even post to this site any more! But here you are, continuing to act stupid.

Guess what, boss? YOU ARE IRRELEVANT.

YOU had your say. YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT.

They went to war in Iraq despite you, and reelected George W Bush despite you.

They saw you and your tens of thousands of like-minded fools cavorting in the streets, throwing mass tantrums, and THEY REJECTED YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU HAD TO SAY.

And your response, when your fellow citizens don't like what you have to offer, is to offer them twice as much.

Res ipsa loquitor.

Wow Gabe, you really told him didn't you! I just don't think all this partisan bickering is getting us anywhere. The country needs to be joined together as we were after 9/11. We have a frightening enemy that wants to kill us all. We and the media should begin turning the table on the muslims and begin psychological warfare, ie, constantly throwing their unhealthy, unnatural lifestyle in their face. With this recent Newsweek scandal again they are putting the blame on us, look what you did to us, blah blah. Instead of constantly trying to pacify them, throw their wrongful ways at them, their mistreatment of women, beheadings, slaughtering animals in the street, their barbarism and their constant teachings to hate others who don't practice the same religion. The fact is, you don't see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc. behaving in that way, rioting and killing in the streets when they hear something they don't like. The media is constantly portraying the US at fault, when they should be flaunting the barbarism of muslims. If you look at the psychology of the 9/11 attackers, most of them were butt ugly and especially Atta hated women to the extreme, probably from being constantly rejected. He was very unhappy he could not find a wife, so instead, he vented his anger at us. I have spoken online with educated Iraqi's and at 34 one had never been on a date and still lives at home with his parents and he is a doctor in Baghdad. He explained he can't go on a date because if he does, he will have to marry the girl. Can you imagine at 34 never being with the opposite sex or going on a date??? A decorator visiting Saudi Arabia said he had never seen so many gay men in his life. The princesses there are known for their lesbian parties. This all from never being allowed to be with the opposite sex. Maybe it all sounds like goobly gook, but you have to understand the psychology, lifestyle and teachings of where this extremism is coming from, before learning how to deal with it properly. One thing the media or Administration never did was turn the tables on them and rub in all their wrongdoing and unnatural way of life. President Bush had a good idea to begin by turning one of the countries into a democracy. Unfortunately the after planning was very bad and it has been a rough ride for our troops there and their loved ones at home. Constantly bickering is not going to make it get better. So, we have to try a new plan. All remember, they are after us and we must join together and protect our country and it's people, not fight at each other. And frankly, I hold Newsweek and all the other publications that make Americans look bad in this war on terror, to be treasonous. Even more so, those soldiers at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo running to the press with stories of soldier misconduct. They're not only backstabbing their fellow soldiers, their creed, and their country putting the others in harms way. Everyone must not forget, those prisoners are responsible for killing Americans in the name of religion and hatred. They are not sweet angels. They shouldn't even be permitted to have Korans or prayer mats. In Saudi Arabia you'll be arrested and imprisoned or killed for having a Bible. The UN is a complete joke and would never go along with a war in Iraq because some of them were on the take making money off of Saddam. How could we ever have gotten UN backing with that going on? We are the sole superpower and don't need UN backing. Kofi Annan is African and he doesn't give a shit about what's going on in Sudan, the slaughter of black Christians because he flys around on the private jets of middle eastern leaders. He is bought and paid for all the way.

You can make all the liar-liar-pants-on-fire claims you want Gabriel Hanna - but you cannot rewrite history or pretend that the neocrusaders in the Bush government did not use WMD, and mushroom clouds and "days of horror like none we have ever known ( all in SOTU speaches) imminent threat speak disinformation to justify the war.

The OSP warmongers and war profiteers conducted information warfare on the American people, and this policy contamination, wherein a select cabal or rightwingideologue neocrusaders, - you call them neocons - morphed, mangled, and otherwise conformed the intelligence product to suit thier singular preconcieved Pax Americana policies.

The neocrusaders in the Bush government alone decieved the American people (Downing Street Memo) about the necessity and justification for the war. Further they decieved, and continue to decieve the American people about costs in blood and treasure (1600 dead US soldiers, many thousands of innocent Iraqi slaughtered, many thousand more maimed) ($300bn and growing with noendinsight), the timeframes, the unaccounted for expenditures (8.8bn simply missing from the CPA) and the WILD AND OBSCENE PROFITEERING ONGOING in Iraq by cronies and oligarchs beholden to the neocrusaders in the Bush government. I stand on, will defend, and support every claim I make! Can you?

Again you make conflicting points Bonniea. The neocrusader Bush governments craven appeasement to the muslim world for the supersenstivities of abusing a book are absolutely absurd in the context of the muslim worlds support of beheading human beings on video, or sending thier children to die mass murdering other children, or flying planes into the World Trade Center.

Muslim priorites are whacky! That said, it is equally absurd to claim that your fellow American are treasonous for reporting the truth - while you neocrusader leader are hero's for systemic deception, failure, abuse, and dereliction of duty.

We divide hard on this issue. Accusing your fellow American's of treason, or sliming them as anti-American for asking legitimate questions and demanding accountability from our supposed leadership is the hieght of hypocrisy, and conduct unbecoming.


Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo represent massive failures of leadership and the abuses documented shame America. Defending these actions in not patriotic or Christian, nor is hoisting the horrors on the shoulders of a few privates in anyway acceptable. What about the private military spooks in those photo's? What about the CIA involvement?


The America I love and would give my life to defend need not resort to lies, deceptions, and torture to defeat a bunch of jihadist freaks.


19 jihadist mass murderers (15 of them Saudi Arabian) defeated every office, agency, organization, and individual in the US government on 9/11. That monument horror happened on the neocrusader Bush government's watch.

Iraq is a bloody costly nightmare Americans will burden and hazard for decades!!


We would love to be "joined together as we were after 9/11." But we will never allow our leadership to shame America because of 9/11, nor will we ever allow neocrusader Bush government cronies, thier mindless flocks of truebeliever's, or any one theright - to falsely slime our fellow Americans as unpatriotic for posing legitimate, necessary, and critical questions. That is what America is all about! We have the right to free speach, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.


The neocrusader Bush government is accountable!!!!!

Okay, Tony, ONE MORE TIME DOWN YOUR GODDAMNED MEMORY HOLE.

I have posted all of these things before. You deny having ever seen them.

You will pretend after today that you never saw any of it.


I) So, who made up the evidence on Iraq's WMD, Tony? ROBOPATHIC NEOCRUSADERS, right? Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, right?

Bill Clinton, Larry King Live, July 22 2003:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html

CLINTON: "...Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

KING: So do you share that view, Senator Dole?

DOLE: Oh, he's exactly right. Let's put the focus where it belongs.

I never got to be president. I tried a couple of times. But President Clinton understands better than anybody that he gets piles and piles of classified, secret, top secret information, and I don't know how many, maybe the president can tell me. I don't know how much of this goes across your desk every day. It probably shouldn't have been in the message.

