Clinton, Edwards, Obama, won't rule out Iraq presence before 2013

gue_barium

FrankBauer wrote:

Not here to argue if the invasion was the best thing. I actually thought it could've been a good thing, but an incompetent president fucked it up. But, in terms of the legality of this war or "right" of the invasion, under international law, a state is deemed to lost sovereignty under 4 precepts:

1. violates genocide convention
2. state gives aid and comfort to and harbors terrorists
3. commits repeated aggression against neighboring states
4. violates non proliferation treaty or pursuit of WMD

Iraq has repeatedly violated all 4 precepts. And continued to violate the treaty signed after the 1st Gulf War. And yes, so many states out there repeatedly violate these same precepts with no consequence (ie Iran). But, you cant deny theres a solid case for invasion. True, there were no stockpiles of WMDs found, but you seem to forget the responsibilities of a weapons inspector. They aren't there to search, investigate, look for clues of WMDs - they are only there to confirm. Iraq had WMDs (some given by us), used WMDs, but did not account for their destruction. If Iraq destroyed their weapons, they must present documents detailing where/when/how. They didn't. Nor did they cooperate fully with the UN. Bush "reached" to make the WMD case against Iraq, but not one country could claim Iraq was clean.

Hell, America is guilty under the same guidelines.

But, that's neither here nor there.
The problem wih your argument is that you ignore that the sort of precepts you present don't mean a whole hell of a lot of anything when there's money to be made.

FrankBauer

gue_barium wrote:

Hell, America is guilty under the same guidelines.

But, that's neither here nor there.
The problem wih your argument is that you ignore that the sort of precepts you present don't mean a whole hell of a lot of anything when there's money to be made.

No country is clean as a baby's ass. Wasn't making that point. And the points I made - they're not arguments. You have the UN and international law and they choose to do shit. America has violated those precepts in our history, but can you really compare our history with contemporary history of Iraq? And the whole issue of who has the right to own/create/use WMDs is another matter.

I think what you meant to say is:

"....dont mean a whole hell of a lot of anything UNLESS there's money to be made."

And that statement is one I completely agree with. France, Germany, and Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq because they were profiting off backdoor dealings with Saddam, Russia and China won't enforce sanctions on Iran because there's money to be made. The genocide in Africa, as well as the AIDS crisis and disease situation there, is completely ignored by everyone because, frankly, Africa has no resources and no one gives a shit about them. Economics rule. Every country is looking out for itself. As noble as Bush made this Iraqi War about to be - about liberation, freedom, and democracy, we all know we wouldn't be there unless the US benefited. Same goes for those that opposed the war - they dont give a shit about the Iraqis either...

gue_barium

FrankBauer wrote:

No country is clean as a baby's ass. Wasn't making that point. And the points I made - they're not arguments. You have the UN and international law and they choose to do shit. America has violated those precepts in our history, but can you really compare our history with contemporary history of Iraq? And the whole issue of who has the right to own/create/use WMDs is another matter.

I think what you meant to say is:

"....dont mean a whole hell of a lot of anything UNLESS there's money to be made."

And that statement is one I completely agree with. France, Germany, and Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq because they were profiting off backdoor dealings with Saddam, Russia and China won't enforce sanctions on Iran because there's money to be made. The genocide in Africa, as well as the AIDS crisis and disease situation there, is completely ignored by everyone because, frankly, Africa has no resources and no one gives a shit about them. Economics rule. Every country is looking out for itself. As noble as Bush made this Iraqi War about to be - about liberation, freedom, and democracy, we all know we wouldn't be there unless the US benefited. Same goes for those that opposed the war - they dont give a shit about the Iraqis either...

Not "giving a shit" about Iraqi's is something of an American paradox since we've been inexorably involved (knowingly or not) with that government since the 1950's. As well many other "peoples" of many nations, via tax dollars via the CIA for less than good intentions.
It isn't a matter of "not giving a shit" about a people, it is a matter of an operating Imperialism who don't think in terms of boundaries.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Not "giving a shit" about Iraqi's is something of an American paradox since we've been inexorably involved (knowingly or not) with that government since the 1950's. As well many other "peoples" of many nations, via tax dollars via the CIA for less than good intentions.
It isn't a matter of "not giving a shit" about a people, it is a matter of an operating Imperialism who don't think in terms of boundaries.

Q: Kind of like rapists and murderers?
A: yeah, like that.

mammasan

bgivens33 wrote:

Starting to cooperate with UN resolutions???

Where on earth did you come up with that?

Don't you people read. Do you watch the news at all?

UN weapons inspectors re-entered Iraq on Nov. 27th 2002 to search for weapons. Below is a link to an article.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

810wmb

GEORGE BUSH STARTED IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjgquIN4Rrw

a lot of anti war faces here...........

mammasan

810wmb wrote:

GEORGE BUSH STARTED IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjgquIN4Rrw

a lot of anti war faces here...........

The Democrats are just as responsible for the fucked up mess we are in as the Republicans. I don't buy, for one second, the bullshit line that they where deceived into authorizing this war. The share just as much blame as Bush.

810wmb

mammasan wrote:

The Democrats are just as responsible for the fucked up mess we are in as the Republicans. I don't buy, for one second, the bullshit line that they where deceived into authorizing this war. The share just as much blame as Bush.

thank you

mammasan

810wmb wrote:

thank you

Your welcome.

DriftingByTheStorm

FrankBauer wrote:

Not here to argue if the invasion was the best thing. I actually thought it could've been a good thing, but an incompetent president fucked it up. But, in terms of the legality of this war or "right" of the invasion, under international law, a state is deemed to lost sovereignty under 4 precepts:

1. violates genocide convention
2. state gives aid and comfort to and harbors terrorists
3. commits repeated aggression against neighboring states
4. violates non proliferation treaty or pursuit of WMD

I don't know if we get the "genocide" award yet.
But the US can gleefully claim to be the owner of THREE of these titles.

2. The CIA
3. Global world, global neighbors -- Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be Iran, maybe Venezuela
4. Did we sign that? I thought we did. We are making more.

mammasan

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't know if we get the "genocide" award yet.
But the US can gleefully claim to be the owner of THREE of these titles.

2. The CIA
3. Global world, global neighbors -- Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be Iran, maybe Venezuela
4. Did we sign that? I thought we did. We are making more.

We did sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but there is no article that states that we cannot make more nuclear weapons. It only urges nuclear states, through international cooperation, to move towards disarmament. Where we may be in violation on the treaty is in our nuclear sharing program with NATO. As late as 2005 we sold NATO 180 B61 nuclear bombs which would be used by Belgium, Turkey, Germany, and the Netherlands. The treaty states that the 5 NWS (nuclear weapons states) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons. All four countries which received the B61 nuclear bombs are NNWS so we in fact did not adhere to the treaty.

FrankBauer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't know if we get the "genocide" award yet.
But the US can gleefully claim to be the owner of THREE of these titles.

2. The CIA
3. Global world, global neighbors -- Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be Iran, maybe Venezuela
4. Did we sign that? I thought we did. We are making more.

There's undocumented genocide with the Native Americans. But I don't know if its fair to compare what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq to what Iraq did when they tried annexing Kuwait. If the US interferes with the genocide in Darfur, would you say it violates international law?

albertgt

vote ron paul 2008! ron paul is a republican that wants to pull out of iraq now and get rid of the irs and income tax and stop interfereing with other nations.