Explosions in London

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I can't argue that self-defense is not in our own self interest.

We are under threat by terrorists. They have been free to base their operations out of several Middle East countries. We went into the Middle East to try to effect changes that will make it harder for these people to operate. This effort is not a short term thing and we will be over there for several generations.

---

Well it's getting a little vague, now.

First it was WMD. Saddam had 'em - even worse: he was on the road to getting nukes. But wait. Where are they?

Next we have regime change. Now we can perhaps argue that we can get away with it, although it's illegal - we know no-one will act on this. As we all the UN is useless. Hey - we can blame their inefficiency so we can execute an illegal preemptive strike against another nation state.

But that's getting tricky, now, too. Now every commitment the US has given on the international stage is void! or is that just selective commitments - or just a lot of tosh?

Now, in the midst of more terrorist attacks - it was all about the terrorists after all. We, in the UK, sacked senior servants for taking advantage of terrorism in politics. I wonder why you feel this is an 'OK thing to do' Maybe politics in the US are significantly different from the rest of the world.

I am not arguing that the war was wrong. I'd just like to hear a good well reasoned explanation.

If you can't give it to me then I can only assume that good old Uncle Sam doesn't inform his citizens very well at all.

After all we all know, really, why Americans had to die for GWB. If you don't then I feel sorry for you - I understand that it's a bad bad taste for the pallette.

. . . v2: The wipers on the bus go swish swish swish . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Nicely said.

Exactly my feelings as well...

---

Earlier on in this thread this was not 'your feelings'
:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Earlier on in this thread this was not 'your feelings'
:confused:

---

Well I just re-read each of my posts in this thread and they all seem pretty consistent (very painful to re-read this thread ;) )

What post are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Well I just re-read each of my posts in this thread and they all seem pretty consistent (very painful to re-read this thread ;) )

What post are you referring to?

---

Well your stance was that it was an act of self defence.

Now self defence (under UN mandates) states that you can defend a third party, or yourself once you've been attacked.

I didn't realise Iraq had attacked America. Now you say it's terrorists

(BTW when I say America - I mean the coalition, allies etc etc. I am not anti-American at all. I include my own country in this mess too. I feel that America has so much more too give the world than the Iraq thingy)

Managing the middle east - all the countries - from Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, Syria, all the way through the rest of the region - Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan - Pakistan - India - they are all related. Terrorists are produced, trained and sanctioned in pretty much every one of these countries.

25 years ago Russia had to have Afghanistan - had to have a northern interest in the region.

It is a huge game of "Risk" - and the payout is decades away.

I'm in no way saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But if Iraq was left to it's own devices, who knows what Saddam and his buddies would be up to right now. 9/11 changed the urgency to deal with the middle east to one of "it would be nice if the ladies didn't have to wear shirkas (sp?) and get stoned to death when their hubbies had an affair" to "let's get this mess dealt with so we can go on with living without fear of two buildings (that I watched as a child be built :cry: :mad: ) being taken down by an extremist nut case!".

So - I can agree with people feeling that all our efforts in the middle east are self-defense...

self-preservation...

selfish to some I'm sure...

Let me explain again.

There were several reason given for going into Iraq including the perceived WMD threat and to begin the transformation of the entire Middle East into a region that is not friendlty to terrorists. These are both self-defense agendas.

The intelligence communities throughout the world believed there were WMDs in Iraq and we would have neglegent to not act. Now you could get into the talk about giving the inspectors more time, but in the opinion of the Bush Administration, Saddam was never going to let the inspectors find what he had. Just because we now don't find WMDs in Iraq does not change the fact that we had good reason to believe they were there.

Saddam could have stopped this himself if he would have not violated the UN resolutions and the terms of his surrender from the previous war.

He was commiting acts of war against the US on a regular basis including an attempted assassination on a US president, and firing on US war plane patrolling the no-fly zones. Both of these give sufficient reason to invoke the self-defense clause.

Perhaps the reason you and many in your country see the motives behind Iraq as changing is your source of information. Bush has never waivered on his reasonings he has televised speeches several times a week since the beginning with always the same message. Iraq has always been a part of the war on terror, you just may not have been informed of that over there.

People are not dying for GWB, they are dying for there country and for a better world. What possible conspiracy are you thinking of that says GWB would want to start a war for reasons other than this.

I'll reply tomorrow - it's getting late here :thumb:

Technically, it's a continuation of the Gulf War in '91. The UN authorized force then, and no formal surrender was ever offered, just a cease fire. In that situation, we're still authorized to use force and we did (which is the purpose of a cease fire as opposed to formal surrender). Legal mumbo jumbo? Yes, but that's the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Technically, it's a continuation of the Gulf War in '91. The UN authorized force then, and no formal surrender was ever offered, just a cease fire. In that situation, we're still authorized to use force and we did (which is the purpose of a cease fire as opposed to formal surrender). Legal mumbo jumbo? Yes, but that's the way it is.

---

No it's not! 1441 superceded previous resolutions. Try reading it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

No it's not! 1441 superceded previous resolutions. Try reading it

---

Right after you do.