But that's history. It's passed. We can't change it. And we need to focus on the real problem.

KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there.

KING: Yes.

CLINTON: And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think...."

Hillary Clinton, Larry King Live, April 20, 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/index.html

..."Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."...

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

She conceded that making such decisions is "very tough" for the occupant of the Oval Office.


So there we have it, the Clintons are ROBOPATHIC NEOCRUSADERS!

SO TELL US TONY! DO THE "NEOCRUSADERS" POSSESS THE ABILITY TO TRAVEL IN TIME? DO THEY CONTROL THE CLINTONS AND THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTION TEAMS FROM 1991 - 1998?

Why is it that you are unable to understand that prominent Democrats like the Clintons and John Kerry COULD AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE BUT DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?

II) Your "imminent threat" lies:

To begin with, "imminent" means "about to happen". To say that something is "imminent" is not a statement about what MAY happen, but what WILL happen in the near future.

There is no quote from any Administration official that says or implies "Iraq is about to attack us". They talk of capabilities, possibilities, worst-case scenarios, how stupid it is to trust in the sense and good judgement of Saddam Hussein. They never say he is "about to attack". You want to think "imminent" means something else, that's between you and your dictionary.

Here is the 2003 SOTU where the President says that the threat from Iraq is NOT IMMINENT but that action is nonetheless justified. Another position that is way too nuanced for you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

So, you want to bring up off-the-cuff answers from a press secretary that you think means "imminent", I guess you can, but I understand the Constitution to say that the President outranks his press secretary--but you understand the Constitution as well as you understand the meaning of "imminent" I guess.

III) Your "WMD was the only argument" lie:

Here's Bush addressing the UN General assembly in September 2002.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

He gives TEN reasons for war with Iraq.

"Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."


Tony, it's YOUR fault that YOU didn't listen and that YOU didn't understand what the Administration has been trying to tell you. But you are too stupid to grasp that, so you make up stuff and put it in their mouths, and you invent conspiracies of shadowy figures with time-travel powers whom you can't name. And you blame THEM for saying things that THEY didn't say but that YOU MADE UP.

And when you're shown otherwise YOU LIE. You say you never saw it, or that it doesn't mean what the plain English words mean. (Bush is not exactly Jacques Derrida, it does not a take a degree to understand what he says.)

The fact is YOU ARE STUPID. You cannot conceive that reasonable people MAY ALL, IN GOOD FAITH, BE WRONG IN WHAT THEY KNOW, or that reasonable people may AGREE ON WHAT THEY THINK THEY KNOW AND DISAGREE ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT--and because YOU ARE STUPID you assume it must all be the work of some sinister cabal--because your mind is not flexible enough to understand this very simple truth.

YOU are a lunatic, and you cannot comprehend reasonable people.

Your last raving sentence in your last post was about how Bush and his "neocrusaders" must be held accountable.

They were--they won reelection. The war was a big issue in the election, if you recall. The Democrats claimed it was all being bungled, the media piled on with all the bad news from Iraq they could come up with--and when they couldn't come up with more, they just repeated the same story.

And Bush got reelected ANYWAY. The Republican majority INCREASED.

AND YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT.

So you retreat into your lies and your Orwellian duckspeak.

YOU ARE IRRELEVANT.

Talk, talk, talk, bitch, bitch, bitch, lie, lie, lie. That's all you got.

Fuck you, liar.

I apologize for saying "fuck you", Tony. That was uncalled for. I do not attempt to excuse it, I merely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

I retract nothing else that I've said--judging from what we've posted here, in my opinion you lie about what you've seen and what you haven't, and judging from the words you make up you are some kind of schizophrenic, or maybe just a harmless lunatic unable to think in anything other than propagandistic slogans.

I don't apologize for saying those things, as they are considered opinions, as opposed to things I say inapproprately in anger.

Gabriel,
Your comments are pretty pathetic. Simply insulting someone who disagrees with you and recylcing old news articles and transcripts does not make for a coherent or rational post.

In fact, your arguments remind me more of the rhetoric espoused by radical Islamic fundamentalists than any argument based on statements of fact and reasonable opinion.

The problem with discussing Iraq is this:
1) war supporters feel that to remain consistent and not show weakness in their support they are forced to accept anything the Bush admin does as legit and in the best interests of the Iraqi people.
2) war opposers feel that to remain consistent and not show weakness in their opposition they are forced to denounce anything done by Bush.

Like everything the truth is in the middle.

1) Bush and friends obviously lied and/or misled the US and the world about the WMD threat posed by Iraq. They also lied/misled the world about the connections between Saddam and al-Quada. Numerous documents and sources support this; the Downing Street memo is the latest and Paul O'Neil's recent book further illustrates the push for war immediately after 9-11.
2) Bush and friends do appear to want Iraq to become a democracy. They have held elections (not perfect but there's a lot of bombs around), outlined plans for Iraqi security forces to take over, begun reconstruction of essential services, and basically tried to make life easier.
3) The Iraq war is illegal under US and international law. The Constitution does not allow the President to make war without an act of Congress. The original resolution Bush has based the whole war on was not a "war" resolution it was a resolution designed to gather as much support as possible for "some action" against Iraq. The UN Charter does not allow members states to make war unless in the case of self-defense. The self-defense argument was made on the WMD lie, but even then the Security Council did not sanction the war thereby making the war and subsequent occupation illegal.
4) Both the Constitution and the UN Charter are a little outdated on the matter of WMD. The Bush doctrine is an attempt to fill the gap left by these guidelines in light of the new threats posed by WMD and terrorism.
5) The invasion and occupation are weakening the national security of the US. The military has gotten so weak and desperate for personnel they have resorted to recruitment contracts of 1 and 1/4 years. The US is now unable to fulfill its primary strategic goal of decisively and quickly winning any major combat operation. Because of the 2 years of occupation in Iraq it will take a decade to rebuild the recruiting aspect of the milary--after all the recruits today are the officers of the future.
6) The military is rapidly changing to deal with the assymetric threat of terrorism and rebel attacks. They have some of the best soldiers and highest quality equipment in the world.
7) Iraq is unwinnable. The sooner Bush realizes that the sooner the US can get out and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problem. The main problem is Iraq is an artifical country, it has only existed as a single country under a empire (Ottoman), another empire (British), a monarchy, a military dictatorship (Saddam), and now another empire (USA). It really is three countries forced together under various despots. The Balkanization of Iraq is a messy but necessary process that needs to happen. (No one today would ever argue that splitting up Yugoslavia was a bad idea--a lot of people died but the end result is much more stable)
8) Bush genuinely believes that fighting the terrorists in Iraq is keeping them off the streets of Manhatten. He sincerely wants to protect this country and feels that this method is the best way.
9) I disagree. Fighting the terrorists in Iraq is simply creating more terrorists across the planet. The solution is not a military one but a criminal one. Catching these people and putting them on trial for murder shows how American rule of law can benefit any society--blowing them up with a Hellfire missile from a Predator merely fulfills the expectations of many Muslims about the violent nature of what they consider the "Great Satan."

