Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deltapooh you remember ??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deltapooh you remember ??

    Hi Deltapooh,

    Do you remember our discussion about MDW.
    US have found none. You told me some weeks ago that it will be a pbm for GWB.
    It seems that it is the same for Tony Blair , its internal oposition in the Labour party, request a parlementary enquiry commission !!

    I heard it could be the same in Washington, is it true?

    For most of US people that's done Saddam is out, life must go on. But for many world governement that won't be the case !!
    I remember the Collin Powel's show in UN trying to proove that there were MDW, I think he don't fell confortable.

    Once again where is the fault in the information system. NSA, CIA

    Is it a manipulation?? If yes Who is benifying of this.
    Once again I return to my favorite horses, Israel and Iran.

    Best Wishes from Paris Blue Sky to all the reader of this quote

    Der Wanderer
    The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
    JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
    The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

  • #2
    Once again where is the fault in the information system. NSA, CIA

    Is it a manipulation?? If yes Who is benifying of this.
    Once again I return to my favorite horses, Israel and Iran.
    I can't imagine how anyone could see Israel as benefiting from this at all. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was certainly at least as hostile to Israel as Syria, but no more a threat.

    The only real beneficiaries to the invasion of Iraq at this point are the Kurdish nationalists, the Iranian Shi'i fundamentalists and NATO who has now decided that invading Iraq is a good idea and is proceeding to support NATO members who are sending thousands of military personal to help occupy Iraq. Poland is the easy example here.

    How do we know that any of this was the fault of US intelligence organizations? We are not privileged to what they know. If these organizations were able to make announcements as to what they know about Iraq's WMDs and threat to the area, what would they say? They give the information to those elected officials and their administrators who make the decisions and the public pronouncements. If the CIA says that its dog poop and the administration says its shoe polish, there is nothing that the CIA can do about it.
    Get the US out of NATO, now!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Deltapooh you remember ??

      Originally posted by jlbetin
      Hi Deltapooh,

      Do you remember our discussion about MDW.
      US have found none. You told me some weeks ago that it will be a pbm for GWB.
      It seems that it is the same for Tony Blair , its internal oposition in the Labour party, request a parlementary enquiry commission !!

      I heard it could be the same in Washington, is it true?

      For most of US people that's done Saddam is out, life must go on. But for many world governement that won't be the case !!
      I remember the Collin Powel's show in UN trying to proove that there were MDW, I think he don't fell confortable.

      Once again where is the fault in the information system. NSA, CIA

      Is it a manipulation?? If yes Who is benifying of this.
      Once again I return to my favorite horses, Israel and Iran.

      Best Wishes from Paris Blue Sky to all the reader of this quote

      Der Wanderer
      It will be interesting to read about Powell's perspective of the crisis when he's out of the White House. I can't imagine him supporting war. A direct military confrontation with Iraq has long been seen as a dangerous commitment, with no clear endstate. However, as Sec. of State, Powell's job is not to decide foriegn policy, but try to influence it. That's something alot of blacks in America are forgetting as they hammer away people like him.

      Bush is already under all kinds of political pressure here at home to find WMDs. Congress has ordered the CIA and Pentagon to turn over all the intelligence used by Powell as sources for his report. The Senate Arms Committee want's to make sure Powell's presentation was based on valid intelligence information.

      What alot of people don't know is that the Powell report to the UN was undermined by the Defense Department. Rumsfield refused to give permission for intelligence release without a "written order" from the President of the United States. Due to the time constraints, the President likely issued a verbal order with an "written order forthcoming memo" forthcoming. Powell spent all that weekend at the Pentagon trying to get them to turnover information.

      That's one reason why Congress wants to see the sources, not just the report. There is also a growing push for the President to declassify alot more intelligence, particularly human resources. Finally, they want Bush to step-up the search. That's why they're sending in 1,300 inspectors. Right now we have about 250. The rest were military.

      The fallout will likely be international, not domestic. If Iraq doesn't possess WMDs, the US would loose alot of prestige. the most serious repercussion would be the lack of trust in our intelligence. If people don't trust our information, they will not support our foriegn policies. I can not stress just how bad this could be for American policies, particularly the war on terrorism.