Quote:

---

The Bush administration argued that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951) and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[55]

---

in the meantime we have registered 150 BPM. :thumb:

Yeah like anyone can understand this mobo jumbo. :rolleyes:

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

"Mobo jumbo"? Try "mumbo jumbo". :rolleyes:

Yes, it's perfectly readable. It however requires basic reading skills and knowledge of the English language.

Don't tell me that's an excuse. Or should we start each document with a hearty "Yeeeehaaw"?

Quote:

---

Posted by Wally Pipp

Yes, it's perfectly readable. It however requires basic reading skills and knowledge of the English language.

Don't tell me that's an excuse. Or should we start each document with a hearty "Yeeeehaaw"?

---

Who said anything about excuses? Removed by Mr. Woka.

Oh and another thing i am from New York not Alabama.

Oh how I wish I was as witty as you are. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Right after you do.

---

You should try reading what you post, mate. The bush regime argued Not fact. No Statute. No Nothing.

It was an argument nothing more nothing less. And a very poor one at that.

If you read it you will see that 1441 takes into account the previous resolutions and is the security council's decision to act upon the non-compliance.

That,of course, being the US agreement that 1441 is the way forward.

But wait! we want to wage war. So we'll change our mind and pretend that 1441 doesn't exist.


:rolleyes:

I think you blokes should worry less about bush and more about your countries security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dilenger4

I think you blokes should worry less about bush and more about your countries security.

---

I am worried about my country's security and that's why Bush's foreign policy, and Blair's support of the same, concerns me a great deal.

Quote:

---

Posted by yrwyddfa

I am worried about my country's security and that's why Bush's foreign policy, and Blair's support of the same, concerns me a great deal.

---

I don't know about you but i respect Blair actions.

I believe he has the best of intentions . . .

What concerns me is why the UK was targeted. Have there been any problems
integrating muslims and Brits? I just watched an interesting program about how France sets rules that foster the unifying process.

That's the problem, there is no integration in Britain as the British government is too weak. Anyone entering the country must understand they must integrate into our way of life and our society. If they don't like it they can go to another European country.

And before you say anything, no I am not racist. I have many friends originally from Asia but they have all adapted to the British way of life and are frankly enjoying the rewards.

I think that they should abide the law as it is. Culture is personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Let me explain again.
He was commiting acts of war against the US on a regular basis including an attempted assassination on a US president, and firing on US war plane patrolling the no-fly zones. Both of these give sufficient reason to invoke the self-defense clause.

Perhaps the reason you and many in your country see the motives behind Iraq as changing is your source of information. Bush has never waivered on his reasonings he has televised speeches several times a week since the beginning with always the same message. Iraq has always been a part of the war on terror, you just may not have been informed of that over there.

---

The alledged assaination attempted happened in 1993! and was responded to by the launching of a number of missiles at Iraq resulting in the deaths of innocent people. So self-defence is attacking someone who may have attacked you and then doing it again whenever you feel like it.

I don't recall Bush/Blair ever saying they were invading Iraq because of all the terrorists. I do remember the administration trying to get people to believe there was a link Saddam with 9/11 and having some success I think the polls at the time put it at around 40% swallowing it.

just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeadEyes

The alledged assaination attempted happened in 1993! and was responded to by the launching of a number of missiles at Iraq resulting in the deaths of innocent people. So self-defence is attacking someone who may have attacked you and then doing it again whenever you feel like it.

I don't recall Bush/Blair ever saying they were invading Iraq because of all the terrorists. I do remember the administration trying to get people to believe there was a link Saddam with 9/11 and having some success I think the polls at the time put it at around 40% swallowing it.

---

I wouldn't bother. I now understand that I can never ever make any progress in the development of hiking boots for sharks.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.

---

just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.
just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.
just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.
just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.
just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.
just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.
just like the Niger link, the dodgy dossier et al... if you repeat the mantra enough times you'll find enough people to believe you.

;)

yes, yes, hindsight is easy blah blah blah but so is changing your reasons/excuses every time they're challenged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

yes, yes, hindsight is easy blah blah blah but so is changing your reasons/excuses every time they're challenged.

---

Who exactly are you talking about?

no-one. Just pre-emptive striking the comments that will no doubt follow if them there fowks over the pond wake up :)

Well preemptive strikes do seem to be the order of the day . . . .

yep, thought I'd get into the spirit of things.

I can't believe Demotivator said that about me :(

[He actually hasn't said anything particularly rude, but in the spirit of pre-emptive self defence I thought I'd best get in there first ;)]

Will also get into the spirit of things...

I resent that accusation! Please apologise :mad:

Slowing down guys?

Nothing real to say yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Slowing down guys?

Nothing real to say yet?

---

A soliloquy is always entertaining
:)

Can we keep the thread on topic please...

*slaps everyone*

Woka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Slowing down guys?

Nothing real to say yet?

---

Oh the irony...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wokawidget

Can we keep the thread on topic please...

*slaps everyone*

Woka

---

It is on topic. The legal justification of the Iraq war (according to some) was a preemtive strike on a nation state based on self-defence

However childish I, and others are being, this is a demonstration of the utter stupidity of the suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Slowing down guys?

Nothing real to say yet?

---

The soliloquy remark should be obvious to those inclined to think about it - and on topic.