The problem for supporters of the war is they are caught in the downward spiral of violence--when they realize they can't point a gun at someone and turn them into a democrat they will come a long way towards understanding their mistake. In the meantime, they would do well to actually listening to other's opinions instead of spouting the rhetoric and insults of a child.

Patrick:

1) I don't know that anyone "obviously" lied/misled anyone about the WMDs. Perhaps bad intelligence, but there's not enough conclusive evidence that anyone "obviously" lied/misled. That's more spin. Also, the Downing memo has been severely challenged, and I'm not sure if something's true just because of someone's very slanted book proves anything, one way or another. But, yes, 9/11 really did wake many people up to the fact that we had to do something to change the Middle East; I think toppling a brutal regime in the heart of it all was a good first step.

2) I totally agree w/ you here.

3) I don't think the US war was illegal under any law. First, because the 1991 war never ended (it was only a ceasefire), so hostilities could resume at any time. Second, because of the Korean War never ending, the US is still acting under the war powers act indefinitely (we may not like it, but that's how it is, unless Congress votes to end that war). That's why Clinton didn't need Congressional approval to invade Yugoslavia, or Bush Sr. to invade Panama. And the the congressional resolution allowed for "some action" that included potential military action against Iraq. Which means Bush Jr. did go to war in Iraq w/ direct approval of a congressional legislation, and under the cover of 1991 UN Security Council resolutions.

4) Yep.

5) I'm not so sure about this, though. Part of the problem w/ the US effort in Iraq is one of perception. Also, after the Newsweek fiasco, one wonders how much low recruitment is media driven and how much of the Arab street insurgency is media-fueled. If so, what role is the media really playing in this conflict?

6) I think this is more accurate, and I think the military is doing a fantastic job, considering the circumstances.

7) I think Iraq is completely winnable. And being won daily. The US leaving and putting Iraq in the hands of Iraqis is the goal, and attaining it would be a victory. Of course, the media (which seems to revel in American defeats) will paint it as a defeat, rather than the victory it was always meant to be.

8) I also agree w/ Bush on this. I'd rather have our military fighting terrorists "over there" than "over here".

9) OK, good point. Putting them on trial is important. But that might be more idealistic than anything else. How do you arrest someone that doesn't want to be arrested? Someone that has an AK47 aimed at you?

Patrick, if you want to criticize my posts, I suggest you read them first.

Either you didn't read them, or you didn't understand them, or you did read and understand them, but lied about what I said, because you put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I'm not going to be your straw man, get your own.

To begin with, because Tony and I were arguing about what people said in 2002-2003, old news articles WERE EXACTLY THE POINT.

Next, you say "your arguments remind me more of the rhetoric espoused by radical Islamic fundamentalists than any argument based on statements of fact and reasonable opinion".

Uh-huh. But you don't provide any quotes from me or them and do any comparisons, do you? You just assert it and hope people will believe you. We call this "smearing".

At any right, I'm not calling for beheadings or for anyone to be killed, unlike Islamic fundamentalists.

Thirdly, you say this:
"The problem with discussing Iraq is this:
1) war supporters feel that to remain consistent and not show weakness in their support they are forced to accept anything the Bush admin does as legit and in the best interests of the Iraqi people.
2) war opposers feel that to remain consistent and not show weakness in their opposition they are forced to denounce anything done by Bush."

Uh-huh. An overgeneralization completely unsupported by any facts that you cite. You really like this tactic of making up things and putting them in other people's mouths, and then arguing with that instead of what they actually say, do you not?

I can name any number of prominent war supporters who have criticized some aspect of Bush's handling of the war. To begin with, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, William F. Buckley. I am not in that league, but I too have criticized some things, and I supported the war last I checked.

As for war opponents, I am not as familiar with their writings, but I am certain that there are many who do not take the extreme position you ascribe to them.

Now, as for your numbered points:

1) If you had bothered to read my "recycled articles" you would learn that the WMD evidence did not originate with the Bush Administration--unless you consider Bill and Hillary Clinton, and all of their advisers, to be part of the Bush Administration? You just ignored this, because you didn't read what I posted or you lied about what you read.

2) We agree here.

3) 17 or so UNSC council resolutions, starting with 678 and ending with 1441, justified the Iraq invasion in 2003. Resolution 678, authorizing war with Iraq, was never rescinded because Iraq never fulfilled the Security Council's demands, and all of the other resolutions up to 1441 referred to the authority of 678.

So, maybe you should actually bother to read those things before shooting your mouth off.

4) We agree here.

5) The US military's decline did not begin in 2003, but 1988 - 2000, when Bush and Clinton cut it back after the Cold War. It's silly to blame Iraq for that.

6) Fine.

7) Stupid. It's winnable if Iraqis want it to win. And the three regions of Iraq have been historically associated together for over a thousand years. You could argue the same about France or Spain or the United Kingdom--or you could if you knew anything about European history. Nearly every state in Europe today started out as an ethnic patchwork held together by a despot. Iraq's shot is as good as anyone's.

Here's a hint: google "Catalonia". Look up "Fleming", or "Languedoc" or "Brittany".

Italy and Germany did not exist before the 19th century. They seem pretty stable now.

8) We agree here.

9) Stupid. A dead terrorist kills nobody. A living one may. A living one in prison who may use their lawyers to contact the outside world can still have people killed (this happened just recently with the "blind sheik", and his lawyer went to prison for it).

As for saying that for every terrorist you kill two come up, you have no evidence for this. Prove it.

At any rate, even if that were true, two new novice bungling terrorists with no money, weapons or training, because all their leaders and exprienced are dead, is way better than one well-financed, armed and trained terrorist.

In summary, Patrick, maybe you ought to learn to read before arguing with the adults.

One more thing, Patrick, your dictum that "truth is the middle"?

Try this one on.

Position 1) Patrick is a child molester.
Position 2) Patrick is not a child molester.

Is it fair to you, Patrick, if I assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle?

I think you would say that I were slandering you if I were to assert that. You would be right.

So why don't you think before you say stupid things like "the truth is in the middle"?

ESPECIALLY when you define your two positions to be so extreme as to exclude 99.9% of people--in that case your statement reduces to triviality.

So, we've established that you don't read what other people post before you respond, and that you don't think about the implications of what you say before say it, and you don't cite any facts to back up any of your absurd overgeneralizations.

You don't remind me of an Islamic fundamentalist, but you do remind me of an idiot.

Apology accepted Gabriel Hanna, no worries. I realize my commentary disturbs certain people, but I try to keep focus directed on the failures, deceptions, abuses, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, wildly obscene profiteering, and dereliction of duty of the neocrusader Bush government.