      I don't believe the US has concrete evidence Iraq possessed WMDs. However, there is concrete proof that Saddam Hussein was anything, but candid about these programs. Saddam's lack of cooperation led successive President's to maintain a costly containment effort, which included limited military action. We had no reason to believe anything Saddam said, even if it were the truth. Saddam needed to provide the same kind of proof he had dismarmed that the international community demanded, for the American people not to support a war. That didn't happen.

      Bush exaggerated the WMD situation because that was his trigger for war. History will likely conclude it was a bad choice no matter what is or isn't found. The threat of WMDs to America did not exists. However, Saddam Hussein was a threat to American policy in the Middle East, particularly with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

      The only way Saddam could have truly turned the American people against war was to change himself. In fact, that's basically what the UN demanded of him after the Gulf War. UNSC RESO 687 required Saddam to do more than just disarm. It required him to change as an individual.

      Saddam Hussein did not change. The demonized version of the man created by Bush Sr to win support for the first war, was still the the man we ejected out of Iraq. Saddam never re-invented himself. He never moved away from the defiant leader. Because of that, Americans basically saw the same threat the international community united to repel in 1991. Had it been government, but Saddam's, the American people would have likely demanded alot more convincing.

      That's something I mentioned earlier. I don't think the international community saw the same Saddam we did. He had not been demonized to the degree he had here. I have geopolitical analysis books dating back to 1994. Everyone one that covered the Middle East, highlighted the defiance and tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The international leaders did nothing to dispell this either. They all said it was better if Saddam went, but believed the time wasn't right.

      I don't believe the problem is with our intelligence, just how it was used. They gave Bush the information, and drew conclusions based on his knowledge and the advice of his advisors. Our intelligence system might be *ucked up at the higher levels. However, for the most part, it's populated with dedicated individuals who do a great job. It's up to the leaders to decide to honor that their efforts by employing that information to promote peace and the defense of our country. It's possible Bush failed to keep his end of the bargain.

      I believe WMDs will be found. However, no matter what happens, the international community see America differently. And America sees the world in a new light as well.

      I defend the war because I would never support a military action based on lies. I have many friends and relatives in the military. Some participated in this operation. So when one says it was a lie or the US is hell-bent on imperalism, it is to suggest those who supported the war have similar intentions and motives.

      The US acted, IMHO, because it was in our best interest. I don't believe there has been a decade of lies on our part. If others believe that, I just say they don't know us. If Bush did lie, he'll pay, and America will have alot more to prove to the world. If he didn't, America should move on with the knowledge it has the resolve to act independently.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't say US lie, I said that some truncated/distorded info could have been put in the hands of US inteligence to draw them to the wanted result removal of Saddam.
        and once again I don't think those people are US.
        I've no proof but it smell manipulation.
        So I've a wooden head, I ask AGAIN who benefits the "crime" ?
        Israel or Iran ??

        I said Iran as Irakis shiites by religious control could have misfit the data. So Saddam out, an iran sistership islamic republic could be established in Iraq.

        As Iraqis know the stupid mentality of Saddam; it is easy to push him to behave the worst against US. So no contact no negociation, US is sure of MDW and war in on the way

        remember Nazi manipulation against USSR headquarter, it had push stalin to kill "tougaschevski" and run purges against red army.
        The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
        JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
        The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jlbetin
          I don't say US lie, I said that some truncated/distorded info could have been put in the hands of US inteligence to draw them to the wanted result removal of Saddam.
          and once again I don't think those people are US.
          I've no proof but it smell manipulation.
          So I've a wooden head, I ask AGAIN who benefits the "crime" ?
          Israel or Iran ??

          I said Iran as Irakis shiites by religious control could have misfit the data. So Saddam out, an iran sistership islamic republic could be established in Iraq.

          As Iraqis know the stupid mentality of Saddam; it is easy to push him to behave the worst against US. So no contact no negociation, US is sure of MDW and war in on the way

          remember Nazi manipulation against USSR headquarter, it had push stalin to kill "tougaschevski" and run purges against red army.

          It really makes no difference to me. I was never interested in the WMD argument anyway. I supported the war because we left the job unfinished the first time.
          Also i remember after sept 11. Saddam said the U.S. got what is deserved. He even had murals made in iraq celebrating 9/11. I decided right then that his ass needed to be pulverized.
          "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kid kool



            It really makes no difference to me. I was never interested in the WMD argument anyway. I supported the war because we left the job unfinished the first time.
            Also i remember after sept 11. Saddam said the U.S. got what is deserved. He even had murals made in iraq celebrating 9/11. I decided right then that his ass needed to be pulverized.
            For Outside US the argue for US intervention pushed by GWB administration was the thread of IRAQ MDW.

            In a strict legal point of view this WAR was illegal, it could be accepted if lot of MDW has been found but at now there is none.
            For internatioanl LAWs this is only an aggression war.
            That please you or not. THAT'S IS THE ONLY FACT in front of all international treaties signed by USA, this war was ILLEGAL.. You can't bypass it.

            It is the same cposition as the following. A guy robber a bank
            As GWB did ti you have just to hang it up to the 1st tree
            For UN you put the guy in Jail you make a trial, he has a lawyer to help him. He is judged and sentenced to death.

            The main difference is that you have respected the form by respecting laws and procedures.

            The first case is a muder the second is "justice"

            Der WanderLawyer
            The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
            JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
            The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jlbetin


              For Outside US the argue for US intervention pushed by GWB administration was the thread of IRAQ MDW.

              In a strict legal point of view this WAR was illegal, it could be accepted if lot of MDW has been found but at now there is none.
              For internatioanl LAWs this is only an aggression war.
              That please you or not. THAT'S IS THE ONLY FACT in front of all international treaties signed by USA, this war was ILLEGAL.. You can't bypass it.

              It is the same cposition as the following. A guy robber a bank
              As GWB did ti you have just to hang it up to the 1st tree
              For UN you put the guy in Jail you make a trial, he has a lawyer to help him. He is judged and sentenced to death.

              The main difference is that you have respected the form by respecting laws and procedures.

              The first case is a muder the second is "justice"

              Der WanderLawyer

              The war can't be illegal. it was authorized by the U.S. congress as per the United States constitution. The U.N. has no authority over what is legal or illegal. Its just a debating society.
              "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kid kool

                The war can't be illegal. it was authorized by the U.S. congress as per the United States constitution. The U.N. has no authority over what is legal or illegal. Its just a debating society.
                Legally the UN resolutions are binding on the US. From a practical perspective they're not.

                But when congress ratified the UN charter it effectively made it law, just as any other US law.

                Anyways, even if you were right, it's not like that's a case for war. "Because we could" isn't really a legit reason for starting something like a war.
                "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The war is not illegal because the UNSC never suspended RESO 687, which was adopted under 678. Futhermore, it validated that Resolution time and again. The UN never passed a Resolution claiming Iraq had fully complied with UNSC 687, thus re-establishing Iraq's status as a nation of peace, which was impeached by the Invasion of Kuwait, and it's lack of cooperation.

                  The UNSC RESO 687, which recalls 678, is still valid. Only a UNSC RESO stating the UN recognizes Iraq's compliance and believes it has fulfilled it's obligations to ensure peace, thus mandating the cancellation of 678 adopted under Chapter 7, can change that.
                  678 and 687 placed no clear specifications on the conditions for which war was to occur except if Saddam failed to comply NLT Jan. 15, 1991. It never said military action can only occur if all the Permanant members participate. That had already been decided.

                  Chirac felt the US should go back to the UN to secure a second Resolution. That would be necessary if successive UNSC RESO's didn't recall 678, or if those Resolutions superceded 678.

                  Having said all that, the argument that 687 provided a green light for war is also not entirely correct. The United States, along all the permanent members failed to enforce the ceasefire, which in effect was a contract between Iraq and the various members, though the UN. Our tolerance of these material breaches in effect rendered them void. So, from that angle, jbetin is correct, Bush, Jr's action's were illegal under international law no matter what the conditions were.

                  The position that war was illegal can't be decided by a single entity. Eisenhower made a similar statement about British, French, and Israeli invasion of Egypt. Legally, he was correct, even the French admitted that. However, that's still a personal, not official opinion, without the governing body who regulates and enforces that law agrees. That hasn't happened.