Now to your original retort. First, if you believe as it would seem that WMD was indeed a justification for colonizing Iraq and worth the bloody costly nightmare we must all now endure - then the even greater question you cannot escape or elude, and further proof of the incompetancy and complete failure of the neocrusader Bush government predatory imperialist policies is - where is the WMD, who has it, and why have we yet to unearth one single piece of actual WMD?

The point I was making and you actually prove is that the neocrusaders in the Bush government (particularly the OSP war pimps and profiteers) conducted information warfare on the American people by fixing, or conforming the intelligence to suit preexisting policy! Clinton never attacked or colonized Iraq. The intelligence was "thin" as the Downing Street Memo proves, and while there was concern and suspicion and certain unknown unknowns, - there was no immediate or imminent threat, Iraq was well contained (Northern and Southern noflyzones were ruthless enforced) and most of the intel was "dodgey". Remember Curveball, and that thief and slithering swindler Chalabi were responsible for most of the OSP fictions and myths, - all of which proved subsequently to be FALSE. Iraq had no WMD.

All the neocrusader Bush government OSP concocted disinformation justifying the war - ie: WMD, Saddam/al Quaida links, involvement with 9/11, and immenent threats - have proven false.

Further the other two member of the Axis of Evil actually do have WMD, and the neocrusader Bush government's appeasment policies have proven fruitless and impotent. There are more WMD threats now than prior to 9/11.

The critical issue relates to policy contamination wherein a select cabal of extreme rightwingideologue neocrusaders (OSP) contaminated the intelligence product with a fixed and preconcieved policy. America will rue the day we allowed the tiny hunta to pervert America's policies with false, propagandized disinformation.

Nor was America ever afforded a debate and a say in the matter. The neocrusaders in the Bush government divided the world and America into those with and against them, and those daring to question the information, the justifications, and the
policies were slimed as anti-American. This offensive and odious slander divided America fiercely, and now that all those question are proven accurate and true, and all the neocrusader Bush governments fables, fictions, and myths, have proven false - the offense and the division is more pronounced.

I lived in NYC. Most of the city loathes the neocrusader Bush government because these liars, sloganeers, warmongers, and war profiteers exploited the horrors and the dead of 9/11 for thier singular partisan political and economic gain, and then had the audacity to slime our fellow Americans for posing legitimate, critical - and it turns our alarmingly correct question. Shame! Shame!

Now America is alone! The entire world hates us, and for good reason. We are no longer the beacon of hope and the shining standard of freedom and democracy. Now we are sloganeers, war profiteers, slaughterers of innocent children, torturers, decievers, cloakers, and a people who refuse to ask to most basic questions of our supposed leadership, and to hold our leaders accountable for some of most pernicious and radical abuses, failures, deceptions, and dereliction of duty in the history of America.

I will not be silent until these neocrusaders are impeached and sent to jail for failing, decievinig, bankrupting, shaming, and wasting the lives of American's and Iraqi's based on "a pack of lies", and the profits of oligarchs and cronies beholden to the neocrusader Bush government.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the funding and nurturing bioreactor for all the jihadist mass murder gangs, and the neocrusader Bush government's "good friends" are responsible for the horrors of 9/11, not Iraq.

The neocrusader Bush government is accountable!!!!

Nice work Patrick. By the war Bush apologists, we are fighting terrorist here in America. Americans did not attack America on 9/11, and yet the USA Patriot Act, and it's evil followon law, The USA Domestic Security Enhancement Act radically erode the people's most basic rights, privaledges, and freedoms - and why? Because all the intelligence today, even the omnipotent neocrusader Bush governments experts warn us soundly day in and day out, - that the sequel to 9/11 is a question of when, not if.

The neocrusader Bush government perverted Pax Americana policies have done more harm than good for Americans. We are less secure and prosperous today than before 9/11, with many more seething enemies, and far fewer friends..

TONY FORESTA:

You made these statements, and I posted links refuting each one:

Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat

Bush and his administration based the Iraq war solely on possession of WMD

the "neocrusaders" invented the evidence

AS I PREDICTED you FAILED to address a single link and you went on repeating your lies.

YOU HAVE EXPOSED YOURSELF AS A LIAR.

Right here, right now, in fornt of everyone.

I will repeat the links again:

Bill and Hillary Clinton talking about evidence for WMD that they had before Bush was elected:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/index.htm

Bush saying that the threat from Iraq is not imminent:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Bush giving 10 reasons to the UN to use force against Iraq, most of which have nothing to do with WMD.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

You give another lie when you say that the Adminstration said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Why can't you stop lying? Disagree with the war all you want, does that justify you lying, and continuing to lie?

You challenged me to back up my statements. I did.

Down the memory hole for you one more time, liar.

You seem to be fixated on the Clinton's or anyone who thought before the war that Iraq had WMD capabilities. What you are not recognizing, and the point I am making Gabriel Hanna, is that the intelligence was "iffy", - there was suspicion, and concern, but not nothing that would warrant attacking and colonizing Iraq. Clinton did not attack and colonize Iraq, nor did the intelligence apparatus suggest in any way, and any time that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary to eliminate supposedly known WMD threats. As I would argue before the war, - if the neocrusader Bush government know about places, systems, and stockpiles that posed a threat, - why did they not act from the air, using our hypersuperior military advantage. The invasion and occupation disaster was only necessary because of the other feable and often shapeshifting excuse - "regime change". Since there was in fact no
WMD, the point is moot, - but there was no legitimate military reason to attack and occupy Iraq.

The divide we hold, and one you are failing for whatever reason to recognize - is that the Clinton's carefully worded statement spoke of uncertainty with regard to the intelligence product, - and the neocrusader Bush government and particularly the war pimps and profiteers in the OSP spoke of CERTAINTY!

We are all denied the possibility of less bloody and costly outcomes through an inspection process, the building of a true coalition (as opposed to the ever dwindling masquerade known as the "Coalition of the Willing"), and cooperation with the UN by the neocrusaders in the Bush government who were bent on attacking Iraq, removing Saddam, marauding Iraq's oil, colonizing the nation, and profiteering obscenely in and from the war and colonization! The neocrusader Bush government shapeshifting propaganda and disinformation, (information warfare campaign) was intended to conflate, confuse, and mangle the entire horrific episode.

You might want to visit todays Washington Post for two cutting articles; one on "policy contamination", and another on contracting abuses and the wild and obscene profiteering ongoing in Iraq and the socalled waronterror.

Miguel,
Bad intelligence vs. Push for War--I hope I'm right in summarizing our difference in these terms. I would argue that Bush and friends pushed for war with Iraq and you would argue that Bush really believed the WMD threat posed a clear and present danger to the US from Iraq and used this as his rationale for war.
If this is true then why go after Iraq? They posed the least threat of the three "axis of evil" countries. Iraq was already decimated physically thru the "no-fly zones," the weapons inspecters had destroyed much of Iraq's capability--probably not all of it, but what was left posed no threat to the US, Saddam was doing everything he could to hold on to power resorting to smuggling oil thru the embargos in order to continue to finance his regime.
Whereas, North Korea was one of the most threatening countries in the world right with at least one nuke and a missile delivery system in progress. Iran was building its nuclear program and equiping its military with more modern weapons from China and Russia. Both of these countries are either supporting terrorist organizations outright (Hezbollah) or just selling their nuclear weapons and missile technology on the black market to whomever.

So, if Bush really wanted to stop the WMD threat he would have gone after these other countries NOT Iraq. i believe Iraq presented him with a convienent WMD cover story for his real motive, whatever that may be.

Legal vs. Ilegal--I must say I've never heard that one about the War Powers act still being in effect from Korea so the President doesn't need Congress to declare war. I was always under the impression that Korea was a UN Security Council sanctioned police action and not an actual war as defined under US law. I'll have to check on that one, so I can't comment. I don't believe a congressional resolution rises to the level of declaring war against another country--Congress issues resolutions all the time for banal items like celebrating such and such holiday, or remembering such and such person--I would hope a weak resolution is not how our country goes to war. If we're going to go to war, let's declare war not sneak some words into a resolution.

Recruitment-Yes, the media might be having an effect on recruitment and "advertising" against joining the military by constantly showing and discussing US casualties. And yes, I would have to agree that some of the Arab media is driving the insurgency--just like some US media pushed the Iraq war back in 2003.

Winnable vs. Unwinable--We'll have to disagree here. I truly think that;
A) the Bush admin has no plans to leave Iraq ever--the oil issue will be even more important in the future so Bush (as a former oilman) is planning on staying for the long haul. He knows the US cannot afford to miss out on any source of oil.
B) there is a catch-22 with the US not able to quash the rebels because some of the rebel incentive is based on the US presence. Further, until conditions improve the rebels will have traction--condition can't improve until the rebels stop or leave-so conditions won't improve and the rebels will stay.
C) this US occupation is merely the transition phase for some type of Iraqi civil war which might be based roughly on the three main divisions in Iraqi society, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.
D) the US will be forced to withdraw when the civil war becomes an unworkable situation for the current Iraqi government and the US military (short of the US invading the whole country all over again)
I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see a good end to this situation.

Military vs. Criminal--Idealistic yes, but we're Americans. Everyone looks to us for solutions that no one else could pull off. Anyone can invade a country, I believe that Americans can think of better solutions than simply shooting terrorists. As you can see in any situation on the planet, shooting terrorists doesn't really do anything.

Gabe,
Most of your comments were silly but I'll comment on two, the UN security point and my statement about the truth being somewhere in the middle.
Bush used past UN Security resolutions as justification for invading Iraq--however, there is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the invasion. And only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of its resolutions as a rationale for war--Bush can't use the legal instruments of another institution(UN) as legal rationale for the actions of his institution(US)--that is unless you support some kind of "one-world government." So your listing of past UN resolutions was helpful, but completely beside the point--there is no war resolution. Period.
The truth being somewhere in the middle was a philosophical point that appears to be totally lost on you. I was merely trying to show that your opinions--which are mix of rabid militarism and childish insults--don't really help to solve anything. Arguing with someone is about give and take and trying to understand someone's side of the issue and understanding your own point-of-view. When you do this, you realize that no one has a monopoly on the truth and that yes the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two opinions. The only people that believe they have a monopoly on the truth are either mentally ill, religious radicals, or some of the people we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, like the Taliban and al Quada.

Okay, patrick, you obviously never heard of the First Law of Holes.

1) You say my statements are "silly" but you are seemingly unable to rebut them. Surley, since my statements are so "silly" this should be trivial, no?

Your failure to demonstrate their silliness, but willingness to call them silly, is what we call "trollery".

2) You say "there is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the invasion". But this is not true. I gave you the UNSC resolutions. YOU DIDN'T LOOK THEM UP, DID YOU?

If you did, you would know that UNSC resolution 678 authorizes the US and other Member Nations to use "any necessary means" to enforce "all subsequent relevant resolutions".

1441 was merely the latest UNSC resolution to declare itself relevant to 678. 678 is what authorized the use of force in 1991, the enforcement of "no-fly zones" all through the 1990s, Clinton's airstrikes in 1998 and Bush's invasion of 2003.

So, Patrick, since my remarks are so silly, you can obviously look up the resolutions I named and quote the sentences that contradict what I said, right?

You can use Google, right? The UN has a website, you know.

Here, I'll give you the links:

678--authorizes war with Iraq to enforce USNC 660 and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

687: Demands that Iraq give up terrorism, WMD and submit to inspections, declares itself relevent to 678:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm

1441: Demands for the 10th or 12th time that Iraq submit to inspections, declares itself relevant to 678:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

So how many times does the Security Council have to authorize it? Why is 18 the magic number and not 17, Patrick?

But I predict that you won't look this up either, just call my statements "silly"?

3) When did I ever say or imply that I had a monopoly on truth? Quote me.

Those are words you made up and put in my mouth, they don't apply to me.

Your dictum that "truth lies in the middle" is still stupid. Sometimes, obviously it does. But it does not always.

I will give you another example:

2 + 2 = 4

2 + 2 = 6

Following Patrick logic, I conclude that truth lies in the middle and therefore 2 + 2 = 5, right?

How about this one, Patrick? Biblical creationists say God created the Universe 7000 years ago; physical scientists (of whom I am one, Patrick) say the Universe is 15 billion years old and don't say who created it. Is the truth "somewhere in the middle": God created 87% of the Universe 7.5 billion years ago?

If Patrick says he's not a child molester, and other people say he is, does truth lie somewhere in the middle?

If the whole world believes the earth to be round except one guy who thinks it's flat, is truth in "the middle"? Suppose it's the other way round? Suppose it's 50/50? Does the earth's sphericity depend on what people think in ANY way?

What are you, in eighth grade? Do you have no conception of the differing kinds of truth and the different standards of proof that apply to each? Don't you know that defining a position as the "middle" is merely exhibiting a prejudice as to what you find plausible--it cannot be evidence in itself? Why do you think it is acceptable to define "truth" as function of the frequency of expressed opinions? That is what your standard boils down to in the end.

I close by noting your inability to refute any of the things I have said--you merely call them "silly" and "pathetic". Well, that is not argument, that is name-calling. Makes you a bit of a hypocrite, does it not?

I welcome your proving me wrong, by using AN ACTUAL FACT, cited with AN ACTUAL LINK to an authority we can both agree on, in any of your subsequent posts. I don't think you're going to find anything, because I thnk you'd rather make stuff up than actually argue.

But prove me worng and then we can have a discussion. If not, stand forth and join the ranks of trolls.

TONY: You said “neocrusaders” made up the WMD evidence. I proved otherwise. So now you are backtracking, saying that the “neocrusaders” lied because they said they were “certain”.

So this is another lie. You are lying about what you previously said. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE.

In addition, you fail to mention George Tenet: the CLINTON APPOINTEE who told the President that the WMD intellignece was a “slam dunk”.