                  Bush exaggerated the threat Iraq posed. Everyone knew that. Just like Chirac and others understated the threat Saddam posed to American interest. Niether side offered a candid explanation justify their positions.

                  Finally, putting Bush on trial would likely prove to be a disasterous move. None of our governments can stand in the court room with clean hands. If Bush did wrong, the American people will make him pay. However, those same people are likely not going to tolerate the international community inferring or capitalizing on our right to do so. It would be a mess that would likely get out of hand. The American people are capable and willing to punish wrongdoing by our government.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Re: Deltapooh you remember ??

                    Originally posted by Deltapooh


                    So when one says it was a lie or the US is hell-bent on imperalism, it is to suggest those who supported the war have similar intentions and motives.

                    That's absolutely false.
                    Many who supported the War in Iraq were misled by the exagerations perpetrated by the US administration. The US Congress and the British Parliament recognize this by seeking investigations into the intelligence files.
                    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MikeJ


                      Legally the UN resolutions are binding on the US. From a practical perspective they're not.

                      But when congress ratified the UN charter it effectively made it law, just as any other US law.

                      Anyways, even if you were right, it's not like that's a case for war. "Because we could" isn't really a legit reason for starting something like a war.
                      When did i say that was the reason? I told you, it was about finishing the job. We went back to take out the trash
                      "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Legally the UN resolutions are binding on the US. From a practical perspective they're not.

                        But when congress ratified the UN charter it effectively made it law, just as any other US law.
                        Legally the UN does not identify itself as a government or any kind of lawful authority. The UN does not prosecute laws, it makes collective decisions among countries. The US has decided as a government to participate in the UN. Ceding lawful power to a foreign power would be treason, the congress cannot do that and I'll guess most other governments of other UN member nations function the same way.

                        There is no global government.
                        Get the US out of NATO, now!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          For Outside US the argue for US intervention pushed by GWB administration was the thread of IRAQ MDW.

                          In a strict legal point of view this WAR was illegal, it could be accepted if lot of MDW has been found but at now there is none.
                          For internatioanl LAWs this is only an aggression war.
                          That please you or not. THAT'S IS THE ONLY FACT in front of all international treaties signed by USA, this war was ILLEGAL.. You can't bypass it.

                          It is the same cposition as the following. A guy robber a bank
                          As GWB did ti you have just to hang it up to the 1st tree
                          For UN you put the guy in Jail you make a trial, he has a lawyer to help him. He is judged and sentenced to death.
                          Please remember that the most important treaty that exists between the US and any European objections to US foreign policy is bound up in NATO.

                          If you sincerely believe that the US has engaged in some imoral or criminal act in invading Iraq, what do you thing the role of NATO should be in response to this?
                          Get the US out of NATO, now!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Re: Re: Deltapooh you remember ??

                            Originally posted by tigersqn


                            That's absolutely false.
                            Many who supported the War in Iraq were misled by the exagerations perpetrated by the US administration. The US Congress and the British Parliament recognize this by seeking investigations into the intelligence files.
                            The media and most people seem to believe that those who supported the war are "in step" with the ideal of colonalism and imperalism, which is why the US government really invaded Iraq.(they say) It doesn't have much to do with the investigations. It's the ideal os supporting the war.

                            In hindsight, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Those who support the war often criticized people who didn't as weak and scared, so I really shouldn't complain.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Deltapooh you remember ??

                              Originally posted by Deltapooh


                              The media and most people seem to believe that those who supported the war are "in step" with the ideal of colonalism and imperalism, which is why the US government really invaded Iraq.(they say) It doesn't have much to do with the investigations. It's the ideal os supporting the war.

                              In hindsight, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Those who support the war often criticized people who didn't as weak and scared, so I really shouldn't complain.
                              I disagree.

                              Most people believe the US administration is following an imperialist policy.

                              When it comes to the "man on the street" who supports the administration however, most people believe they have simply been convinced by the government that their COA is the correct one. Whether that be through guile, deception, error or outright lies is inconsequential.
                              Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X