Yes, Tony, the head of the CIA was a CLINTON APPOINTEE. You are back to arguing that that Clinton Adminstration is also full of these “neocrusaders”--none of whom you can name.

Secondly—I quoted Bush saying that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat. You say he said Iraq WAS an imminent threat. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE.

Thirdly—You said WMD was, in 2002-2003, the sole rationale advanced for the war. I demonstrated otherwise. You have not acknowledged it or retracted your statements. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE.

Fourthly—You said that the Adminstration said Saddam was resonsible for 9/11. YOU LIE. If you can prove otherwise, do so or admit to being a liar.

This discussion goes no further until you acknowledge that the statements that you made are FALSE and that you have been lying.

I know you care about the war with Al Qaeda, Tony, we agree on who the threat is. We disagree about how much Iraq has to do with it.

But I will not tolerate your telling lies because you hate Bush. That is unacceptable.

You can disagree with Iraq all you want to. You are an American, it is your right. I will say here, Tony, that you are a patriotic American as well, who loves his country, this is obvious in your posts now matter how stupid, otherewise, they may be. But that does not give you the right to lie.

CEASE LYING, TONY.

When you acknowledge and recant your lies, constructive discussion can resume.

Gabe Gabe Gabe,
Since you call yourself a physical scientist try and deal with some facts instead ranting, it really doesn't help your argument. For this post, I'll only address the UNSC resolutions point and not the philosphy point--obviously philosophy is lost on this particular scientist.

Luckily, someone has already addressed exactly this issue of UNSC resolutions. I think it's helpful to include his article, partly because he says it so well and partly because he's a fellow scientist--so maybe he can get thru to you.
__________________________
UNSC authority denied
Posted: November 16, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

As did President Clinton before him, President Bush has been searching for a rationale for removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Last month, Congress formally authorized the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to – 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

What are the "relevant" UNSC resolutions?

When Iraq invaded and "annexed" part of Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council demanded – in UNSCR 660 – that Iraq immediately withdraw all its armed forces and henceforth respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait.

UNSCR 661 was the first attempt to enforce UNSCR 660, requesting member states to impose – at the source – an embargo on air, sea and land shipments of "military" goods to Iraq. UNSCR 665 requested that member states enforce – in transit – the maritime embargo with their naval forces.

In November, when the embargo hadn't caused Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait, UNSCR 678 authorized member states to "use all necessary means" to enforce UNSCR 660 and supplementary resolutions.

It then took about three months for a coalition of member states, led by the U.S., to liberate Kuwait.

UNSCR 686 is the Gulf War ceasefire resolution. It requires Saddam Hussein to accept and abide by all previous UNSC resolutions – including UNSCR 678 – "which remain in force."

UNSCR 678 is the only resolution that has authorized the use of "all necessary means" by member states against Iraq. It is important that we know exactly to which UNSC resolutions it applies.

Clearly, if Saddam does something that is deemed to be a "material breach" of UNSCR 686, such as invading Kuwait, again, then member states are authorized to use all necessary means to eject them.

But what about resolutions passed subsequent to UNSCR 686?

Immediately following the ceasefire, U.N. observers entered Iraq and discovered that Saddam Hussein was in substantial noncompliance with several U.N. arms limitation conventions, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Their discoveries led to UNSCR 687.

UNSCR 687 imposes economic sanctions which are not to be lifted until Iraq is once again in substantial compliance with all U.N. arms conventions. All chem-bio weapons and the facilities capable of making nukes and chem-bio weapons were to be destroyed – under the supervision of the U.N. Special Commission – and never rebuilt.

By mid-1998, most members of the commission were of the opinion that Iraq was in substantial compliance with UNSCR 687 and wanted to lift the economic sanctions. President Clinton refused, however, making it clear he would never allow the sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

Clinton attempted to get a new one-step resolution – to supersede UNSCR 687 – that would trigger an immediate invasion if Saddam was ever discovered not to be in total compliance.

The UNSC rejected Clinton's request. They did pass – in 1999 – UNSCR 1284, which partially lifted the sanctions imposed by UNSCR 687. However, a "material breach" of UNSCR 1284 could only result – automatically – in a re-imposition of the UNSCR 687 sanctions. UNSC authorization of "all necessary means" to enforce UNSCR 1284 would require a separate UNSC resolution.

With the congressional authorization to enforce "relevant" UNSC resolutions in his pocket, Bush also attempted to get a new one-step resolution – to supersede UNSCR 1284 – that would trigger an immediate invasion if Saddam was ever discovered not to be in total compliance.

The UNSC rejected Bush's request, too. Only the UNSC can determine whether Saddam has materially breached a UNSC resolution or not, and only the UNSC can decide what the appropriate remedial action is.

In particular, if U.N. inspectors stumble upon a few vials of camelpox, then the UNSC is unlikely to judge that a material breach. If the U.N. inspectors discover that Saddam has weaponized smallpox, the UNSC may – or may not – consider that a casus belli.

So, here's the bottom line: Unless Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait again, we won't be able to invade Iraq on the pretext of enforcing UNSC resolutions. That means that President Bush will have to convince Congress that Saddam and his camelpox poses a continuing threat to our national security. That'll be a hard sell, of course, since we've never had many camels in our army.
***********************************************
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Gabe,
So hopefully you now see how baseless your argument about UNSC resolutions really is. The US violated international law by invading Iraq. It used UNSC resolutions as cover, because A) Bush could never get an actual declaration of war thru Congress B) the UNSC itself did not feel that Iraq was a WMD threat. So, in answer to your question--yes, there should have been an 18th resolution calling for war. This would have been the only resolution that mattered not these vague wordings from resolutions passed 10 years ago in a totally different climate.

Further, member states in the UN have two options for declaring a war against another member state:
1. A UNSC resolution specifically AUTHORIZING WAR
2. Self-defense

So my post above shows quite clearly that there is no UNSC resolution. And Bush's rationale for self-defense doesn't even rise to the level of our own national security policy, the "a clear and present danger" option, let alone a self-defense option outlined in the UN Charter. This is part of the whole "pre-emptive" policy Bush created to try and fulfill the requirements of the Charter--specifically because Bush knew there was no UNSC resolution authorizing war, so he had to create the "self-defense" option.

However, international law cannot be created by Bush's legal team. International law is basically a bunch of treaties agreed to by member states--Bush's new definition of "pre-emptive" defense is in no international treaty--so it cannot be a part of international law. US policy, yes--international law--no. The two are quite different.

So, since neither of these options is valid Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld many other people are quite simply war criminals. It will be very interesting to watch how this legal situation unfolds after Bush leaves office.

The only way Bush MAY have the right to invade Iraq is related to Miguel's post about the War Powers Act apparently authorizing Truman to fight a war in Korea, an act which apparently is still in effect today. However, I haven't had a chance to check that out yet.

In closing, one of the things that is so amusing in this debate is how war supporters constantly complain about the UN for this or that--and yet when they seek a legal rationale for their actions, who do they come to--that same oft-maligned United Nations.

Rofl. Gosh Patrick, for someone who exudes as much unearned arrogance as you, I anticipated a better argument, or someone smarter. Or both. Funny how you just kind of, oh, I don't know, "left out" one of the most important "relevant" resolutions.

But that's ok, the rest of us will read resolution 1441 FOR you. This is actually a great exercise in debating with you Marxist lefties; when you have very little argument, you instead choose to insult. I'm not going to copy the whole thing, because I'm sure that if you couldn't be bothered to read or understand it the first time, you won't read it now.

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, "

Notice the wording there-- continuance of the ceasefire is dependent on the fact that Iraq is compliant with its obligations, of which you are no doubt painfully aware. But as the resolution aptly describes, in nauseating detail, Iraq, nor saddam Hussein, was in compliance.

"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, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Hmmm......"decides that Iraq HAS BEEN and REMAINS in material breach under relevant resolutions." Decides, decides......hmmm, as I recall, "decides" is defined as "to arrive at a solution that ends uncertainty or dispute about what to do". Funny, words. They never seem to mean what you want them to, huh, Patrick?

See, now that there, that previous excerpt that's interesting, because what you argued.....well, here's what you said:

Clearly, if Saddam does something that is deemed to be a "material breach" of UNSCR 686, such as invading Kuwait, again, then member states are authorized to use all necessary means to eject them.

Ah, see, but Saddam WAS in material breach, by resolution 1441, which I have just shown you. And by your own argument, and I quote, "member states are authorized to use all necessary means"

and of course you go on to say "to eject them" which 1441 doesn't mention at all, and don't think you'll weasel out of this by saying this was all about 687, either. "Pursuant to" means "in conformity with" all relevant resolutions including 686. You then amusingly proceed to a small dissertation on how we can't create international law; cementing the argument, as I have shown by your OWN argument, that this was indeed legal by any standard.

So once again, we see more intellectual dishonesty from the left. Who's surprised? You make a statement, build your argument around it, ignore inconvenient facts, (of which "Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co vs. Sawyer" is just another one) and then declare yourself to be correct whether or not you actually are. To which you then humorously add the the obligatory ad hominems to those that disagree with you.

Now, notwithstanding the fact that cases I suggested above have been used by courts to fight in Korea, AND, Vietnam, AND the Gulf War, and so the whole argument above is moot anyway; you're right Patrick, there are a number of things that are amusing here. But I assure you, they're not what you think they are.

You seem to be forming your own sentence that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I wrote. I never anywhere said the OSP war pimps "made up the WMD evidence." I said the contaminated the intelligence with a preconcieved policy. They morphed, mangled, conflated, exaggerated, cloaked, and outright lied about all the justifications for the war, - because there were no justifications for attacking and occupying Iraq. Now if there were threats, - America has the right to eliminate them, - but we do NOT have the right to invade and occupy soveriegn nations based on a pack of lies. And no matter how fixated you are on WMD, or UN resolutions, or Clinton, or Tenet, or what other people thought, - the entire world and at least 49% of your fellow American's question the OSP war pimps "dodgey" justifications and were continually slimed as anti-America. NOT ONE SINGLE PREWAR JUSTIFICATION has proven true. NOT ONE!!!!

And the sloganeers and propaganda and disinformation covens guiding the neocrusader Bush government rhetoric were continually conflating, confusing, morphing, and mangling Iraq, 9/11, bin Laden, WMD, waronterror. Only after each and every deception and falsification was brought to light did the Bush government admit that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, (though Cheney still holds this pathetic line every so often), that Iraq and al Quaida had NO operation links, that there was not threat (imminent or otherwise) to America from Iraq, and that there was NO WMD!!

Yet prior to the war, and look to the two SOTU speaches for proof these four separate, distinct, and not connected issues (Iraq/al Quaida/WMD/911) were continually, relentlessly, and forcefully meshed and mangled into the deceptive shapeshifting justification for the war.

For those of us who have fought these battles over the last two years - there is no rewriting of history, and no forgetting the way in which the neocrusader Bush government and particularly the OSP war pimps and profiteers framed and justified the war. IT WAS DECEPTIVE and based on a "pack of lies."

Tony Foresta: quit lying about what you said, or why would I bother to talk to you?

Let me quote you:

"...the neocrusader Bush government OSP concocted disinformation justifying the war - ie: WMD, Saddam/al Quaida links, involvement with 9/11, and immenent threats..."

You lie about what you said. If you want a real discussion, you will acknowledge that what you said is false and retract it.

Patrick:

You didn't link to the UN resolutions--you linked to somebody's interpretation of them.

If you think that refutes me, go back and read the ACTUAL RESOLUTIONS this time, and quote what refutes me.

Gabriel,

Sometimes, it's worth going over a point again and again, even beating it into the ground. Please continue - at least until this topic drops from the front page, anyway.

"Hard pounding this, gents. Let's see who will pond longest." (some guy named Wellington, in some Belgian place...)

Thank you, Joe Katzman, and johnnymozart.

BTW, Patrick, I notice you fall silent about everything I've said but the UN resolutions--are my silly statements so hard to refute? You still like to characterize them as "ranting", yet you seem strangely unable to answer them. You're well on your way to getting your troll hat.

Maybe you ought brush up on those philosophical points. I suggest starting with David Hume, but that's just my opinion.

Gabe,
It look like you still aren't understanding the fundamental weakness in your argument.

Here it is in a nutshell:
You cannot use UNSC resolutions to justify non-UNSC sanctioned action. The UNSC is the only institution that has the power and the right to use UNSC resolutions as a justification for action. But if you don't believe me, how about someone who has worked at the UN as Secretary General--Kofi Annan said the Iraq war was NOT sanctioned by the UNSC. Of course you'll follow this comment up with some insult of Mr. Annan, but that doesn't change the fact that this UN expert--of which neither you nor I am--stated that UNSC resolutions did NOT authorize war.

By the way, if the previous UNSC resolutions authorized war--why did Bush feel it necessary to go back to the UNSC for a war resolution? Obviously, his legal team believed quite differently from you that they did need the cover of a war resolution to legalize their actions.

So your position stands in contrast to a UN expert like Kofi Annan, Bush's original legal position, and the above cited national security expert. All your position really represents is a childish rationalism for war by people desperate to believe anything to satisfy their fear and their misguided trust in a policy that continues to fail.

I want you to really think about this before you spout off again---if Bush thought he was covered by these resolutions you continue to repeat, WHY did he feel it necessary to go to the UNSC? I'll tell you why, because only the UNSC can authorize war based on a violation of UNSC resolutions. Not the US, not George Bush, and not the war supporters in America who continue to try and change the rules because they're afraid of being left standing when international law catches up to them.

No one is above the law, Gabe. That's the difference between your position and mine. You want to change the rules to rationalize your illegal war--I'm merely stating the nature of those rules.

It's interesting that people who call themselves conservatives are so focused on radical change to international law and US policy. Rather than calling some war supporters neo-conservatives, we should be calling them dangerous radicals.

Okay, Patrick, your points in order:

"You cannot use UNSC resolutions to justify non-UNSC sanctioned action. "

Here you are begging the question, assuming what you are to prove. I said that the 2003 invasion WAS sanctioned by the UN. This is the very point in dispute, you are not allowed to assume it.

"Kofi Annan said the Iraq war was NOT sanctioned by the UNSC. Of course you'll follow this comment up with some insult of Mr. Annan, but that doesn't change the fact that this UN expert--of which neither you nor I am--stated that UNSC resolutions did NOT authorize war. "

I was under the impression, from my reading of the UN Charter, that the Security Council was not composed of Kofi Annan, but of the governments holding seats on it. Since they were the ones who passed the 17 UN resolutions on Iraq, and those resolutions authorized military action--which is clear from the language of the documents--and were never rescinded, I think they trump Mr Annan's characterization of them.

If we accept his opinion, then the UN has to have resolutions authorizing enforcement of previous resolutions, and presumably new resolutions to enforce THOSE resolutions, ad infinitum. Some members of the Security Council do seem to see it this way, I agree.

Your argument here is, the UNSC can't do anything until Kofi Annan says they can? What a curious reading of the Charter.

If the Security Council has not the will to ACT on the resolutions, that is a different matter entirely from whether or not action is AUTHORIZED under the resolution.

I give you an example--Suppose that Congress passes a law saying that the FCC has the power to regulate cable television. Does that mean the FCC needs a new Act of Congress for every regulation they right? Only if the original law says so, right?

UNSC Resolution 678 says "all necessary means" and "all subsequent relevant resolutions". It doesn't say "subject to a vote of the Security Council for each new situation".

But that's a nice try, your argument from authority. Saddam Hussein also thought the war was illegal, and he had a team of UN experts--why didn't you quote him? Kim Jong Il thinks that UNSC sanctions on his country are illegal too. Doesn't mean they are.

"By the way, if the previous UNSC resolutions authorized war--why did Bush feel it necessary to go back to the UNSC for a war resolution? Obviously, his legal team believed quite differently from you that they did need the cover of a war resolution to legalize their actions."

That's not argument, that's mind-reading. There is another interpretation--that they believed they had the authorization already, but that Tony Blair thought he needed another UN resolution. Or it could be that they wanted France and Germany's active participation and they would'nt without an 18th resolution. Your interpretation is not the only one allowed.

But nice try. You seem to have a weakness for assuming your conclusions.

"So your position stands in contrast to a UN expert like Kofi Annan, Bush's original legal position, and the above cited national security expert."

More arguments from authority--and your "national security expert" is a physicist, not an expert in international law. I'm a physicist too, so I guess my opinion trumps yours? Whatever.

Arguyment fro authority is valid only when the authority is acknowledged by both sides to be qualified in the topic under
discussion, and when both sides agree on what that expert's position actually is. Your three cases fail all of those tests.

"All your position really represents is a childish rationalism for war by people desperate to believe anything to satisfy their fear and their misguided trust in a policy that continues to fail. "

This is just name-calling. You don't even understand what my positionis, that is clear from your posts.

" only the UNSC can authorize war based on a violation of UNSC resolutions..."

But my argument is that it already was authorized. Once again you argue in a circle, assuming what I demanded that you prove.

"It's interesting that people who call themselves conservatives are so focused on radical change to international law and US policy. Rather than calling some war supporters neo-conservatives, we should be calling them dangerous radicals."

Argument ad hominem and name-calling. But you're not referring to me, because I'm not a conservative. You assume what my politics are based on my opinion of the legality of the war?

In summary:

You argued only from authority, you never actually referenced the text to see what it meant--one of your authorities isn't even an expert in the field under discussion, another one of your authorities you didn't even quote from, but just assumed you knew what they thought

You assumed the point that you were supposed to prove

You argued ad hominem, and I'm not even a member of the group you attacked

In other words, Patrick, you lose.

johnnymozart is the winner here. HE cited the text. Why don't you go through his citations and point out where he's wrong? Show us a case where the resolutions don't say what he says they do.

Because you can't, that's why. You are apparently unable to read a document and understand its meaning, so you rely on other people's opinions about what they mean, and you never actually cite the text itself.

If you wrote a term paper at my university that way, you'd get a D.

All the hurly burly over whowonwhat, or who is right, or who is wrong beguiles the undelying issue. The "Bush doctrine" is a monumentlal failue.

1641 dead US soldiers, many thousands of innocent Iraqi's slaughtered, many more thousands from all sides maimed. $1.25bn a week in US taxpayer monies funnelled into the nighmare iin Iraq, with little or no accountiing, and what accounting we do have unveils obcene profiteering, and crony capitalist book cooking in the extreme. $451 defense industly and the worlds hypersuperior military power bogged down in Iraq againts insurgents with AK-47's, RPG's, IED's. Joe and all you neocrusader Bush government defenders know these arguments have been brought to light countless times before, - and in each circumstance the failures, deceptions, abuse, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, obscene profiteering, and dereliction of duty by neocrusaders in the Bush government is cunningly insidiously whisked off the radar. 9/11 failures? It's all the intelligence apparatus' fault. Even though former Clinton appointee's were warning vociferously of IMMINENT AL QUAIDA THREATS!!!!!!!.

The laughable failure to plan for peace, and to account for, or be honest with the American people about the costs in blood and treasure for the misadventure in Iraq - it's an unknown uknown!

The craven cowadice and pathetic spectacle of blaming privates and lower ranking individuals for interrogation policies the neocrusaders in the Bush government concocted. - it's a few bad soldiers.

Pathetic. What will it take for you guys to recognize the abuses, failures, deceptions, and dereliction of duty the neocrusader Bush government? When do we leave Iraq? What will define victory? How much in blood in treasure with the cost be, and over what timeframe to the American people? Why exactly are we wasting blood and treasure in Iraq, when NK and Iran have vibrant WMD capabiliites, hate America, and tyrannize thier people? Saudi Arabia may not have (Allah be praised) WMD capability, - but the hate America tyrannize thier people and provide the primary funding and nurturing of all the jihadist mass murder gangs? Why is A Q, Khan immune from prosecution? Where is bin Laden?

The neocrusader Bush government is FAILING America, dishonoring America, shaming America, Bankrupting America, and redefining America - and singularly profiteering in and from the process!!!

What will it take??

TONY: Knock off the bullshit.

Stop obfuscating, stop bobbing and weaving and trying to change the subject.

Admit that you lied and retract. Then we can talk about How Bad Bush Is. Not before.

I'm not going to engage any man in discussion who lies about other people, then when he's caught in a lie trys to get out of it by lying about the lies.

Stop lying or STFU, Tony.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: