David W

I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they see
one.
I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some good
for the country.

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they see
> one.
> I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some good
> for the country.
>
>
Ed

I presume you mean Blair, or Bliar as a lot of us think of him. No, he
is not a good man. He is a liar who has lead us into an illegal war in
Iraq resulting in the deaths of 87 British servicemen so far and tens of
thousands of Iraqis and the destruction of the Iraqi government,
security and services, like water, sewage disposal and electricity,
reducing the whole country to chaos.

He did this against the wishes of the majority of British people by
lying about the supposed threat and WMDs held by Saddam, both zero in
actual fact, grossly exaggerating intelligence information which had no
vestige of actual evidence in it. As a lawyer by profession he should
have known this and he probably did but he had to poodle along with
Bush. Then he blackmailed his Labour MPs into supporting it with a
three-line whip. He should be on trial as a war criminal.

At home he has been hardly less destructive. He has increased taxes
enormously, after saying he would not do so, ostensibly to improve
public services. The money spent on these services has indeed increased
but it has disappeared almost without trace in higher salaries and vast
numbers of new managers and administrators there to promote government
interference with schools and hospitals and implement a target system
which has distorted the priorities that teachers and doctors would
otherwise have followed.

The education system has never been worse with indiscipline in schools
preventing adequate teaching, partly canceled by dumbing-down exam
standards so that results appear to be OK. This is part of the culture
of lies that has permeated the Office of National Statistics and all
government figures which are now manipulated by spin doctors before
issue and have become almost meaningless.

The pointless aim of sending 50% of all students to university has
required a massive dumbing down in entry standards and in the quality of
exams and a huge increase in costs. To pay for it he has removed grants
for poorer families and introduced tuition fees so that students on
graduating have huge debts which take many years to pay off. And of
course when everyone has a low standard degree they are not worth having.

Part of Blair's incessant thirst for more tax revenue has been to devise
about 60 new "stealth" taxes we never had before. One of these was a tax
on gains made by pension funds. Combined with a poorly performing stock
market, another Blair effect from excessive company taxes, this has
reduced the gains made by pension funds and insurance companies to such
an extent that many pensioners will get nowhere near as much as they
expected and will either have to work on indefinitely or live in
poverty, probably both for those who live too long.

The Health Service now has twice the money spent on it as before but is
rather worse than before. There are no more doctors or nurses but huge
numbers of unproductive administrators fiddling targets and waiting list
statistics to meet government targets at the expense of patient care.
Meanwhile there is not even enough money available to pay for adequate
cleaning of wards and deadly infectious diseases like MRSA are rife in
hospitals and a real threat to patients.

I could go on about his failures in crime, transport and almost anything
else the dead hand of government has interfered with but you are
probably bored if you have got this far and are probably wondering how
he got re-elected. As with Bush in the USA it transcends logic. I can
only put it down to elector stupidity, a class system that still rumbles
on beneath the surface and working class electors who would support a
monkey if it was labeled Labour, vast numbers of Labour electors either
dependent on benefits or employed in public services. The other asset
Blair has is a certain lawyer's plausibility and ability to make black
sound like white. The nearest literary parallel is Wormtongue in the
Lord of the Rings.

Re: David W

So, I guess you voted against him.



"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5flfn$d1g$
> Ed wrote:
>> I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they see
>> one.
>> I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some
>> good for the country.
> Ed
>
> I presume you mean Blair, or Bliar as a lot of us think of him. No, he is
> not a good man. He is a liar who has lead us into an illegal war in Iraq
> resulting in the deaths of 87 British servicemen so far and tens of
> thousands of Iraqis and the destruction of the Iraqi government, security
> and services, like water, sewage disposal and electricity, reducing the
> whole country to chaos.
>
> He did this against the wishes of the majority of British people by lying
> about the supposed threat and WMDs held by Saddam, both zero in actual
> fact, grossly exaggerating intelligence information which had no vestige
> of actual evidence in it. As a lawyer by profession he should have known
> this and he probably did but he had to poodle along with Bush. Then he
> blackmailed his Labour MPs into supporting it with a three-line whip. He
> should be on trial as a war criminal.
>
> At home he has been hardly less destructive. He has increased taxes
> enormously, after saying he would not do so, ostensibly to improve public
> services. The money spent on these services has indeed increased but it
> has disappeared almost without trace in higher salaries and vast numbers
> of new managers and administrators there to promote government
> interference with schools and hospitals and implement a target system
> which has distorted the priorities that teachers and doctors would
> otherwise have followed.
>
> The education system has never been worse with indiscipline in schools
> preventing adequate teaching, partly canceled by dumbing-down exam
> standards so that results appear to be OK. This is part of the culture of
> lies that has permeated the Office of National Statistics and all
> government figures which are now manipulated by spin doctors before issue
> and have become almost meaningless.
>
> The pointless aim of sending 50% of all students to university has
> required a massive dumbing down in entry standards and in the quality of
> exams and a huge increase in costs. To pay for it he has removed grants
> for poorer families and introduced tuition fees so that students on
> graduating have huge debts which take many years to pay off. And of course
> when everyone has a low standard degree they are not worth having.
>
> Part of Blair's incessant thirst for more tax revenue has been to devise
> about 60 new "stealth" taxes we never had before. One of these was a tax
> on gains made by pension funds. Combined with a poorly performing stock
> market, another Blair effect from excessive company taxes, this has
> reduced the gains made by pension funds and insurance companies to such an
> extent that many pensioners will get nowhere near as much as they expected
> and will either have to work on indefinitely or live in poverty, probably
> both for those who live too long.
>
> The Health Service now has twice the money spent on it as before but is
> rather worse than before. There are no more doctors or nurses but huge
> numbers of unproductive administrators fiddling targets and waiting list
> statistics to meet government targets at the expense of patient care.
> Meanwhile there is not even enough money available to pay for adequate
> cleaning of wards and deadly infectious diseases like MRSA are rife in
> hospitals and a real threat to patients.
>
> I could go on about his failures in crime, transport and almost anything
> else the dead hand of government has interfered with but you are probably
> bored if you have got this far and are probably wondering how he got
> re-elected. As with Bush in the USA it transcends logic. I can only put it
> down to elector stupidity, a class system that still rumbles on beneath
> the surface and working class electors who would support a monkey if it
> was labeled Labour, vast numbers of Labour electors either dependent on
> benefits or employed in public services. The other asset Blair has is a
> certain lawyer's plausibility and ability to make black sound like white.
> The nearest literary parallel is Wormtongue in the Lord of the Rings.
>
>
>

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> So, I guess you voted against him.
>
Too right I did!

And another thing, while I am in "rant" mode.

Blair's Labour Party got only 36% of the vote, of those who actually
voted. This was the lowest percentage of support of any government since
records began. It means that 64%, or twice as many, voted for other
parties, either the Conservatives (33%) Liberal-Democrats (22%) or one
of the smaller parties (9%).

If you include the fact that only about 60% of those entitled to vote
actually did so Labour only had 21.6% of the electors voting for it.
Nearly twice as many, 40%, did not think it worth voting for any of the
parties and a similar number voted for other parties.

Hardly a ringing endorsement but under our daft system Labour gets a
majority and forms what they loosely describe as a government.

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they
see
> one.
> I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some
good
> for the country.


On the other hand, you can say that the majority is indeed fooled.

Re: David W

It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
"peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the spread
of tyranny.



"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5flfn$d1g$
> Ed wrote:
>> I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they see
>> one.
>> I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some
>> good for the country.
> Ed
>
> I presume you mean Blair, or Bliar as a lot of us think of him. No, he is
> not a good man. He is a liar who has lead us into an illegal war in Iraq
> resulting in the deaths of 87 British servicemen so far and tens of
> thousands of Iraqis and the destruction of the Iraqi government, security
> and services, like water, sewage disposal and electricity, reducing the
> whole country to chaos.
>
> He did this against the wishes of the majority of British people by lying
> about the supposed threat and WMDs held by Saddam, both zero in actual
> fact, grossly exaggerating intelligence information which had no vestige
> of actual evidence in it. As a lawyer by profession he should have known
> this and he probably did but he had to poodle along with Bush. Then he
> blackmailed his Labour MPs into supporting it with a three-line whip. He
> should be on trial as a war criminal.
>
> At home he has been hardly less destructive. He has increased taxes
> enormously, after saying he would not do so, ostensibly to improve public
> services. The money spent on these services has indeed increased but it
> has disappeared almost without trace in higher salaries and vast numbers
> of new managers and administrators there to promote government
> interference with schools and hospitals and implement a target system
> which has distorted the priorities that teachers and doctors would
> otherwise have followed.
>
> The education system has never been worse with indiscipline in schools
> preventing adequate teaching, partly canceled by dumbing-down exam
> standards so that results appear to be OK. This is part of the culture of
> lies that has permeated the Office of National Statistics and all
> government figures which are now manipulated by spin doctors before issue
> and have become almost meaningless.
>
> The pointless aim of sending 50% of all students to university has
> required a massive dumbing down in entry standards and in the quality of
> exams and a huge increase in costs. To pay for it he has removed grants
> for poorer families and introduced tuition fees so that students on
> graduating have huge debts which take many years to pay off. And of course
> when everyone has a low standard degree they are not worth having.
>
> Part of Blair's incessant thirst for more tax revenue has been to devise
> about 60 new "stealth" taxes we never had before. One of these was a tax
> on gains made by pension funds. Combined with a poorly performing stock
> market, another Blair effect from excessive company taxes, this has
> reduced the gains made by pension funds and insurance companies to such an
> extent that many pensioners will get nowhere near as much as they expected
> and will either have to work on indefinitely or live in poverty, probably
> both for those who live too long.
>
> The Health Service now has twice the money spent on it as before but is
> rather worse than before. There are no more doctors or nurses but huge
> numbers of unproductive administrators fiddling targets and waiting list
> statistics to meet government targets at the expense of patient care.
> Meanwhile there is not even enough money available to pay for adequate
> cleaning of wards and deadly infectious diseases like MRSA are rife in
> hospitals and a real threat to patients.
>
> I could go on about his failures in crime, transport and almost anything
> else the dead hand of government has interfered with but you are probably
> bored if you have got this far and are probably wondering how he got
> re-elected. As with Bush in the USA it transcends logic. I can only put it
> down to elector stupidity, a class system that still rumbles on beneath
> the surface and working class electors who would support a monkey if it
> was labeled Labour, vast numbers of Labour electors either dependent on
> benefits or employed in public services. The other asset Blair has is a
> certain lawyer's plausibility and ability to make black sound like white.
> The nearest literary parallel is Wormtongue in the Lord of the Rings.
>
>
>

Re: David W

"Carlos" <> wrote

> It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
> approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
> "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the spread
> of tyranny.

The biggest problem I have with Iraq is that we went to war there on lies.

I also feel that there was no tyranny being spread from Iraq, SH was an
isolationist with only his interests in mind.

The next biggest problem, or the two next biggest problems are that so many
people died for these lies. Then, it makes me ill to see our soldiers being
punished by our government for getting caugt engaging in war. Fucking
rediculous.

Re: David W

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Ed wrote:
>
>> I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they
>> see one.
>> I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some
>> good for the country.
>>
> Ed
>
> I presume you mean Blair, or Bliar as a lot of us think of him. No, he
> is not a good man. He is a liar who has lead us into an illegal war in
> Iraq resulting in the deaths of 87 British servicemen so far and tens of
> thousands of Iraqis and the destruction of the Iraqi government,
> security and services, like water, sewage disposal and electricity,
> reducing the whole country to chaos.
>
> He did this against the wishes of the majority of British people....

Before you go any further: Wasn't the Tory party also supportive of the
war? So what difference would it have made to the war if the Tories had
been in power in the last few years?


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:02:12 GMT, "Steven L."
<> wrote:


>Before you go any further: Wasn't the Tory party also supportive of the
>war? So what difference would it have made to the war if the Tories had
>been in power in the last few years?

Good question. And while we're into "Monday morning quarterbacking",
what ever happened to all those folks who claimed that the Evil Bush
was going to steal the Iraq oil?


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

Re: David W

Carlos wrote:
> It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
> approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
> "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the spread
> of tyranny.
>
The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that which
members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney
General, Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore it.
The USA only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.

What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was
peace until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the 150,000
invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.

>
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d5flfn$d1g$
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was peace
> until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the 150,000
> invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.

C'mon, you people helped! We weren't alone.

Re: David W

Steven L. wrote:
>
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> Ed wrote:
>>
>>> I guess the majority can't be fooled, they know a good man when they
>>> see one.
>>> I don't follow UK politics all that closely but he must be doing some
>>> good for the country.
>>>
>> Ed
>>
>> I presume you mean Blair, or Bliar as a lot of us think of him. No, he
>> is not a good man. He is a liar who has lead us into an illegal war in
>> Iraq resulting in the deaths of 87 British servicemen so far and tens
>> of thousands of Iraqis and the destruction of the Iraqi government,
>> security and services, like water, sewage disposal and electricity,
>> reducing the whole country to chaos.
>>
>> He did this against the wishes of the majority of British people....
>
>
> Before you go any further: Wasn't the Tory party also supportive of the
> war? So what difference would it have made to the war if the Tories had
> been in power in the last few years?
>
>
That's right. The Tories did support the war. They say they were
deceived by Blair's lies about WMDs but would have gone to war anyway
for different reasons. This is one of the reasons voters saw them as
little better than Labour and they did not get enough seats to form a
government. The Tory leader, Howard, has resigned today. Far more Labour
MPs rejected the war than Tory ones. Both main parties let us down.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Both main parties let us down.

I'm guessing that by "us" you mean those opposed to the war.

When the government here first started building support for the invasion I
was all for it. WMD and they were headed here and to the European allies.
Blow them to hell. When it was becoming painfully obvious that neither was
true I became opposed.

N. Korea has WMD, Iran is close, what's up with that? N. Korea fired a test
missile over Japan and nothing happened. I don't get it. What would happen
if Japan fired a test missile over N. Korea? Probably nothing I guess.

Re: David W

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:02:12 GMT, "Steven L."
> <> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Before you go any further: Wasn't the Tory party also supportive of the
>>war? So what difference would it have made to the war if the Tories had
>>been in power in the last few years?
>
>
> Good question. And while we're into "Monday morning quarterbacking",
> what ever happened to all those folks who claimed that the Evil Bush
> was going to steal the Iraq oil?
>
>
You mean he is not stealing it? Where do all the revenues go from the
sale of Iraqi oil? Who controls all the oil wells? Is he not producing
as much oil as the Iraqi saboteurs will let him?

You are surely not suggesting that the feeble, disorganised, "elected",
Iraqi puppet government has any control of anything are you? After three
months they can't even decide who is in the interim government let alone
actually do anything.

You don't think Bush would give control of something serious like oil to
this bunch of clowns do you? Why do you think he stations 150,000 troops
there on a permanent basis at great expense? They are there to limit the
incipient civil war to just 25 deaths a day, mainly Iraqis, while he
takes the oil.

Re: David W

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Carlos wrote:
> > It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs
to
> > approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville
Chamberlain -
> > "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the
spread
> > of tyranny.
> >
> The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that
which
> members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney
> General, Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore
it.
> The USA only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.
>
> What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was
> peace until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the
150,000
> invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.


There was definitely tyranny, although it wasn't spreading (shades of
the dominos theory, for those old enough to remember). Just ask the
Kurds. There was "peace" only thru brute force, not that it's any
better now.


>
> >
> >
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message
> > news:d5flfn$d1g$
> >
> >>Ed wrote:
> >>

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>
>>What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was peace
>>until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the 150,000
>>invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.
>
>
> C'mon, you people helped! We weren't alone.
>
>
You can't believe that the UK or Australia or anyone else would have
attacked Iraq without the US taking the lead. The UK just tagged along.

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>
>>Both main parties let us down.
>
>
> I'm guessing that by "us" you mean those opposed to the war.
>
> When the government here first started building support for the invasion I
> was all for it. WMD and they were headed here and to the European allies.
> Blow them to hell. When it was becoming painfully obvious that neither was
> true I became opposed.
>
> N. Korea has WMD, Iran is close, what's up with that? N. Korea fired a test
> missile over Japan and nothing happened. I don't get it. What would happen
> if Japan fired a test missile over N. Korea? Probably nothing I guess.
>
>
>
You've missed the point Ed. The US did not attack Iraq because it
thought it had WMDs but because it knew that Iraq did NOT have WMDs or
any other worthwhile defence, but they did have oil. The difference is
that North Korea may well have WMDs and certainly has about a million
trained troops under arms and also has no oil, so why attack them.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5gcjo$41h$
> The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that which
> members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney
> General, Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore it.
> The USA only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.

It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf War) and
1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take actions into their
own hands):

678: "The Security Council ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter ...
(2) *Authorizes* Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements ... the
above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions and to
restore international peace and security in the area." Emphasis in original.


1441:"The Security Council, ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of
the United Nations, ... (12) *Decides* to convene immediately upon receipt
of a report ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full
compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security; (13) *Recalls*, in that context, that the
Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as
a result of its continued violations; (14) *Decides* to remain seized of the
matter." Emphasis in original.


"Seizen" is a legal term - in property law, it means to hold, to retain,
real property. David might have heard the term - it comes from medieval
England.


More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member states,
retained ownership of the Iraq situation. No delegation of authority to the
US (or UK, or member states), no express authorization, as in resolution
678.

--
Mark Freeland

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> You can't believe that the UK or Australia or anyone else would have
> attacked Iraq without the US taking the lead.

I agree.

> The UK just tagged along.

I know, your guys killed people but it was our fault.

The woman down the street walks her dog and it picks my yard to dump in. I
was outside one day and saw this happen. I asked if she was going to pick it
up. She said that the edge of my yard was town property and not mine. I
asked if she knew there was a $250 fine for littering. She said sue me. I
said I don't have to sue anyone, I only need to report it to the police and
insist that they enforce the law. She said that I could do whatever I wanted
to but she wasn't going to clean it up or stop the dog from doing it. I told
her that she was a filthy pig. She told her husband. He was instructed by
this bitch to come and straigten me out. The guy only weighed about 130
pounds and here I am at 230 pounds. He took a swing at me. I caught his fist
like a baseball and shoved it into his forehead, then I got physical and the
poor guy was just there in the street on his back. What else could I do, I
kicked in a few of his ribs and then asked him if he was alright. He said I
should just break the ribs on the other side. I said ok and kicked those in
too. I said I had no bad feelings toward him it was his wife's fault he was
here anyway.

Fabrication for illustrative purposes only. I usually shoot those dogs with
a BB gun.

Re: David W

"PeterL" <> wrote

> There was definitely tyranny, although it wasn't spreading (shades of
> the dominos theory, for those old enough to remember). Just ask the
> Kurds. There was "peace" only thru brute force, not that it's any
> better now.

Not our problem.

Re: David W

PeterL wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>>Carlos wrote:
>>
>>>It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs
>
> to
>
>>>approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville
>
> Chamberlain -
>
>>>"peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the
>
> spread
>
>>>of tyranny.
>>>
>>
>>The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that
>
> which
>
>>members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney
>>General, Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore
>
> it.
>
>>The USA only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.
>>
>>What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was
>>peace until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the
>
> 150,000
>
>>invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.
>
>
>
> There was definitely tyranny, although it wasn't spreading (shades of
> the dominos theory, for those old enough to remember). Just ask the
> Kurds. There was "peace" only thru brute force, not that it's any
> better now.
>
>
That's the point. These people are not suppressed democrats trying to
get out. They have never had a democracy and cannot work one. They
evolved a system of military dictatorship that worked for them. The US
destroyed it so they have anarchy now instead.

>
>>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>>news:d5flfn$d1g$
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ed wrote:
>>>>
>
>

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> "PeterL" <> wrote
>
> > There was definitely tyranny, although it wasn't spreading (shades
of
> > the dominos theory, for those old enough to remember). Just ask
the
> > Kurds. There was "peace" only thru brute force, not that it's any
> > better now.
>
> Not our problem.

It is now.

Re: David W

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:49Pee.3544$
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d5gcjo$41h$
> > The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that which
> > members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney
> > General, Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore it.
> > The USA only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.
>
> It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf War)
and
> 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take actions into
their
> own hands):
>
> 678: "The Security Council ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter ...
> (2) *Authorizes* Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
> unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements ... the
> above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and
> implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions and to
> restore international peace and security in the area." Emphasis in
original.
>
>
> 1441:"The Security Council, ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of
> the United Nations, ... (12) *Decides* to convene immediately upon receipt
> of a report ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full
> compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
> international peace and security; (13) *Recalls*, in that context, that
the
> Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences
as
> a result of its continued violations; (14) *Decides* to remain seized of
the
> matter." Emphasis in original.
>
>
> "Seizen" is a legal term - in property law, it means to hold, to retain,
> real property. David might have heard the term - it comes from medieval
> England.
>
>
> More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member states,
> retained ownership of the Iraq situation. No delegation of authority to
the
> US (or UK, or member states), no express authorization, as in resolution
> 678.
>
> --
> Mark Freeland
>
>
>

Mark:

You are always interesting and instructive. Is it your position that the UN
Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?

Not that I would want to defend the current debacle, but it seems to me that
states retain the right to declare war, UN objections notwithstanding.

David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical resonance but
I seriously doubt that it is literally true. Although a bare majority of
the Security Council supported the second resolution, France made it clear
that it would veto the resolution if passed. Is it your position that
anything France forbids becomes illegal under US or UK law?

I don't know a lot about the British constitution but I would be surprised
if Parliament couldn't declare war on anyone it wanted to. I certainly know
that our Constitution clearly grants this power to Congress and they duly
(and foolishly) passed resolutions authorizing the attack. I put no stock
in their later claims that they didn't know that Bush would act,
immediately, on this authority. I knew it, why didn't they?

David would do well in American politics, the way he demonizes those with
whom he disagrees. He suggests that the new British government will be,
somehow, illegitimate but consistently refers to the thugs who used to run
Iraq as a "sovereign government."

-herb

Re: David W

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Carlos" <> wrote
>
>> It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
>> approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
>> "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the
>> spread of tyranny.
>
> The biggest problem I have with Iraq is that we went to war there on lies.

The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" should have been clearly defined
and it wasn't.
Most thought this was nukes..Bush and Blair probably thought it was large
bombs, chemical weapons on up to nukes.

Similar to the argument today in the housing market we aren't in a "bubble"
or the market won't "crash".
One has to define what "bubble" means or "crash" in order to get any
consensus -- apples to apples discussions.

<SNIP>

Re: David W

David Wilkinson wrote:

> The Tories did support the war. They say they were
> deceived by Blair's lies about WMDs but would have gone to war anyway
> for different reasons.

How convenient. I'm relieved to find out that "spin" isn't confined to
the United States.


> This is one of the reasons voters saw them as
> little better than Labour and they did not get enough seats to form a
> government. The Tory leader, Howard, has resigned today. Far more Labour
> MPs rejected the war than Tory ones. Both main parties let us down.

Are there significant impediments to the rise of a third party in
Britain to the point it could actually take power? (Here in America,
the Electoral College makes it very difficult for a third party to ever
run an effective campaign for President.)


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:

> And while we're into "Monday morning quarterbacking",
> what ever happened to all those folks who claimed that the Evil Bush
> was going to steal the Iraq oil?

They're still waiting for it to be stolen.

And given that the new Iraqi government is apparently going to remain a
member of OPEC, they're going to have a very long wait.

BTW: Arab oil doesn't belong to the Arabs anyway. It belongs to the
British oil companies who located it and drilled for it in the 1950's.
The Arabs *stole* it when they nationalized those oil companies.

Nationalization is a fancy word for theft.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
> news:49Pee.3544$
>
>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>news:d5gcjo$41h$
>>
>>>The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that which
>>>members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney
>>>General, Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore it.
>>>The USA only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.
>>
>>It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf War)
>
> and
>
>>1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take actions into
>
> their
>
>>own hands):
>>
>>678: "The Security Council ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter ...
>>(2) *Authorizes* Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
>>unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements ... the
>>above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and
>>implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions and to
>>restore international peace and security in the area." Emphasis in
>
> original.
>
>>
>>
>>1441:"The Security Council, ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of
>>the United Nations, ... (12) *Decides* to convene immediately upon receipt
>>of a report ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full
>>compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
>>international peace and security; (13) *Recalls*, in that context, that
>
> the
>
>>Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences
>
> as
>
>>a result of its continued violations; (14) *Decides* to remain seized of
>
> the
>
>>matter." Emphasis in original.
>>
>>
>>"Seizen" is a legal term - in property law, it means to hold, to retain,
>>real property. David might have heard the term - it comes from medieval
>>England.
>>
>>
>>More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member states,
>>retained ownership of the Iraq situation. No delegation of authority to
>
> the
>
>>US (or UK, or member states), no express authorization, as in resolution
>>678.
>>
>>--
>>Mark Freeland
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Mark:
>
> You are always interesting and instructive. Is it your position that the UN
> Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
>
> Not that I would want to defend the current debacle, but it seems to me that
> states retain the right to declare war, UN objections notwithstanding.
>
> David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical resonance but
> I seriously doubt that it is literally true. Although a bare majority of
> the Security Council supported the second resolution, France made it clear
> that it would veto the resolution if passed. Is it your position that
> anything France forbids becomes illegal under US or UK law?
>
> I don't know a lot about the British constitution but I would be surprised
> if Parliament couldn't declare war on anyone it wanted to. I certainly know
> that our Constitution clearly grants this power to Congress and they duly
> (and foolishly) passed resolutions authorizing the attack. I put no stock
> in their later claims that they didn't know that Bush would act,
> immediately, on this authority. I knew it, why didn't they?
>
> David would do well in American politics, the way he demonizes those with
> whom he disagrees. He suggests that the new British government will be,
> somehow, illegitimate but consistently refers to the thugs who used to run
> Iraq as a "sovereign government."
>
> -herb
>
>
Herb

I think the war was illegal for the UK, which claims to be subject to
International law and to only do what is sanctioned by the UN. At one
stage the UK government claimed they needed and would get a second
resolution from the UN sanctioning the war. However, when it became
clear that several members of the security council, not just France,
would not support this they back-tracked and put pressure on the UK
Attorney General to say they did not need it. This was all part of a
pattern that the decision to go to war was taken in Washington some six
months to a year earlier by the US government and Blair, for whatever
reasons he had, was determined to go along with that. Unfortunately for
him the case for war never emerged in a form acceptable to the UN or the
British public and he had a long struggle to make some sort of case for
it or let Bush down. The evidence had to be spun, manipulated,
exaggerated and concealed selectively via a dodgy brochure and various
statements Blair made that turned out to be lies.

The UK does not have a written constitution but does have a substantial
body of laws about who is supposed to do what. I think that legally the
PM can take the country to war on his own initiative, but he has to
answer to parliament and the people afterwards. If he breaks
international law in doing so then technically he becomes a war
criminal. Most of the parents and families of British servicemen killed
in Iraq blame Blair for it and one of the fathers stood against Blair in
his parliamentary constituency in the election. A group of the families
are taking civil action against Blair over the death of their sons. Eden
took the country to war over Suez on his own initiative without
consulting parliament. He was rapidly judged to have been wrong by his
own party and others and resigned soon after, had a health breakdown and
was a beaten man ever after.

I think the position of the USA is different. The US does not seem to
sign up to be bound by international law in the way the UK does.
According to US law I have no doubt the attack on Iraq was legal for
them. At the same time the US is a member of the UN and makes a show of
abiding by its resolutions. However this seems to be done selectively,
accepting them when convenient but ignoring them when the US wants to do
something the UN has not agreed. The US wants to have its cake and eat
it too. The US with 4% of the world's population thinks it is bigger
than the UN that represents the other 96% as well, or most of them. It's
the old might is right system. That seems to work at the moment but is
not making the US any friends and is very likely the reason they are the
number one target for terrorists round the world.

As for the security council I thought that France, China and Russia all
intended to veto any further resolution calling for war, supported by
Germany. The US chose to demonise France over this particularly, but the
French were right and the US wrong on the official reasons for the
attack. There were no WMDs and there was no threat to the USA or other
countries and Iraq had disarmed. But of course the US and UK knew this
but had a different hidden agenda for the war so they had to concoct the
best public case for it they could, however feeble and untrue.

Re: David W

Steven L. wrote:
>
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> The Tories did support the war. They say they were deceived by Blair's
>> lies about WMDs but would have gone to war anyway for different reasons.
>
>
> How convenient. I'm relieved to find out that "spin" isn't confined to
> the United States.
>
>
>> This is one of the reasons voters saw them as little better than
>> Labour and they did not get enough seats to form a government. The
>> Tory leader, Howard, has resigned today. Far more Labour MPs rejected
>> the war than Tory ones. Both main parties let us down.
>
>
> Are there significant impediments to the rise of a third party in
> Britain to the point it could actually take power? (Here in America,
> the Electoral College makes it very difficult for a third party to ever
> run an effective campaign for President.)
>
>
There is a third party in the UK in the Liberal-Democrats, who got 23%
of the votes cast. There are also fourth , fifth etc. parties including
the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the Greens, the Scottish
National Party, Pleid Cymru (Welsh nationalists) Sinn Fein, various
Ulster Unionist parties, the Monster Raving Loony Party and a lot of
independents who stand without being in a party. The proportions of the
votes cast were

Lab 36%, Con 33%, Lib-Dem 23%. Others 8%.

As only about 60% of those entitled to actually voted the proportions of
the electorate who voted for the parties were, approximately:

Non-voters 40%, Lab 22%, Con 20%, Lib-Dem 14%, Others 5%.

So, only about one fifth of the electorate actually voted for the new
government.

With the Tories still apparently in death-wish mode, with their leader
resigning, again, there is nothing to stop their support ebbing away to
the Lib-Dems via by-elections and the Lib-Dems may emerge as larger than
the Tories or even Labour next time. New parties can and do arise in the
UK, not very often, but it happens.

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
>
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
> news:49Pee.3544$
>
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> > message news:d5gcjo$41h$
> > > The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that
> > > which members of the security council refused to pass.
> > > [...]
> >
> > It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf
> > War) and 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take
> > actions into their own hands):
> > [...]
> > More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member
> > states, retained ownership of the Iraq situation. No delegation of
> > authority to the US (or UK, or member states), no express
> > authorization, as in resolution 678.
>
>
> Mark:
>
> You are always interesting and instructive. Is it your position that
> the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?

Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to two on
July 28, 1945." (See
also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
)

According to U.S. constitutional law, treaties have the same force of
law as statutes enacted by Congress. (Among other things, this means
that the U.S. has the power to revoke a treaty, just as other laws can
be revoked.)

> Not that I would want to defend the current debacle, but it seems to me
> that states retain the right to declare war, UN objections
> notwithstanding.

Interesting turn of the phrase. Consider U.S. states. Do they retain
the right to wage war independently of the US government, or by "treaty"
(signing the Constitution) have they ceded that right (which they had
retained, under the Articles of Confederation (Article VI) for
self-defense)?


I would argue the latter. The difference between U.S. states and nation
states (including the U.S.) is that for the U.S. states, the ceding of
war powers was irrevocable, while the U.S. can (at least according to
its laws) revoke its signing on to the UN Charter.

Similar to the Articles of Confederation, the UN Charter does make
allowances for nation states to wage war on their own.

> David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical resonance
> but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.

I admit to not being up on international law, so I'm not able to state
on those grounds whether this war was illegal. However, as I indicated
above, it would appear to violate U.S. law (which by treaty has
incorporated the UN Charter's prohibition against most acts of war).

In doing a little quick searching, I came across this article on
international law and war, that you might find interesting:


Try starting with the section that reads:
"Like all other branches of law, international law presupposes the
agreement among the contractual parties - in this case, states - that
certain propositions be treated as law. That agreement can be expressed
in treaties or other written documents, or inferred from the pattern of
state behavior or from customs and traditions having the force of law."

On a philosophical basis, I would like to believe that we would adhere
to the principle expressed in the opening paragraph of the Declaration
of Independence, that major political (or military) actions demand an
honest declaration of causes justifying the action.

With respect to Iraq, I still don't know what those justifications are -
they've been changed so many times.

> Although a bare majority of the Security Council
> supported the second resolution, France made it clear
> that it would veto the resolution if passed. Is it your position that
> anything France forbids becomes illegal under US or UK law?

Certainly not. The US voluntarily agreed, by treaty, not to attack a
country, except under limited circumstances. One of those circumstances
is sanction by the UN. But the US has not voluntarily committed itself
to refrain from all other acts that are not explicitly sanctioned by the
UN.

To get back to the U.S. state comparison, your question suggests that
because the U.S. states gave up their right to declare war, they gave up
all their other powers to the federal government, e.g. the power to
regulate driver licenses. (Maybe that was not the best example :-)

> I don't know a lot about the British constitution but I would be
> surprised if Parliament couldn't declare war on anyone it wanted to.

My guess is that Parliament is similarly bound by British treaties.

> I certainly know that
> our Constitution clearly grants this power to Congress and they duly
> (and foolishly) passed resolutions authorizing the attack. I put no
> stock in their later claims that they didn't know that Bush would act,
> immediately, on this authority. I knew it, why didn't they?

IMHO, none of the resolutions were even necessary. Congress' resolution
enabling the war in Afghanistan was so broad that no other action was
required.


Heck, even Rush Limbaugh agreed with that assessment.


I'm not saying that Iraq harbored 9/11 terrorists, but that the Bush
administration has implied this (and if Bush says this is so, then the
Afghanistan resolution, HJR64, allowed him to attack Iraq).

For example: "Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with
al-Qaeda ... and that Osama bin Laden has an operative in Iraq...")


> David would do well in American politics, the way he demonizes those
> with whom he disagrees. He suggests that the new British government
> will be, somehow, illegitimate but consistently refers to the thugs
> who used to run Iraq as a "sovereign government."

Herb, you have also been coming across with a bit of "my country right
or wrong" tenor on Iraq. (Though not in this last post, thanks.) Maybe
everyone can take it down a notch?

--
Mark Freeland

Re: David W

"flinrius" <> wrote

> The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" should have been clearly defined
> and it wasn't.
> Most thought this was nukes..Bush and Blair probably thought it was large
> bombs, chemical weapons on up to nukes.

It was clear to me that they meant chemical/biological weapons and they felt
that Iraq was working on nuclear arms capabilities.

Re: David W

I realized that I had a much shorter, more direct response:

Herb wrote:
>
> > It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf
> > War) and 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take
> > actions into their own hands):
> > [...]
> > More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member
> > states retained ownership of the Iraq situation [in the latter
> > case]. No delegation of authority to the US (or UK, or member
> > states), no express authorization, as in resolution 678.
>
> [...]
> Is it your position that the UN
> Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
>
> David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical
> resonance but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.

1. It is my position that the nations of the world have vested in the
UN the authority to take military action. Hence by Resolution 678, the
Gulf War was legal. That is not a statement one way or the other on
whether such authority is exclusive. It does not, by itself, call into
question whether Security Council permanent members can unilaterally
veto any action of a UN member state.

2. Though I did not exclude the possibility of other legitimate (legal)
justifications for the war, the Bush administration repeatedly asserted
that the war was legal because of resolution 1441. Relying on UN
authorization was not my idea - it was the US's.

Dick Armitage put both points most succinctly:

"If you have a UN Security Council resolution, by its very nature it
will be legitimate internationally. What we have said -- in direct
answer to your question -- is we do not need another resolution."



--
Mark Freeland

Re: David W

Who lied? Bush didn't. Blair didn't.



"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Carlos" <> wrote
>
>> It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
>> approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
>> "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the
>> spread of tyranny.
>
> The biggest problem I have with Iraq is that we went to war there on lies.
>
> I also feel that there was no tyranny being spread from Iraq, SH was an
> isolationist with only his interests in mind.
>
> The next biggest problem, or the two next biggest problems are that so
> many people died for these lies. Then, it makes me ill to see our soldiers
> being punished by our government for getting caugt engaging in war.
> Fucking rediculous.
>
>

Re: David W

"Peace" can always be achieved by backing down from terror and evil, but as
has been proven, evil and terror will not contain itself. The world is a
better place without SH and a free Iraq. Who cares what the worthless and
corrupt UN thinks.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5gdvg$50d$
> Ed wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was peace
>>>until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the 150,000
>>>invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.
>>
>>
>> C'mon, you people helped! We weren't alone.
>>
>>
> You can't believe that the UK or Australia or anyone else would have
> attacked Iraq without the US taking the lead. The UK just tagged along.

Re: David W

Mark,

The amount of excess time you have on your hands is incredible. What law
school did you attend?


"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:
> Herb wrote:
>>
>> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
>> news:49Pee.3544$
>>
>> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>> > message news:d5gcjo$41h$
>> > > The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that
>> > > which members of the security council refused to pass.
>> > > [...]
>> >
>> > It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf
>> > War) and 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take
>> > actions into their own hands):
>> > [...]
>> > More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member
>> > states, retained ownership of the Iraq situation. No delegation of
>> > authority to the US (or UK, or member states), no express
>> > authorization, as in resolution 678.
>>
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> You are always interesting and instructive. Is it your position that
>> the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
>
> Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to two on
> July 28, 1945." (See
> also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
> )
>
> According to U.S. constitutional law, treaties have the same force of
> law as statutes enacted by Congress. (Among other things, this means
> that the U.S. has the power to revoke a treaty, just as other laws can
> be revoked.)
>
>> Not that I would want to defend the current debacle, but it seems to me
>> that states retain the right to declare war, UN objections
>> notwithstanding.
>
> Interesting turn of the phrase. Consider U.S. states. Do they retain
> the right to wage war independently of the US government, or by "treaty"
> (signing the Constitution) have they ceded that right (which they had
> retained, under the Articles of Confederation (Article VI) for
> self-defense)?
>
>
> I would argue the latter. The difference between U.S. states and nation
> states (including the U.S.) is that for the U.S. states, the ceding of
> war powers was irrevocable, while the U.S. can (at least according to
> its laws) revoke its signing on to the UN Charter.
>
> Similar to the Articles of Confederation, the UN Charter does make
> allowances for nation states to wage war on their own.
>
>> David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical resonance
>> but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.
>
> I admit to not being up on international law, so I'm not able to state
> on those grounds whether this war was illegal. However, as I indicated
> above, it would appear to violate U.S. law (which by treaty has
> incorporated the UN Charter's prohibition against most acts of war).
>
> In doing a little quick searching, I came across this article on
> international law and war, that you might find interesting:
>
>
> Try starting with the section that reads:
> "Like all other branches of law, international law presupposes the
> agreement among the contractual parties - in this case, states - that
> certain propositions be treated as law. That agreement can be expressed
> in treaties or other written documents, or inferred from the pattern of
> state behavior or from customs and traditions having the force of law."
>
> On a philosophical basis, I would like to believe that we would adhere
> to the principle expressed in the opening paragraph of the Declaration
> of Independence, that major political (or military) actions demand an
> honest declaration of causes justifying the action.
>
> With respect to Iraq, I still don't know what those justifications are -
> they've been changed so many times.
>
>> Although a bare majority of the Security Council
>> supported the second resolution, France made it clear
>> that it would veto the resolution if passed. Is it your position that
>> anything France forbids becomes illegal under US or UK law?
>
> Certainly not. The US voluntarily agreed, by treaty, not to attack a
> country, except under limited circumstances. One of those circumstances
> is sanction by the UN. But the US has not voluntarily committed itself
> to refrain from all other acts that are not explicitly sanctioned by the
> UN.
>
> To get back to the U.S. state comparison, your question suggests that
> because the U.S. states gave up their right to declare war, they gave up
> all their other powers to the federal government, e.g. the power to
> regulate driver licenses. (Maybe that was not the best example :-)
>
>> I don't know a lot about the British constitution but I would be
>> surprised if Parliament couldn't declare war on anyone it wanted to.
>
> My guess is that Parliament is similarly bound by British treaties.
>
>> I certainly know that
>> our Constitution clearly grants this power to Congress and they duly
>> (and foolishly) passed resolutions authorizing the attack. I put no
>> stock in their later claims that they didn't know that Bush would act,
>> immediately, on this authority. I knew it, why didn't they?
>
> IMHO, none of the resolutions were even necessary. Congress' resolution
> enabling the war in Afghanistan was so broad that no other action was
> required.
>
>
> Heck, even Rush Limbaugh agreed with that assessment.
>
>
> I'm not saying that Iraq harbored 9/11 terrorists, but that the Bush
> administration has implied this (and if Bush says this is so, then the
> Afghanistan resolution, HJR64, allowed him to attack Iraq).
>
> For example: "Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with
> al-Qaeda ... and that Osama bin Laden has an operative in Iraq...")
>
>
>> David would do well in American politics, the way he demonizes those
>> with whom he disagrees. He suggests that the new British government
>> will be, somehow, illegitimate but consistently refers to the thugs
>> who used to run Iraq as a "sovereign government."
>
> Herb, you have also been coming across with a bit of "my country right
> or wrong" tenor on Iraq. (Though not in this last post, thanks.) Maybe
> everyone can take it down a notch?
>
> --
> Mark Freeland
>

Re: David W

Mark Freeland wrote:
> I realized that I had a much shorter, more direct response:
>
> Herb wrote:
>
>>>It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf
>>>War) and 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take
>>>actions into their own hands):
>>>[...]
>>>More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member
>>>states retained ownership of the Iraq situation [in the latter
>>>case]. No delegation of authority to the US (or UK, or member
>>>states), no express authorization, as in resolution 678.
>>
>>[...]
>> Is it your position that the UN
>>Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
>>
>>David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical
>>resonance but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.
>
>
> 1. It is my position that the nations of the world have vested in the
> UN the authority to take military action. Hence by Resolution 678, the
> Gulf War was legal. That is not a statement one way or the other on
> whether such authority is exclusive. It does not, by itself, call into
> question whether Security Council permanent members can unilaterally
> veto any action of a UN member state.
>
> 2. Though I did not exclude the possibility of other legitimate (legal)
> justifications for the war, the Bush administration repeatedly asserted
> that the war was legal because of resolution 1441. Relying on UN
> authorization was not my idea - it was the US's.
>
> Dick Armitage put both points most succinctly:
>
> "If you have a UN Security Council resolution, by its very nature it
> will be legitimate internationally. What we have said -- in direct
> answer to your question -- is we do not need another resolution."
>
>
>
As I understand it Armitage was deputy secretary of state in the Bush
government, not elected by the American people and responsible to them
but appointed by Bush and hence owing his job, salary, reputation and
future career to Bush directly. He was there to do as he was told by his
employer. He may have been an honourable man but could not have been
more biased by his position. Like the UK security services (MI6) and
Attorney General he was no doubt told to make the best case possible to
justify a course of action decided long before. OK, guys, we've got the
conclusion, now find the evidence to back it! I can't imagine that "No"
was an acceptable answer.

What I have never understood is in what way Saddam was supposed to have
contravened the UN resolution that did exist.

He was required to disarm and not possess WMDs of chemical, biological
or nuclear type. He said he had disarmed and this proved to be true.

He admitted something like 100 UN weapons inspectors to Iraq for many
months and they roamed freely visiting all the sites the US intelligence
services said were likely places to find the WMDs. They found nothing.

The few rockets that Saddam had were limited to a range of about 100
miles, hardly enough to get outside Iraq and certainly not enough to
reach the USA thousands of miles away and these were destroyed by the
weapons inspectors anyway.

There was no link between 9/11, Al Qa'eda and Iraq as Bush has since
admitted. All the talk of terrorists was so much generalised waffle.
Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and none were Iraqis AFAIK.

The evidence against Saddam was so feeble to non-existent that the UK in
particular wanted a second UN resolution to authorise an attack on Iraq
and Bush was prepared to go along with this, while being determined to
attack whether he got it or not.

When it became clear that most of the UN countries, including France,
Russia and China on the security council would not support another
resolution to attack and would veto it if necessary the UK then had to
try to make out it was not needed after all. This meant putting extra
political pressure on the security services and Attorney General to
concoct whatever story they could. They even cribbed a PhD thesis off
the Internet from about 1991 written after the first gulf war to produce
what became known as the "Dodgy Dossier" which had no relevance to the
state of things before the second attack.

No evidence to support the attack was ever found and Blair was reduced
to lying to Parliament in his famous claim that Saddam not only had WMDs
but could deploy them within 45 minutes. He has yet to apologise for
lying and for the deaths of British servicemen (87 to date) and for the
deaths of many thousands of Iraqis, injury to far more and the
destruction of their country.

Re: David W

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Who lied? Bush didn't. Blair didn't.

....and you have unicorns in your back yard.

Re: David W

OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of this
purported lie?



"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> Who lied? Bush didn't. Blair didn't.
>
> ...and you have unicorns in your back yard.
>

Re: David W

David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> Mark Freeland wrote:
> > 1. It is my position that the nations of the world have vested in
> > the UN the authority to take military action. [...]
> >
> > 2. Though I did not exclude the possibility of other legitimate
> > (legal) justifications for the war, the Bush administration
> > repeatedly asserted that the war was legal because of resolution
> > 1441. Relying on UN authorization was not my idea - it was the US's.
> >
> > Dick Armitage put both points most succinctly:
> >
> > "If you have a UN Security Council resolution, by its very nature it
> > will be legitimate internationally. What we have said -- in direct
> > answer to your question -- is we do not need another resolution."
> >
> >
> >
> As I understand it Armitage was deputy secretary of state in the Bush
> government, not elected by the American people and responsible to them
> but appointed by Bush and hence owing his job, salary, reputation and
> future career to Bush directly. He was there to do as he was told by
> his employer. He may have been an honourable man but could not have
> been more biased by his position. [...]

Wow. Here I was presenting (by comparing resolutions 678 and 1441) a
refutation of the US's claim of legitimacy (resolution 1441) for the
Iraq war, and you seem to be taking it as an endorsement.

As I suggested before, I think everyone could benefit from taking a deep
breath.

--
Mark Freeland

Re: David W

NoEd wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> The amount of excess time you have on your hands is incredible. What
> law school did you attend?

Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. You may have noticed that I've
vanished for weeks at a time - family matters, overloads at work, etc.

If I had more time, I would like to go back to school; lacking the time,
I try to keep my mind active by reading subjects that are totally
unrelated to anything I otherwise do. Interaction (in a class, at work,
or informally, as here) helps to refine ideas and challenge one's biases
in a way that reading alone does not.

I am not a lawyer. I did have a great American history class in high
school (I still have the notes) where we spent months on constitutional
issues, down to studying individual Supreme Court cases.
--
Mark Freeland

Re: David W

"NoEd" <> wrote

> OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
> this purported lie?

At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time with a
no bid contract.
I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5hmv5$gl9$
[snip]
> Herb
>
> I think the war was illegal for the UK, which claims to be subject to
> International law and to only do what is sanctioned by the UN. At one
> stage the UK government claimed they needed and would get a second
> resolution from the UN sanctioning the war. However, when it became
> clear that several members of the security council, not just France,
> would not support this they back-tracked and put pressure on the UK
> Attorney General to say they did not need it. This was all part of a
> pattern that the decision to go to war was taken in Washington some six
> months to a year earlier by the US government and Blair, for whatever
> reasons he had, was determined to go along with that. Unfortunately for
> him the case for war never emerged in a form acceptable to the UN or the
> British public and he had a long struggle to make some sort of case for
> it or let Bush down. The evidence had to be spun, manipulated,
> exaggerated and concealed selectively via a dodgy brochure and various
> statements Blair made that turned out to be lies.
>
> The UK does not have a written constitution but does have a substantial
> body of laws about who is supposed to do what. I think that legally the
> PM can take the country to war on his own initiative, but he has to
> answer to parliament and the people afterwards. If he breaks
> international law in doing so then technically he becomes a war
> criminal. Most of the parents and families of British servicemen killed
> in Iraq blame Blair for it and one of the fathers stood against Blair in
> his parliamentary constituency in the election. A group of the families
> are taking civil action against Blair over the death of their sons. Eden
> took the country to war over Suez on his own initiative without
> consulting parliament. He was rapidly judged to have been wrong by his
> own party and others and resigned soon after, had a health breakdown and
> was a beaten man ever after.

You are not being clear here, David. What body has the power to bind the
British Parliament to what you term "international law?" How did this
theoretical authority gain supremecy over your parliament? Are you a
sovereign state or just a provice of some international community?

Blair did answer to Parliament and, last thurday, Parliament answered to the
people. If they oppose the war, which I belive they do, they did not do so
strongly engough to bring down the government.

>
> I think the position of the USA is different. The US does not seem to
> sign up to be bound by international law in the way the UK does.
> According to US law I have no doubt the attack on Iraq was legal for
> them. At the same time the US is a member of the UN and makes a show of
> abiding by its resolutions. However this seems to be done selectively,
> accepting them when convenient but ignoring them when the US wants to do
> something the UN has not agreed. The US wants to have its cake and eat
> it too. The US with 4% of the world's population thinks it is bigger
> than the UN that represents the other 96% as well, or most of them. It's
> the old might is right system. That seems to work at the moment but is
> not making the US any friends and is very likely the reason they are the
> number one target for terrorists round the world.

You are bringing in non sequitors. The American government simply does not
have the power to bind the American people to any law beyond our written
constitution. End of story.

>
> As for the security council I thought that France, China and Russia all
> intended to veto any further resolution calling for war, supported by
> Germany. The US chose to demonise France over this particularly, but the
> French were right and the US wrong on the official reasons for the
> attack. There were no WMDs and there was no threat to the USA or other
> countries and Iraq had disarmed. But of course the US and UK knew this
> but had a different hidden agenda for the war so they had to concoct the
> best public case for it they could, however feeble and untrue.

My recollection was that China and Russia opposed the war but planned to
abstain on the vote because their objections were not strong enough to
jeopardize their growing commercial relationships with the US. Not
everyone, including it seems, the British electorate, sees things in the
pure black and white way that you do.

France was singled out because they had agreed to back the second resolution
if the US and UK agreed to go back to the UN. Then, for purely domestic
political reasons, they changed their minds and reneged on their prior
agreement.

You still haven't explained what this "international law" is that supercedes
the British Constitution and when did the UK surrender its sovereignty. I
would love to think that war is "illegal" and all who wage it "war
criminals" but I simply don't believe that to be the case. Are all of those
Arab states that claim to be at war with Israel, in contravention of
Security Council resolutions, headed by war criminals? Where is you ire,
there?

-herb

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>this purported lie?
>
>
> At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time with a
> no bid contract.
> I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>
>
I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
meeting all the important people.

He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would
be a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow
the evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the
liberated Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the
single lucky bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a
stroke?)

Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the
world, leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.

Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".

Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete
noir, je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)

Re: David W

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:
> Herb wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
> > news:49Pee.3544$
> >
> > > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> > > message news:d5gcjo$41h$
> > > > The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that
> > > > which members of the security council refused to pass.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf
> > > War) and 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take
> > > actions into their own hands):
> > > [...]
> > > More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member
> > > states, retained ownership of the Iraq situation. No delegation of
> > > authority to the US (or UK, or member states), no express
> > > authorization, as in resolution 678.
> >
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > You are always interesting and instructive. Is it your position that
> > the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
>
> Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to two on
> July 28, 1945." (See
> also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
> )

Does the US Senate have the power to delegate Congress' war powers to the
UN? I think not. If a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, is it valid
under US law?

>
> According to U.S. constitutional law, treaties have the same force of
> law as statutes enacted by Congress. (Among other things, this means
> that the U.S. has the power to revoke a treaty, just as other laws can
> be revoked.)
>
> > Not that I would want to defend the current debacle, but it seems to me
> > that states retain the right to declare war, UN objections
> > notwithstanding.
>
> Interesting turn of the phrase. Consider U.S. states. Do they retain
> the right to wage war independently of the US government, or by "treaty"
> (signing the Constitution) have they ceded that right (which they had
> retained, under the Articles of Confederation (Article VI) for
> self-defense)?
>

My understanding is that, in theory, the states ceeded nothing to the
federal authority. It is the people, themselves (admittedly acting through
state legislators) who granted limited, enumerated powers to Congress.

>
> I would argue the latter. The difference between U.S. states and nation
> states (including the U.S.) is that for the U.S. states, the ceding of
> war powers was irrevocable, while the U.S. can (at least according to
> its laws) revoke its signing on to the UN Charter.
>
> Similar to the Articles of Confederation, the UN Charter does make
> allowances for nation states to wage war on their own.

I believe that is their claim. The paranoids who run the current
administration felt threatened by Iraq and invoked the right of self-defense
written into the UN charter.

>
> > David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical resonance
> > but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.
>
> I admit to not being up on international law, so I'm not able to state
> on those grounds whether this war was illegal. However, as I indicated
> above, it would appear to violate U.S. law (which by treaty has
> incorporated the UN Charter's prohibition against most acts of war).

See above. I don't think Congress can delegate it's war making power no
matter what treaties the Senate ratifies. You can argue that we violated
the UN charter but I don't think you can argue that we violated US law.

>
> In doing a little quick searching, I came across this article on
> international law and war, that you might find interesting:
>
>
> Try starting with the section that reads:
> "Like all other branches of law, international law presupposes the
> agreement among the contractual parties - in this case, states - that
> certain propositions be treated as law. That agreement can be expressed
> in treaties or other written documents, or inferred from the pattern of
> state behavior or from customs and traditions having the force of law."

Perhaps I am splitting hairs but agreeing to act as if "International Law"
was law is very different from agreeing that it IS law.

>
> On a philosophical basis, I would like to believe that we would adhere
> to the principle expressed in the opening paragraph of the Declaration
> of Independence, that major political (or military) actions demand an
> honest declaration of causes justifying the action.

Me too.

>
> With respect to Iraq, I still don't know what those justifications are -
> they've been changed so many times.
>
> > Although a bare majority of the Security Council
> > supported the second resolution, France made it clear
> > that it would veto the resolution if passed. Is it your position that
> > anything France forbids becomes illegal under US or UK law?
>
> Certainly not. The US voluntarily agreed, by treaty, not to attack a
> country, except under limited circumstances. One of those circumstances
> is sanction by the UN. But the US has not voluntarily committed itself
> to refrain from all other acts that are not explicitly sanctioned by the
> UN.
>
> To get back to the U.S. state comparison, your question suggests that
> because the U.S. states gave up their right to declare war, they gave up
> all their other powers to the federal government, e.g. the power to
> regulate driver licenses. (Maybe that was not the best example :-)

Again, the states gave up nothing. "We the people" granted limited,
enumerated powers to Congress. The Civil War was fought, in part, to settle
the question of whether or not a state had the power to nullify this
arrangement.

>
> > I don't know a lot about the British constitution but I would be
> > surprised if Parliament couldn't declare war on anyone it wanted to.
>
> My guess is that Parliament is similarly bound by British treaties.

My guess is that Parliament is only bound by what its majority wants.

>
> > I certainly know that
> > our Constitution clearly grants this power to Congress and they duly
> > (and foolishly) passed resolutions authorizing the attack. I put no
> > stock in their later claims that they didn't know that Bush would act,
> > immediately, on this authority. I knew it, why didn't they?
>
> IMHO, none of the resolutions were even necessary. Congress' resolution
> enabling the war in Afghanistan was so broad that no other action was
> required.
>
>
> Heck, even Rush Limbaugh agreed with that assessment.
>
>
> I'm not saying that Iraq harbored 9/11 terrorists, but that the Bush
> administration has implied this (and if Bush says this is so, then the
> Afghanistan resolution, HJR64, allowed him to attack Iraq).
>
> For example: "Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with
> al-Qaeda ... and that Osama bin Laden has an operative in Iraq...")
>
>
> > David would do well in American politics, the way he demonizes those
> > with whom he disagrees. He suggests that the new British government
> > will be, somehow, illegitimate but consistently refers to the thugs
> > who used to run Iraq as a "sovereign government."
>
> Herb, you have also been coming across with a bit of "my country right
> or wrong" tenor on Iraq. (Though not in this last post, thanks.) Maybe
> everyone can take it down a notch?

Mark, you misunderstand me. My country is most definitely wrong in this
case (IMVHO). I just don't think we can demonize our leaders as
"international war criminals." What they did was immoral, impractical and
inane. I just don't think that, strictly speaking, it was illegal since
Congress specifically approved it. I assign the blame to every member of
Congress, Democrat and Republican who voted in favor.

Perhaps you are detecting my disdain for the UN. That is very real. I am
not aware of the UN having any positive impact on the behavior of member
states, ever.

-herb

>
> --
> Mark Freeland
>

Re: David W

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:
> I realized that I had a much shorter, more direct response:
>
> Herb wrote:
> >
> > > It is instructive to compare and contrast UN Resolutions 678 (Gulf
> > > War) and 1441 (which allegedly "authorized" member states to take
> > > actions into their own hands):
> > > [...]
> > > More generally, as used here, it means that the UN, not the member
> > > states retained ownership of the Iraq situation [in the latter
> > > case]. No delegation of authority to the US (or UK, or member
> > > states), no express authorization, as in resolution 678.
> >
> > [...]
> > Is it your position that the UN
> > Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
> >
> > David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical
> > resonance but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.
>
> 1. It is my position that the nations of the world have vested in the
> UN the authority to take military action. Hence by Resolution 678, the
> Gulf War was legal. That is not a statement one way or the other on
> whether such authority is exclusive. It does not, by itself, call into
> question whether Security Council permanent members can unilaterally
> veto any action of a UN member state.
>
> 2. Though I did not exclude the possibility of other legitimate (legal)
> justifications for the war, the Bush administration repeatedly asserted
> that the war was legal because of resolution 1441. Relying on UN
> authorization was not my idea - it was the US's.
>
> Dick Armitage put both points most succinctly:
>
> "If you have a UN Security Council resolution, by its very nature it
> will be legitimate internationally. What we have said -- in direct
> answer to your question -- is we do not need another resolution."
>

Mark:

Clearly, if the Security Council had approved it, it would have been legal.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that because it did not approve it
(overtly in a second resolution) that it is illegal.

I can understand the internationists' fond hope that the UN would somehow
morph into a world government capable of limiting the sovereignty of even a
superpower. As a matter of fact, however, no state has surrendered its
sovereignty to the UN and, under our theory of government, no Congress nor
Senate has that power. It is retained by the people themselves.

-herb

>
>
> --
> Mark Freeland
>

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
>

> > Dick Armitage put both points most succinctly:
> >
> > "If you have a UN Security Council resolution, by its very nature it
> > will be legitimate internationally. What we have said -- in direct
> > answer to your question -- is we do not need another resolution."
> >
>
> Mark:
>
> Clearly, if the Security Council had approved it, it would have been
> legal. It does not necessarily follow, however, that because it did
> not approve it (overtly in a second resolution) that it is illegal.

That logic is correct as far as it goes. However, one does need some
authority for asserting that an invasion of another country is legal.
The authority pointed to by the Bush administration was the UN. (Maybe
Dad had a small influence on choice of authority.)

Follow the link for the full context - Armitage pins the authorization
on UN resolutions. "Further there are resolutions ... [s]o all the
authority necessary to satisfy international law already exists."

--
Mark Freeland

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> > Herb wrote:
snip
> > > Is it your position that
> > > the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
> >
> > Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to two on
> > July 28, 1945." (See
> > also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
> > )
>
> Does the US Senate have the power to delegate Congress' war powers to the
> UN?

Herb, I hope you realize that's not what you asked above.

The UN charter does have _some_ force in U.S. law.

> I think not.

It's not black and white. If the UN took on "wartime" (call it peacekeeping
if you'd rather) responsibilities of one sort or another and asked the U.S.
to support this effort, as ratifiers of the UN Charter (and as "ratifiers"
of other aspects of international law) the U.S. would have to strongly
consider complying with this request, or be seen as legal welshers.

> If a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, is it valid
> under US law?

No, but there are plenty of gray areas for specific situations.

snip
> > Similar to the Articles of Confederation, the UN Charter does make
> > allowances for nation states to wage war on their own.
>
> I believe that is their claim. The paranoids who run the current
> administration felt threatened by Iraq and invoked the right of
self-defense
> written into the UN charter.
>
> >
> > > David keeps calling this war "illegal" which has a rhetorical
resonance
> > > but I seriously doubt that it is literally true.
> >
> > I admit to not being up on international law, so I'm not able to state
> > on those grounds whether this war was illegal. However, as I indicated
> > above, it would appear to violate U.S. law (which by treaty has
> > incorporated the UN Charter's prohibition against most acts of war).
>
> See above. I don't think Congress can delegate it's war making power no
> matter what treaties the Senate ratifies. You can argue that we violated
> the UN charter but I don't think you can argue that we violated US law.

Correct. The self-defense etc. claim is the loophole. It's why no one is
successfully bringing a lawsuit against the U.S. government for declaring
war on Iraq. And of course there are plenty of peaceniks with ACLU-like
not-for-profit legal power who'd like to try, if such a suit had a chance of
success.

What Pres. Bush and not a few Democratic members of Congress, among others,
did is completely legal under U.S. law.

One might try to challenge the U.S. actions in Iraq under "international
law," but that area is so untested--the minutiae so unknown--that the
chances of success are slim. I hope no one here is taking the body of
"international law precedent" as seriously as they take the body of U.S.
legal precedent, because the former simply does not exist in any kind of
substantive way.

Never mind that the U.S. gives out so much money to so many countries that
few would want to take it on at the Hague or wherever.

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d5hmv5$gl9$
> [snip]
>
[Snip]

> You are not being clear here, David. What body has the power to bind the
> British Parliament to what you term "international law?" How did this
> theoretical authority gain supremecy over your parliament? Are you a
> sovereign state or just a provice of some international community?
>
Parliament has that power and has used it. We are a province of the
European Union. We are also members of the UN and NATO. They all tell us
what to do.

> Blair did answer to Parliament and, last thurday, Parliament answered to the
> people. If they oppose the war, which I belive they do, they did not do so
> strongly engough to bring down the government.
>
True, and baffling.
>
>>I think the position of the USA is different. The US does not seem to
>>sign up to be bound by international law in the way the UK does.
>>According to US law I have no doubt the attack on Iraq was legal for
>>them. At the same time the US is a member of the UN and makes a show of
>>abiding by its resolutions. However this seems to be done selectively,
>>accepting them when convenient but ignoring them when the US wants to do
>>something the UN has not agreed. The US wants to have its cake and eat
>>it too. The US with 4% of the world's population thinks it is bigger
>>than the UN that represents the other 96% as well, or most of them. It's
>>the old might is right system. That seems to work at the moment but is
>>not making the US any friends and is very likely the reason they are the
>>number one target for terrorists round the world.
>
>
> You are bringing in non sequitors. The American government simply does not
> have the power to bind the American people to any law beyond our written
> constitution. End of story.
>
I doubt that. Why do you run two very expensive sets of politicians in
the Senate and Congress plus a President and his vast army of appointed
officials, if all you had to do was to look up the relevant clause in
the constitution? Don't they ever pass laws? Did the constitution cover
the US membership of the UN and NATO?

>
>>As for the security council I thought that France, China and Russia all
>>intended to veto any further resolution calling for war, supported by
>>Germany. The US chose to demonise France over this particularly, but the
>>French were right and the US wrong on the official reasons for the
>>attack. There were no WMDs and there was no threat to the USA or other
>>countries and Iraq had disarmed. But of course the US and UK knew this
>>but had a different hidden agenda for the war so they had to concoct the
>>best public case for it they could, however feeble and untrue.
>
>
> My recollection was that China and Russia opposed the war but planned to
> abstain on the vote because their objections were not strong enough to
> jeopardize their growing commercial relationships with the US. Not
> everyone, including it seems, the British electorate, sees things in the
> pure black and white way that you do.
>
> France was singled out because they had agreed to back the second resolution
> if the US and UK agreed to go back to the UN. Then, for purely domestic
> political reasons, they changed their minds and reneged on their prior
> agreement.
>
> You still haven't explained what this "international law" is that supercedes
> the British Constitution and when did the UK surrender its sovereignty. I
> would love to think that war is "illegal" and all who wage it "war
> criminals" but I simply don't believe that to be the case. Are all of those
> Arab states that claim to be at war with Israel, in contravention of
> Security Council resolutions, headed by war criminals? Where is you ire,
> there?
>
You are not reading all the words, Herb. There is no British
constitution. We make it all up as we go along. We surrender our
sovereignty all the time. Hordes of petty and corrupt officials in
Brussels and Strasbourg make laws all the time and issue an unending
stream of directives to EU countries. Our civil servants then amplify
and complicate them and they become British law.

Hence it is illegal for shops to sell goods by weight in Pounds or by
length in Inches and feet. Only SI Units in m, kg, s are allowed. Also
all bananas must be straight and tomatoes square! The French just ignore
any laws that do not suit them and the Italians have never been sure
which side of the law they operate on, probably both. The Swiss knew
they would obey every law to the letter so they held a referendum and
rejected EU membership by 70% against and they are not in it.

EU fans are now trying to foist a written European constitution on
member countries which, typically, Blair would like us to agree to.
Uncharacteristically for him he has volunteered to have a UK referendum
on this and all the polls show he will get a resounding "NO" vote. He is
probably hoping some other country will give it the bird first, probably
including France who have a referendum on it on 26th May, I think, so he
does not have to have his referendum which he has put off until 2006.

As far as I know Israel just ignores UN resolutions and the US support
them anyway, whether they do or not. The Arabs probably ignore them as
well. It's a "Might is right" system out there.

David

Re: David W

You don't even like him a little.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5j4b9$ei6$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>this purported lie?
>>
>>
>> At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>> with a no bid contract.
>> I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
> I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
> USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
> most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
> meeting all the important people.
>
> He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would be
> a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow the
> evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
> Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
> bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)
>
> Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
> President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the world,
> leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>
> Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
> eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
> be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>
> Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete noir,
> je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote

> The paranoids who run the current
> administration felt threatened by Iraq and invoked the right of
> self-defense
> written into the UN charter.

You continue to be the dumbest ass who ever visited this newsgroup. You can
stop trying to prove it at any time.

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote

> The UN charter does have _some_ force in U.S. law.

Not if the US doesn't want it to.

Ok, now we have the second bonehead, waiting for 'Sammy the Nose' now.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5j4b9$ei6$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>this purported lie?
>>
>>
>> At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>> with a no bid contract.
>> I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
> I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
> USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
> most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
> meeting all the important people.

He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.


>
> He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would be
> a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow the
> evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
> Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
> bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)

He did so he would be thought of as a hero?

>
> Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
> President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the world,
> leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.

But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.


>
> Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
> eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
> be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>
> Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete noir,
> je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)

You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US and
anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything
personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote


> Clearly, if the Security Council had approved it, it would have been
> legal.
> It does not necessarily follow, however, that because it did not approve
> it
> (overtly in a second resolution) that it is illegal.

Re: David W

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything personally, so you're going to
> have to prove they are mad.

....and you have unicorns roaming your back yard.

Re: David W

In article <>,
Mark Freeland <> wrote:

> Wow. Here I was presenting (by comparing resolutions 678 and 1441) a
> refutation of the US's claim of legitimacy (resolution 1441) for the
> Iraq war, and you seem to be taking it as an endorsement.
>
> As I suggested before, I think everyone could benefit from taking a deep
> breath.

I am somewhat confused by this thread. To me, this is all ancient
history. Well, not enough time has yet gone by to make it qualify
for the history books yet, I guess; but enough time has certainly
gone by to make arguing about it all moot.

I am somewhat confused by all the discussion whether or not the
U.S. did anything illegal under international law or U.N.
auspices. I don't claim to know anything about these matters, but
I believe the old adage "might makes right" applies to this
situation. The U.N. was shown, for the one percent who have the
knowledge and interest in such matters, to be a powerless agent
when it comes to controlling the intentions of the only
superpower.

Further, the locus of will--if you will--never resided with the
politicians; or, more precisely, with the diplomats. It resided
with the rhetoricians (since perhaps a politician can be viewed
as a diplomat combined with a rhetorician) and, more importantly,
with the masses. I can assure you all my military buddies on the
paintball field were not arguing legal versus illegal U.N.
resolutions 'way back when W. was making the case for war against
Saddam. All they wanted to do was kick some "sand n***er'" butt.
They were bored and and full of testosterone; many were out of
work and wanted something to do. Many had an image of themselves
as bad-ass heroes. There was a groundswell of support to go to
war, perhaps stoked in part by the administration but which in
any case certainly resonated through much of the populace. Like
the Crusades, this was not an historical event prompted by logic
or law. At any rate, the fact that W. and Blair have been
re-elected have shown that the "majority" has affirmed the
decisions those two made.

This was not a matter of diplomacy, in the august sense of the
word.

I guess what I'm saying is that this was and is a phenomenon
better understood through sociology than international law.
Arguing whether it was legal or not is like arguing whether or
not a cop can pull you over because you're "driving while black."
It's NOT, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time.

Actually even sociology is too sophisticated a tool by which to
understand what happened with regard to this war. You can better
understand what happened by examining the grade school
playground, where groups of kids naturally cluster around
stronger bullies and regularly pummel those weaker or more
isolated. The little guy with the glasses shouting "But it's not
fair! But it's not FAIR! Can't we just TALK about this?!" as he's
getting the snot kicked out of him really isn't with the program.

At any rate, the point has long past, I think, where it is useful
to discuss the rationale for going to war. Like many historical
events, the event itself changed the path of history so that it
has become an accepted "touchstone" of sorts around which people
define their lives. It is what it is. One may as well argue what
would have happened if Lincoln hadn't got shot or the Titanic
hadn't sunk. Nice for armchair discussion, but practically
speaking the river of time has already changed course to flow
around these boulder-events (so to speak).

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Well alright,

all three shitheads are here now. Sammy the Nose, Elle/Caroline/Caliban PhD,
and the ever stupid Herbie. The power of the off topic post.

My original post to David sure started something. I had a pretty good idea
that it would cause the return of the 3 shitheads and it did. Almost didn't
post it that reason.

Re: David W

"sam grey" <> wrote
> In article <>,
> Mark Freeland <> wrote:
>
> > Wow. Here I was presenting (by comparing resolutions 678 and 1441) a
> > refutation of the US's claim of legitimacy (resolution 1441) for the
> > Iraq war, and you seem to be taking it as an endorsement.
> >
> > As I suggested before, I think everyone could benefit from taking a deep
> > breath.
>
> I am somewhat confused by this thread. To me, this is all ancient
> history. Well, not enough time has yet gone by to make it qualify
> for the history books yet, I guess; but enough time has certainly
> gone by to make arguing about it all moot.

You don't buy "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it"?

> I am somewhat confused by all the discussion whether or not the
> U.S. did anything illegal under international law or U.N.
> auspices. I don't claim to know anything about these matters, but
> I believe the old adage "might makes right" applies to this
> situation.

This. along with the murkiness of international law, is indeed why the U.S.
action is not likely to ever be found illegal by any agency that counts.

> The U.N. was shown, for the one percent who have the
> knowledge and interest in such matters, to be a powerless agent
> when it comes to controlling the intentions of the only
> superpower.

I don't consider it powerless. World opinion of the U.S. is worse than it's
ever been, no? And the UN's response is no small reason for this.

> Further, the locus of will--if you will--never resided with the
> politicians; or, more precisely, with the diplomats. It resided
> with the rhetoricians (since perhaps a politician can be viewed
> as a diplomat combined with a rhetorician) and, more importantly,
> with the masses.

I disagree. While the masses possessed the possibility of stopping this,
they don't have the financial power to do so.

The politicians are at fault.

> I can assure you all my military buddies on the
> paintball field were not arguing legal versus illegal U.N.
> resolutions 'way back when W. was making the case for war against
> Saddam. All they wanted to do was kick some "sand n***er'" butt.
> They were bored and and full of testosterone; many were out of
> work and wanted something to do. Many had an image of themselves
> as bad-ass heroes. There was a groundswell of support to go to
> war, perhaps stoked in part by the administration but which in
> any case certainly resonated through much of the populace. Like
> the Crusades, this was not an historical event prompted by logic
> or law. At any rate, the fact that W. and Blair have been
> re-elected have shown that the "majority" has affirmed the
> decisions those two made.
>
> This was not a matter of diplomacy, in the august sense of the
> word.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that this was and is a phenomenon
> better understood through sociology than international law.
> Arguing whether it was legal or not is like arguing whether or
> not a cop can pull you over because you're "driving while black."
> It's NOT, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time.

I think your analogy is pretty poor.

Cops are being stopped, and by the law, from racial profiling. Things have
improved on this count, from my understanding.

Likewise, the next time one of our fearless leaders says a country has WMD,
because of this, this, and that, we'll maybe think twice.

It's worth arguing about. The arguing helps prevent recurrence.

> Actually even sociology is too sophisticated a tool by which to
> understand what happened with regard to this war. You can better
> understand what happened by examining the grade school
> playground, where groups of kids naturally cluster around
> stronger bullies and regularly pummel those weaker or more
> isolated.

.... and what bothers me about this argument is that it doesn't treat the
reality of a WWII-like genocide: Another Holocaust.

That's a damn good reason to go to war.

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:od9fe.9884$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> > > Herb wrote:
> snip
> > > > Is it your position that
> > > > the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
> > >
> > > Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to two on
> > > July 28, 1945." (See
> > > also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
> > > )
> >
> > Does the US Senate have the power to delegate Congress' war powers to
the
> > UN?
>
> Herb, I hope you realize that's not what you asked above.

How so? I have no doubt that we OUGHT to comply with our treaty
obligations. I just take issue with the contention that we have delegated
our authority to make war. The people have not granted to the government
the power to do that.

I agree with David on most matters of fact regarding the current disaster in
Iraq. I just don't agree that everyone who disagrees with us is a "war
criminial" (or a Nazi, Fascist or any other inflamatory term).

It would be nice to live in a world where war was strictly illegal but this
is not such a world. That is all I am trying to say.

-herb

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> > > > Herb wrote:
> > snip
> > > > > Is it your position that
> > > > > the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to two
on
> > > > July 28, 1945."
(See
> > > > also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
> > > > )
> > >
> > > Does the US Senate have the power to delegate Congress' war powers to
> the
> > > UN?
> >
> > Herb, I hope you realize that's not what you asked above.
>
> How so?

You asked whether "the UN Charter had any force whatsoever in U.S... "

It's a treaty, and under U.S. law, the U.S. is bound to comply with
treaties, assuming, as you pointed out, the treaty (or the applicable part
of it) does not violate the Constitution.

Call it a nitpick.

> I have no doubt that we OUGHT to comply with our treaty
> obligations. I just take issue with the contention that we have delegated
> our authority to make war.

I absolutely agree that the U.S. Constitution determines what the U.S.
government can and cannot do as far as declaring war goes. I agree the U.S.
Constitution, in the eyes of the U.S. courts, prevails when a conflict
between an international treaty and the Constitution occurs.

> The people have not granted to the government
> the power to do that.
>
> I agree with David on most matters of fact regarding the current disaster
in
> Iraq.

Hm.

I'm not so sure that he speaks facts per se. That's not to be derisive,
exactly. His is a lot of editorializing, it seems to me, and this serves a
very important purpose. It's important to hear legitimate outrage, and much
of his (as well as many Americans') is legit. Lives are being thrown away
needlessly. It's disgusting, to say the least I can.

I just don't think David marshalls his facts in support of his outrage very
well here. It hurts his editorials.

Back to the main point, which is that this is another Vietnam...

> I just don't agree that everyone who disagrees with us is a "war
> criminial" (or a Nazi, Fascist or any other inflamatory term).

Yes.

> It would be nice to live in a world where war was strictly illegal but
this
> is not such a world. That is all I am trying to say.

Which is what I think Sam is also getting at.

I agree.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5j8b0$3t4$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:d5hmv5$gl9$
> > [snip]
> >
> [Snip]
>
> > You are not being clear here, David. What body has the power to bind
the
> > British Parliament to what you term "international law?" How did this
> > theoretical authority gain supremecy over your parliament? Are you a
> > sovereign state or just a provice of some international community?
> >
> Parliament has that power and has used it. We are a province of the
> European Union. We are also members of the UN and NATO. They all tell us
> what to do.

And you are bound to comply even if Parliament unanimously opposes it? I
think not. I don't think all of your countrymen (most especially not Her
Majesty) would agree that you are a "provice of the EU."

>
> > Blair did answer to Parliament and, last thurday, Parliament answered to
the
> > people. If they oppose the war, which I belive they do, they did not do
so
> > strongly engough to bring down the government.
> >
> True, and baffling.
> >
> >>I think the position of the USA is different. The US does not seem to
> >>sign up to be bound by international law in the way the UK does.
> >>According to US law I have no doubt the attack on Iraq was legal for
> >>them. At the same time the US is a member of the UN and makes a show of
> >>abiding by its resolutions. However this seems to be done selectively,
> >>accepting them when convenient but ignoring them when the US wants to do
> >>something the UN has not agreed. The US wants to have its cake and eat
> >>it too. The US with 4% of the world's population thinks it is bigger
> >>than the UN that represents the other 96% as well, or most of them. It's
> >>the old might is right system. That seems to work at the moment but is
> >>not making the US any friends and is very likely the reason they are the
> >>number one target for terrorists round the world.
> >
> >
> > You are bringing in non sequitors. The American government simply does
not
> > have the power to bind the American people to any law beyond our written
> > constitution. End of story.
> >
> I doubt that. Why do you run two very expensive sets of politicians in
> the Senate and Congress plus a President and his vast army of appointed
> officials, if all you had to do was to look up the relevant clause in
> the constitution? Don't they ever pass laws? Did the constitution cover
> the US membership of the UN and NATO?

I don't understand your point here. Congress was created to wield certain
enumerated powers including the power to ratify treaties. If we agree to a
treaty, we are bound by honor to abide by it but if complying would violate
the US Constitution then honor is trumped. Our goverment simply does not
have the authority to transfer sovereignty to any other body.

I would think your goverment is similarly bound, though I suppose they could
make Her Majesty relinquish sovereignty to the EU. When did they do that?

-herb


>
> >
> >>As for the security council I thought that France, China and Russia all
> >>intended to veto any further resolution calling for war, supported by
> >>Germany. The US chose to demonise France over this particularly, but the
> >>French were right and the US wrong on the official reasons for the
> >>attack. There were no WMDs and there was no threat to the USA or other
> >>countries and Iraq had disarmed. But of course the US and UK knew this
> >>but had a different hidden agenda for the war so they had to concoct the
> >>best public case for it they could, however feeble and untrue.
> >
> >
> > My recollection was that China and Russia opposed the war but planned to
> > abstain on the vote because their objections were not strong enough to
> > jeopardize their growing commercial relationships with the US. Not
> > everyone, including it seems, the British electorate, sees things in the
> > pure black and white way that you do.
> >
> > France was singled out because they had agreed to back the second
resolution
> > if the US and UK agreed to go back to the UN. Then, for purely domestic
> > political reasons, they changed their minds and reneged on their prior
> > agreement.
> >
> > You still haven't explained what this "international law" is that
supercedes
> > the British Constitution and when did the UK surrender its sovereignty.
I
> > would love to think that war is "illegal" and all who wage it "war
> > criminals" but I simply don't believe that to be the case. Are all of
those
> > Arab states that claim to be at war with Israel, in contravention of
> > Security Council resolutions, headed by war criminals? Where is you
ire,
> > there?
> >
> You are not reading all the words, Herb. There is no British
> constitution. We make it all up as we go along. We surrender our
> sovereignty all the time. Hordes of petty and corrupt officials in
> Brussels and Strasbourg make laws all the time and issue an unending
> stream of directives to EU countries. Our civil servants then amplify
> and complicate them and they become British law.
>
> Hence it is illegal for shops to sell goods by weight in Pounds or by
> length in Inches and feet. Only SI Units in m, kg, s are allowed. Also
> all bananas must be straight and tomatoes square! The French just ignore
> any laws that do not suit them and the Italians have never been sure
> which side of the law they operate on, probably both. The Swiss knew
> they would obey every law to the letter so they held a referendum and
> rejected EU membership by 70% against and they are not in it.
>
> EU fans are now trying to foist a written European constitution on
> member countries which, typically, Blair would like us to agree to.
> Uncharacteristically for him he has volunteered to have a UK referendum
> on this and all the polls show he will get a resounding "NO" vote. He is
> probably hoping some other country will give it the bird first, probably
> including France who have a referendum on it on 26th May, I think, so he
> does not have to have his referendum which he has put off until 2006.

Which is it? Why do you have to ratify a constitution if the European
Parliament already wields sovereignty in the United Kindom? I think you are
confusing a willingness on the part of your current government to comply
with the myth of Europe with an actual transfer of sovereignty which, I
think we agree, will never happen: not in the UK nor France nor Italy.


>
> As far as I know Israel just ignores UN resolutions and the US support
> them anyway, whether they do or not. The Arabs probably ignore them as
> well. It's a "Might is right" system out there.

Israel was created by a Security Council resolution which most Arab states
have defied.

l>

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:twafe.10417$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> > > > > Herb wrote:
> > > snip
> > > > > > Is it your position that
> > > > > > the UN Charter has any force whatsoever in US or UK law?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. "The US Senate ratified the UN Charter by a vote of 89 to
two
> on
> > > > > July 28, 1945."
> (See
> > > > > also Truman's proclamation of the UN Charter at
> > > > > )
> > > >
> > > > Does the US Senate have the power to delegate Congress' war powers
to
> > the
> > > > UN?
> > >
> > > Herb, I hope you realize that's not what you asked above.
> >
> > How so?
>
> You asked whether "the UN Charter had any force whatsoever in U.S... "
>
> It's a treaty, and under U.S. law, the U.S. is bound to comply with
> treaties, assuming, as you pointed out, the treaty (or the applicable part
> of it) does not violate the Constitution.
>
> Call it a nitpick.

Let me nitpick a bit more: If the U.S. is 'bound' to comply then what is the
penalty for failure to do so, who pays it and who determines guilt. Do you
really think I could drag the President or Congress into court for failure
to comply with a treaty, in violation of some US law?

>
> > I have no doubt that we OUGHT to comply with our treaty
> > obligations. I just take issue with the contention that we have
delegated
> > our authority to make war.
>
> I absolutely agree that the U.S. Constitution determines what the U.S.
> government can and cannot do as far as declaring war goes. I agree the
U.S.
> Constitution, in the eyes of the U.S. courts, prevails when a conflict
> between an international treaty and the Constitution occurs.
>
> > The people have not granted to the government
> > the power to do that.
> >
> > I agree with David on most matters of fact regarding the current
disaster
> in
> > Iraq.
>
> Hm.
>
> I'm not so sure that he speaks facts per se. That's not to be derisive,
> exactly. His is a lot of editorializing, it seems to me, and this serves a
> very important purpose. It's important to hear legitimate outrage, and
much
> of his (as well as many Americans') is legit. Lives are being thrown away
> needlessly. It's disgusting, to say the least I can.
>
> I just don't think David marshalls his facts in support of his outrage
very
> well here. It hurts his editorials.

I agree. I think David is on the right side of this question but he makes
our side look ridiculous by overblown accusatons of crimes against humanity.
I think it should be sufficient to say that this war is folly.

>
> Back to the main point, which is that this is another Vietnam...

Agreed (if not worse than Vietnam).

>
> > I just don't agree that everyone who disagrees with us is a "war
> > criminial" (or a Nazi, Fascist or any other inflamatory term).
>
> Yes.
>
> > It would be nice to live in a world where war was strictly illegal but
> this
> > is not such a world. That is all I am trying to say.
>
> Which is what I think Sam is also getting at.
>
> I agree.

I think that in rhetoric, we lose sight of reality. The reality is that
there is an extremely dangerous force afoot in the world (a largely ignorant
people, armed to the teeth) and if you frighten it, you run the risk of
grave, unwanted consequences. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead because
some Arab, somewhere else declared "Jihad" on this people. To imagine that
this force is bound by any law not of its own making is to ignore reality.

To use Sam's analogy: there IS a bully in the schoolyard. If you give him a
wedgie, school rules are not going to help you.

-herb

>
>

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote

> Call it a nitpick.

Yes, and call you a nit.

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote
E wrote
> > You asked whether "the UN Charter had any force whatsoever in U.S... "
> >
> > It's a treaty, and under U.S. law, the U.S. is bound to comply with
> > treaties, assuming, as you pointed out, the treaty (or the applicable
part
> > of it) does not violate the Constitution.
> >
> > Call it a nitpick.
>
> Let me nitpick a bit more: If the U.S. is 'bound' to comply then what is
the
> penalty for failure to do so, who pays it and who determines guilt.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that U.S. Courts have
authority within the U.S. over treaty cases: "The judicial power shall
extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the
laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their authority... "

> Do you
> really think I could drag the President or Congress into court for failure
> to comply with a treaty,

It would depend on whether you were the aggrieved party or not. An
aggrieved foreign entity may have legal standing to bring suit in the U.S.,
for one, though.

Perhaps one of the most famous treaty cases to be brought before the U.S.
courts is the Amistad case, where, among other things, two Spanish men
brought suit in U.S. courts against the U.S., claiming that under a treaty
Spain had with the U.S., the Africans aboard the ship were their "property."

The treaty the U.S. has with Cuba was a large factor in deciding cases
brought in U.S. courts by prisoners in Guantanamo Bay against the U.S.,
after Sept. 11, 2001.

Here's another recent example (of which you've undoubtedly heard) of the
interplay between treaties, the U.S. courts, and even the world's only
international court (which of course is not recognized by all countries):



Enough pedantry. I suspect this was all stowed in the back of your mind
somewhere. I'm probably just joggling it. I personally was working from a
vague recollection that U.S. courts do hear treaty cases now and then.

> in violation of some US law?

I am not sure whether this last phrase throws a wrench into the discussion
or not. If you think it does, could you please rephrase?

Again, I agree that the U.S. Constitution prevails over international
treaties in U.S. Courts.

snip
> I agree. I think David is on the right side of this question but he makes
> our side look ridiculous by overblown accusatons of crimes against
humanity.
> I think it should be sufficient to say that this war is folly.

At least the press has been reporting more about the kids who are coming
back in body bags are maimed. I sense a growing loathing, albeit still
small, for what Bush has done from that part of blue collar America that was
previously loyal and conservative.

Human interest reports on soldiers dead and maimed in the New Yorker and New
York Times in the last year and on "60 Minutes" certainly got my attention.

> > Back to the main point, which is that this is another Vietnam...
>
> Agreed (if not worse than Vietnam).

Just curious: Why are you suggesting it may be worse?

By the numbers killed, it's not as bad... But I suppose there are other
valid arguments to say it's worse. E.g. we should have learned something
from Vietnam.

> > > It would be nice to live in a world where war was strictly illegal but
> > this
> > > is not such a world. That is all I am trying to say.
> >
> > Which is what I think Sam is also getting at.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> I think that in rhetoric, we lose sight of reality. The reality is that
> there is an extremely dangerous force afoot in the world (a largely
ignorant
> people, armed to the teeth) and if you frighten it, you run the risk of
> grave, unwanted consequences. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead
because
> some Arab, somewhere else declared "Jihad" on this people. To imagine
that
> this force is bound by any law not of its own making is to ignore reality.

I thought the Iraqis were dead largely because of Saddam Hussein.

I personally don't connect Osama Bin Laden to Hussein all that directly,
despite Bush's best efforts to persuade me otherwise.

> To use Sam's analogy: there IS a bully in the schoolyard. If you give him
a
> wedgie, school rules are not going to help you.

I absolutely don't think one should generalize like this. IIRC, in the last
decade or so many a military officer has been tried for war crimes in
international courts; been found guilty; and put away. (I saw "Hotel
Rwanda," depicting to a great extent the slaughter between Hutus and Tutsis
in Rwanda c. 1994, a couple of weeks ago, and it provided some examples in
the commentary.)

School rules may not be always preventative. But they do deter, and they can
mete out some amount of justice. I think things are better than 30 years
ago.

That is, I am more optimistic than Sam and you; I think there has been
meaningful change.

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:eKbfe.8674$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> E wrote
> > > You asked whether "the UN Charter had any force whatsoever in U.S... "
> > >
> > > It's a treaty, and under U.S. law, the U.S. is bound to comply with
> > > treaties, assuming, as you pointed out, the treaty (or the applicable
> part
> > > of it) does not violate the Constitution.
> > >
> > > Call it a nitpick.
> >
> > Let me nitpick a bit more: If the U.S. is 'bound' to comply then what is
> the
> > penalty for failure to do so, who pays it and who determines guilt.
>
> Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that U.S. Courts have
> authority within the U.S. over treaty cases: "The judicial power shall
> extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
the
> laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made,
under
> their authority... "
>
> > Do you
> > really think I could drag the President or Congress into court for
failure
> > to comply with a treaty,
>
> It would depend on whether you were the aggrieved party or not. An
> aggrieved foreign entity may have legal standing to bring suit in the
U.S.,
> for one, though.
>
> Perhaps one of the most famous treaty cases to be brought before the U.S.
> courts is the Amistad case, where, among other things, two Spanish men
> brought suit in U.S. courts against the U.S., claiming that under a treaty
> Spain had with the U.S., the Africans aboard the ship were their
"property."

So the Spaniards got their slaves back?

>
> The treaty the U.S. has with Cuba was a large factor in deciding cases
> brought in U.S. courts by prisoners in Guantanamo Bay against the U.S.,
> after Sept. 11, 2001.

Do you think Cuba will get Guantanamo back when the treaty expires (if it
hasn't already)?
>
> Here's another recent example (of which you've undoubtedly heard) of the
> interplay between treaties, the U.S. courts, and even the world's only
> international court (which of course is not recognized by all countries):
>
>

I don't know what point you think this case supports. The President, under
his blanket power to conduct foreign policy, has chosen to deem himself
bound by a decision of the world court. If you get to choose when you are
bound then, are you really bound at all?


>
> Enough pedantry. I suspect this was all stowed in the back of your mind
> somewhere. I'm probably just joggling it. I personally was working from a
> vague recollection that U.S. courts do hear treaty cases now and then.

I have no doubt that you and I can be bound by a treaty obligaton, or more
likely, legislation passed to implement a treaty. Governments, however, are
only as bound as they choose to be.

>
> > in violation of some US law?

I'm saying that I can't drag the President into court seeking a writ
ordering him to respect a treaty. I have no doubt that I might sue in
equity to regain any losses caused by his failure to do so.


>
> I am not sure whether this last phrase throws a wrench into the discussion
> or not. If you think it does, could you please rephrase?
>
> Again, I agree that the U.S. Constitution prevails over international
> treaties in U.S. Courts.
>
> snip
> > I agree. I think David is on the right side of this question but he
makes
> > our side look ridiculous by overblown accusatons of crimes against
> humanity.
> > I think it should be sufficient to say that this war is folly.
>
> At least the press has been reporting more about the kids who are coming
> back in body bags are maimed. I sense a growing loathing, albeit still
> small, for what Bush has done from that part of blue collar America that
was
> previously loyal and conservative.
>
> Human interest reports on soldiers dead and maimed in the New Yorker and
New
> York Times in the last year and on "60 Minutes" certainly got my
attention.
>
> > > Back to the main point, which is that this is another Vietnam...
> >
> > Agreed (if not worse than Vietnam).
>
> Just curious: Why are you suggesting it may be worse?

Vietnam was not one of 20 some odd Vietmanese countries. Weapons are far
more destructive today and terrorism is a much larger threat.

>
> By the numbers killed, it's not as bad... But I suppose there are other
> valid arguments to say it's worse. E.g. we should have learned something
> from Vietnam.
>
> > > > It would be nice to live in a world where war was strictly illegal
but
> > > this
> > > > is not such a world. That is all I am trying to say.
> > >
> > > Which is what I think Sam is also getting at.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> >
> > I think that in rhetoric, we lose sight of reality. The reality is that
> > there is an extremely dangerous force afoot in the world (a largely
> ignorant
> > people, armed to the teeth) and if you frighten it, you run the risk of
> > grave, unwanted consequences. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead
> because
> > some Arab, somewhere else declared "Jihad" on this people. To imagine
> that
> > this force is bound by any law not of its own making is to ignore
reality.
>
> I thought the Iraqis were dead largely because of Saddam Hussein.

They are dead because most Americans don't know or don't consider that there
is any difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

>
> I personally don't connect Osama Bin Laden to Hussein all that directly,
> despite Bush's best efforts to persuade me otherwise.

Of course you don't but at the start of the war, most Americans believed
(falsly) that there was a direct connection. Most Bush supporters still
believe that and the last I knew Fox News and Dick Cheney were still
claiming it to be a fact.

>
> > To use Sam's analogy: there IS a bully in the schoolyard. If you give
him
> a
> > wedgie, school rules are not going to help you.
>
> I absolutely don't think one should generalize like this. IIRC, in the
last
> decade or so many a military officer has been tried for war crimes in
> international courts; been found guilty; and put away. (I saw "Hotel
> Rwanda," depicting to a great extent the slaughter between Hutus and
Tutsis
> in Rwanda c. 1994, a couple of weeks ago, and it provided some examples in
> the commentary.)

Then you are aware of the despicable role played by the UN during this
genocide. How many officers from the winning side have been tried at the
Hague?

>
> School rules may not be always preventative. But they do deter, and they
can
> mete out some amount of justice. I think things are better than 30 years
> ago.

In some ways, yes; but in many other ways things are not as stark and clear
as they were during the Cold War. Uncertainty can be very dangerous.

>
> That is, I am more optimistic than Sam and you; I think there has been
> meaningful change.

I hope you are right. There's an awful lot riding on it.

>
>

Ä

Re: David W

Ed wrote:

> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>Who lied? Bush didn't. Blair didn't.
>
>
> ...and you have unicorns in your back yard.

The only whopper of a lie that I remember Bush saying was when he said
"Islam is a religion of peace."



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

NoEd wrote:

> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>>this purported lie?
>>>
>>>
>>>At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>>>with a no bid contract.
>>>I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>>
>>I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
>>USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
>>most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
>>meeting all the important people.
>
>
> He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.
>
>
>
>>He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would be
>>a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow the
>>evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
>>Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
>>bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)
>
>
> He did so he would be thought of as a hero?
>
>
>>Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
>>President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the world,
>>leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>
>
> But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.
>
>
>
>>Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
>>eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
>>be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>>
>>Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete noir,
>>je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)
>
>
> You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US and
> anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything
> personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.

Let me clarify the neo-con thinking that drove our invasion of Iraq.
(As you know, the neo-con analysts were the "brain trust" that resulted
in our invading Iraq.)

The neo-cons have their own website, Project For The New American
Century, on which you will find this
article written months *before* 9-11:

"Liberate Iraq"


It's a long article.
But the gist of it is in these three paragraphs:

"Totalitarians have a sixth sense for democratic weakness. A carnivore,
Saddam Hussein probably knew early on (a good guess would be June 1993,
when President Clinton cruise-missiled the empty intelligence
headquarters) that Washington had no will to fight. By August 1996, when
the United States failed to use its airpower to defend the Iraqi
National Congress's lightly armed forces against Baghdad's mechanized
brigades, there was no doubt.
"America's hayba -- its ability to inspire awe, the critical factor in
the Middle East's ruthless power politics -- had vanished. And once
hayba is lost, only a demonstration of indomitable force restores it. A
U.S. election, followed by President George W. Bush's slightly bigger
bombing run over Iraq on February 16, doesn't cut it after years of
pointless raids accompanied by American braggadocio....
"The 'Arab street' has turned against the United States because Saddam
Hussein once again has the look of a winner. Always popular with
influential writers and intellectuals in the Arab world for his
fire-breathing rhetoric against the age-old Western enemy, Saddam has
restored his hayba by surviving and increasing his strength. By
contrast, he casts Muslim Arab rulers who too closely associate with
America as quislings, not statesmen wisely dealing with an indomitable,
foreign power."


What exactly are they saying here?
That the U.S. has to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam as a way of
restoring U.S. military credibility and restore our "hayba"--the world's
"awe" of America. IOW, we have to make an example of Iraq in order to
show the world we are "indomitable."

And they're right. If anything, they understated the case.

It's been two generations now since the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor
by devastating our enemies including two nuclear attacks. The debacle
in Vietnam resulted in an American nation that wouldn't risk a major
bloody war anymore. (America supported the Gulf War only because
American casualties were few and the war was over in a matter of months.)

And all our military hardware and troops are useless if the world has
lost respect for America's willingness to defend its vital interests no
matter what the cost.

My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this level of
discussion: When will the United States start acting like a superpower
again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore the
respect the world had for our military might after 1945, without violence.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5ft47$572$
> Ed wrote:
>> So, I guess you voted against him.
>>
> Too right I did!
>
> And another thing, while I am in "rant" mode.
>
> Blair's Labour Party got only 36% of the vote, of those who actually
> voted.

That's 2% more than Hitler ever got, and see what he could do with just 34%
of electoral votes!!!

Re: David W

"Carlos" <> wrote in message
news:PxMee.185932$
> It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
> approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
> "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the spread
> of tyranny.

It was and is an illegal war. Resolution 1441(?) required further
authorization by the Security Council to use force. GWB and his war
criminals used it as the fig leaf to justify a war which, as it turns out,
was 100% based on lies. GWB, Blair, Howard and Berlusconi deserve to be
tried as a war criminals, and hung by the neck until dead, like the monsters
who had to die after being found guilty at Nuremberg.

Re: David W

You're a blathering idiot. You still don't get it, after both the UN and US
search teams have confirmed that there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,
and that therefore Saddam told the truth to the UN.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Who lied? Bush didn't. Blair didn't.
>
>
>

Re: David W

It's funny how this joker - Bush - goes around the world lecturing everybody
on "Democracy" and "Freedom". He's telling Putin he needs to pull his bases
from Georgia, because Georgia doesn't want those bases on their territory.
At the same time, the prick maintains a base in Cuba against the will of the
Cuban people and Cuban Government. What a dangerous hypocrite he is.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5j4b9$ei6$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>this purported lie?
>>
>>
>> At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>> with a no bid contract.
>> I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5gcjo$41h$
> Carlos wrote:
>> It wasn't an illegal war, the UN approved it, not that the UN needs to
>> approve such things. People like DW are much like Neville Chamberlain -
>> "peace" at any cost, even if it mean supporting and encouraging the
>> spread of tyranny.
>>
> The UN did not approve it. It needed another resolution to do that which
> members of the security council refused to pass. The UK Attorney General,
> Lord Goldsmith, pointed this out but Blair chose to ignore it. The USA
> only takes notice of the UN when it does as it is told.
>
> What tyranny would that be and where was it spreading to? There was peace
> until the US started the war. The only tyranny is from the 150,000
> invading and occupying US troops that have destroyed Iraq.

Bush said there are terrorists in Iraq, and that is true. I think there's
about 150,000 terrorists in there right now, terrorizing the hell out of the
Iraqi people.

Re: David W

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> "Peace" can always be achieved by backing down from terror and evil, but
> as has been proven, evil and terror will not contain itself. The world
> is a better place without SH and a free Iraq. Who cares what the
> worthless and corrupt UN thinks.

SH, GWB, Blair and cohorts ARE all equally 'Evil' and 'Terror', you blind
fool.

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:t88fe.718126$
>
> You are not being clear here, David. What body has the power to bind the
> British Parliament to what you term "international law?"

Britain and the US - as founding members - are both signatories to the UN
Charter, thereby subjecting their international actions to International
Law, meaning they are not allowed to unilaterally declare war on anyone
country without cause justified by the UN.

Re: David W

In article <Q5efe.29295$>,
Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:
> At the same time, the prick maintains a base in Cuba against the will of the
> Cuban people and Cuban Government. What a dangerous hypocrite he is.

We have a 99 year lease on the base.

Re: David W

The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
more violence. Sure, nation state governments might be afraid of
what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, a lot of individuals
who thought America was "weak" might be afraid at the show of power.
But these are people who are interested in their own survival---not
all humans are. All this does is egg on the psycopaths who don't care
about their own lives and want to inflict as much violence as possible
for no clear reason. And their weapons are getting better and better.

It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is unleashed on a
civilian populace by terrorists. Then all the might in the world won't
matter. My guess is that it's less likely to happen in Canada or
Sweden than in the U.S. That's the reality of the neocon policy.

--Ram

Steven L. <> wrote:

> NoEd wrote:

>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>>
>>>Ed wrote:
>>>
>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>>>this purported lie?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>>>>with a no bid contract.
>>>>I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>>>
>>>I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
>>>USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
>>>most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
>>>meeting all the important people.
>>
>>
>> He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.
>>
>>
>>
>>>He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would be
>>>a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow the
>>>evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
>>>Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
>>>bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)
>>
>>
>> He did so he would be thought of as a hero?
>>
>>
>>>Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
>>>President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the world,
>>>leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>>
>>
>> But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
>>>eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
>>>be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>>>
>>>Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete noir,
>>>je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)
>>
>>
>> You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US and
>> anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything
>> personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.

> Let me clarify the neo-con thinking that drove our invasion of Iraq.
> (As you know, the neo-con analysts were the "brain trust" that resulted
> in our invading Iraq.)

> The neo-cons have their own website, Project For The New American
> Century, on which you will find this
> article written months *before* 9-11:

> "Liberate Iraq"
>

> It's a long article.
> But the gist of it is in these three paragraphs:

> "Totalitarians have a sixth sense for democratic weakness. A carnivore,
> Saddam Hussein probably knew early on (a good guess would be June 1993,
> when President Clinton cruise-missiled the empty intelligence
> headquarters) that Washington had no will to fight. By August 1996, when
> the United States failed to use its airpower to defend the Iraqi
> National Congress's lightly armed forces against Baghdad's mechanized
> brigades, there was no doubt.
> "America's hayba -- its ability to inspire awe, the critical factor in
> the Middle East's ruthless power politics -- had vanished. And once
> hayba is lost, only a demonstration of indomitable force restores it. A
> U.S. election, followed by President George W. Bush's slightly bigger
> bombing run over Iraq on February 16, doesn't cut it after years of
> pointless raids accompanied by American braggadocio....
> "The 'Arab street' has turned against the United States because Saddam
> Hussein once again has the look of a winner. Always popular with
> influential writers and intellectuals in the Arab world for his
> fire-breathing rhetoric against the age-old Western enemy, Saddam has
> restored his hayba by surviving and increasing his strength. By
> contrast, he casts Muslim Arab rulers who too closely associate with
> America as quislings, not statesmen wisely dealing with an indomitable,
> foreign power."


> What exactly are they saying here?
> That the U.S. has to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam as a way of
> restoring U.S. military credibility and restore our "hayba"--the world's
> "awe" of America. IOW, we have to make an example of Iraq in order to
> show the world we are "indomitable."

> And they're right. If anything, they understated the case.

> It's been two generations now since the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor
> by devastating our enemies including two nuclear attacks. The debacle
> in Vietnam resulted in an American nation that wouldn't risk a major
> bloody war anymore. (America supported the Gulf War only because
> American casualties were few and the war was over in a matter of months.)

> And all our military hardware and troops are useless if the world has
> lost respect for America's willingness to defend its vital interests no
> matter what the cost.

> My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this level of
> discussion: When will the United States start acting like a superpower
> again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore the
> respect the world had for our military might after 1945, without violence.


> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:

> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > "Herb" <> wrote
> > E wrote
> > > > You asked whether "the UN Charter had any force whatsoever in U.S...
"
> > > >
> > > > It's a treaty, and under U.S. law, the U.S. is bound to comply with
> > > > treaties, assuming, as you pointed out, the treaty (or the
applicable
> > part
> > > > of it) does not violate the Constitution.
> > > >
> > > > Call it a nitpick.
> > >
> > > Let me nitpick a bit more: If the U.S. is 'bound' to comply then what
is
> > the
> > > penalty for failure to do so, who pays it and who determines guilt.
> >
> > Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that U.S. Courts have
> > authority within the U.S. over treaty cases: "The judicial power shall
> > extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
> the
> > laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made,
> under
> > their authority... "
> >
> > > Do you
> > > really think I could drag the President or Congress into court for
> failure
> > > to comply with a treaty,
> >
> > It would depend on whether you were the aggrieved party or not. An
> > aggrieved foreign entity may have legal standing to bring suit in the
> U.S.,
> > for one, though.
> >
> > Perhaps one of the most famous treaty cases to be brought before the
U.S.
> > courts is the Amistad case, where, among other things, two Spanish men
> > brought suit in U.S. courts against the U.S., claiming that under a
treaty
> > Spain had with the U.S., the Africans aboard the ship were their
> "property."
>
> So the Spaniards got their slaves back?

The Spaniards did not get their "property" back. Some other reading of
international law (and apparently not merely U.S. law) trumped the treaty's
provisions.

> > The treaty the U.S. has with Cuba was a large factor in deciding cases
> > brought in U.S. courts by prisoners in Guantanamo Bay against the U.S.,
> > after Sept. 11, 2001.
>
> Do you think Cuba will get Guantanamo back when the treaty expires (if it
> hasn't already)?

What does the treaty say?

The google hit that came up when I was looking for examples noted that "the
District Court ruled that U.S. courts only have jurisdiction in a territory
where the U.S. has sovereignty. Because the treaty with Cuba regarding
Guantanamo Bay stated that Cuba technically has "complete sovereignty"
(though, as the plaintiffs pointed out, the U.S. has all effective powers in
the area), the court held, Guantanamo Bay could not be considered a
sovereign territory of the United States and therefore foreign nationals
could not be given a trial in the U.S."

Otherwise, I don't know what you're getting at. Are you asking whether the
U.S. is obliged to conform with all treaties? If it does not, what happens?
I think I've answered this: It may be held accountable, as illustrated by
the several examples I gave, in a U.S. court of law. In such a court, it may
prevail or not.

I agree that, in the UN-Iraq case, we have a gray area, but I think the
self-defense argument trumps any "Do not attack other country" provision
contained within the UN's "laws." It's absurd to assert, as Mark has, that
the U.S. broke the law.

> > Here's another recent example (of which you've undoubtedly heard) of the
> > interplay between treaties, the U.S. courts, and even the world's only
> > international court (which of course is not recognized by all
countries):
> >
> >
>
> I don't know what point you think this case supports.

Herb, you asked who presided over cases involving treaties. This and the
other examples respond to your query.

The last example is more to illustrate the interplay between the laws we've
discussed here to date. As I've repeatedly said, it's not black-and-white.

> The President, under
> his blanket power to conduct foreign policy, has chosen to deem himself
> bound by a decision of the world court.

What case or instance are you talking about here?

> If you get to choose when you are
> bound then, are you really bound at all?

If the President does something in violation of a treaty, then the aggrieved
party may be able to hold the U.S. accountable in a U.S. court of law.

Remember, U.S. courts are not accountable to the President. Checks and
balances.

> > Enough pedantry. I suspect this was all stowed in the back of your mind
> > somewhere. I'm probably just joggling it. I personally was working from
a
> > vague recollection that U.S. courts do hear treaty cases now and then.
>
> I have no doubt that you and I can be bound by a treaty obligaton, or more
> likely, legislation passed to implement a treaty.

I am not wild about your wording above. I don't think you or I personally
can be sued when the U.S. government violates a treaty. I guess we can be
sued indirectly, since the cost of defending that suit, and any financial
penalty, ultimately is bore by the taxpayers.

> Governments, however, are
> only as bound as they choose to be.

Sure. And I can go out and rape and pillage at will, too. There may or may
not be consequences. E.g. maybe I'll get Alan Dershowitz to defend me and
I'll get off the hook when in fact I am guilty as sin.

Likewise, when the U.S. government violates a treaty, there may or may not
be consequences.

My point is that there is a mechanism for addressing this. That's what you
asked about, after all.

BTW, seems like most of the hits that come up when looking for cases brought
against the U.S. for violating treaties are American Indian ones. It is NOT
a foregone conclusion that the U.S., with all its might compared to the
American Indians, will always win. Sometimes it loses.

> > > in violation of some US law?
>
> I'm saying that I can't drag the President into court seeking a writ
> ordering him to respect a treaty.

Not unless you personally were harmed, no, you cannot.

> I have no doubt that I might sue in
> equity to regain any losses caused by his failure to do so.

If you personally have concrete losses, I don't rule out the viability of
such a case at all, except I think you'd probably be suing the U.S.
government and Mr. Bush. He might end up exculpated, though, on some grounds
like it was the U.S. government acting, not himself personally.

I suspect one could find court cases where individuals--probably
businessmen--have indeed sued the U.S. for financial losses due to a treaty
violation.

snip but comments read
> > > To use Sam's analogy: there IS a bully in the schoolyard. If you give
> him
> > a
> > > wedgie, school rules are not going to help you.
> >
> > I absolutely don't think one should generalize like this. IIRC, in the
> last
> > decade or so many a military officer has been tried for war crimes in
> > international courts; been found guilty; and put away. (I saw "Hotel
> > Rwanda," depicting to a great extent the slaughter between Hutus and
> Tutsis
> > in Rwanda c. 1994, a couple of weeks ago, and it provided some examples
in
> > the commentary.)
>
> Then you are aware of the despicable role played by the UN during this
> genocide.

I could only call it despicable if you or I were willing to go in there and
serve alongside UN peacekeepers (some of whom were in fact slaughtered in
this effort in Rwanda, c. 1994).

If you had been in control of the UN then, what would you have done, given
the limited military resources and questionable support from many countries?

I believe in stopping genocide when it is possible to do so. But were I
living in Germany in 1942 with my family and utterly not at risk, I think I
would do what I could but with full recognition that it would not be enough
to stop the mass murder. I'd make a calculated decision and save myself,
family, and any others I could hide. I hope I would, anyway.

Or I'd get out of Dodge.

> How many officers from the winning side have been tried at the
> Hague?

How about you doing some homework for a change?

Either way, the fact is some of the murderers were brought to justice. IMO,
there has been progress. Saddam Hussein is going on trial, too, ya know.
Nuremberg got the ball rolling.

Re: David W

If only 8% of those 'eligible' voted, and these jerks got 34% of those
votes, they'd still think their government is legit and has the right to set
the world on fire.


"Clemens Gehrmann" <> wrote in
message news:a_dfe.29191$
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d5ft47$572$
>> Ed wrote:
>>> So, I guess you voted against him.
>>>
>> Too right I did!
>>
>> And another thing, while I am in "rant" mode.
>>
>> Blair's Labour Party got only 36% of the vote, of those who actually
>> voted.
>
> That's 2% more than Hitler ever got, and see what he could do with just
> 34% of electoral votes!!!
>

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5jvbt$rdh$
> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
> more violence. Sure, nation state governments might be afraid of
> what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, a lot of individuals
> who thought America was "weak" might be afraid at the show of power.

Hmmm, I think that contrary to the expected outcome, America is actually
proving to the world that it is in fact weak, having 4/5th of its military
tied up in a second-world country and proving that it is completely unable
to control the situation. Apart from unleashing absolute destruction,
America's conventional power is indeed limited and weak.

> But these are people who are interested in their own survival---not
> all humans are. All this does is egg on the psycopaths who don't care
> about their own lives and want to inflict as much violence as possible
> for no clear reason. And their weapons are getting better and better.

And Bush is continuously striving to get deadlier weapons.

> It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is unleashed on a
> civilian populace by terrorists.

Excuse me, but the reality is that the US is the only country which has ever
unleashed a nuclear weapon on civilian populations, and all that terrorist
chatter is nothing but fear-mongering. Since Bush has unleashed the "war on
terror", terrorism has increased 5-fold, not counting the state-terrorism
perpetrated by "good" governments.

> Then all the might in the world won't
> matter. My guess is that it's less likely to happen in Canada or
> Sweden than in the U.S. That's the reality of the neocon policy.

Another Reichstag burning. There were just too many flaws in the entire 9/11
story to absolve the neo-cons. They perpetrated it. There's not even any
proof there were actual hijackers on the planes, except 'phone
conversations' for which there exist absolutely no records... so we have to
take Bush's word for it that those actually happened. Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.
Fact is, you cannot make a cellphone call from the altitude those planes
were flying at. These planes - since the 70's hijacking crisis - are
equipped with remote control overrides, leaving the pilot unable to navigate
and reassume control. The people in power are capable of absolutely anything
to reach their goals.

Re: David W

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message
news:d5js2q$bc9$
> In article <Q5efe.29295$>,
> Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:
>> At the same time, the prick maintains a base in Cuba against the will of
>> the
>> Cuban people and Cuban Government. What a dangerous hypocrite he is.
>
> We have a 99 year lease on the base.

a) It was a "Lease" negotiated with a US-puppet government, not unlike Iraq
today.
b) If that were so, then why is the US still occupying the land? The "Lease"
was entered into in 1903 and would - if what you say is true - have expired
in 2002
c) The US has broken the Lease by establishing a Concentration Camp within
the confines of Guantanamo Bay, when the agreement explicitly states that
the only permitted uses shall be "coaling and naval stations", not prison
camps.
d) The US has also broken the terms of the Lease by allowing private
enterprise to operate inside the reservation - as it is called in the
agreement - namely (at a minimum), Pizza Hut and KFC, which is strictly
prohibited by the terms of the lease.



In 1934, the US arranged for itself a perpetual lease "capable of being
voided only by our abandoning the area or by mutual agreement between the
two countries." No doubt, the US bases now established in Iraq will be
"leased" with similar one-sided conditions. No doubt, Russia has similar
agreements with the bases it occupies. My point is, these agreements were
signed with governments established under occupation, and should therefore
be considered null and void. It's like making a contract with a prisoner.

Re: David W

"HW "Skip" Weldon" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:02:12 GMT, "Steven L."
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Before you go any further: Wasn't the Tory party also supportive of the
>>war? So what difference would it have made to the war if the Tories had
>>been in power in the last few years?
>
> Good question. And while we're into "Monday morning quarterbacking",
> what ever happened to all those folks who claimed that the Evil Bush
> was going to steal the Iraq oil?

He wanted to. His plans got foiled by - surprise - "Big Oil". Because OPEC
is "good" for "Big Oil".

Re: David W

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:ghdfe.8735$

[snip]

> My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this level of
> discussion: When will the United States start acting like a superpower
> again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore the
> respect the world had for our military might after 1945, without violence.

Wow. Let me get this straight: you would give your son's life just to prove
to the Arab street that we have "hayba?" Or does this only apply so someone
else's son's life?

I think there is an element of truth to this line of reasoning but getting
ourselves bogged down in a quagmire doesn't strike me as an effective way to
awe our adversaries. I read somewhere that the number of terrorist attacks
in the world tripled last year over the year before.

I am convinced that we will leave Iraq with our tails between our legs. The
only questions are when and how much human life and treasure we will piss
down this hole first. How much "hayba" will we have then?

-herb

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:Eggfe.10091$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > E wrote
> > > > > You asked whether "the UN Charter had any force whatsoever in
U.S...
> "
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a treaty, and under U.S. law, the U.S. is bound to comply
with
> > > > > treaties, assuming, as you pointed out, the treaty (or the
> applicable
> > > part
> > > > > of it) does not violate the Constitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > Call it a nitpick.
> > > >
> > > > Let me nitpick a bit more: If the U.S. is 'bound' to comply then
what
> is
> > > the
> > > > penalty for failure to do so, who pays it and who determines guilt.
> > >
> > > Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that U.S. Courts
have
> > > authority within the U.S. over treaty cases: "The judicial power shall
> > > extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this
Constitution,
> > the
> > > laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made,
> > under
> > > their authority... "
> > >
> > > > Do you
> > > > really think I could drag the President or Congress into court for
> > failure
> > > > to comply with a treaty,
> > >
> > > It would depend on whether you were the aggrieved party or not. An
> > > aggrieved foreign entity may have legal standing to bring suit in the
> > U.S.,
> > > for one, though.
> > >
> > > Perhaps one of the most famous treaty cases to be brought before the
> U.S.
> > > courts is the Amistad case, where, among other things, two Spanish men
> > > brought suit in U.S. courts against the U.S., claiming that under a
> treaty
> > > Spain had with the U.S., the Africans aboard the ship were their
> > "property."
> >
> > So the Spaniards got their slaves back?
>
> The Spaniards did not get their "property" back. Some other reading of
> international law (and apparently not merely U.S. law) trumped the
treaty's
> provisions.
>
> > > The treaty the U.S. has with Cuba was a large factor in deciding cases
> > > brought in U.S. courts by prisoners in Guantanamo Bay against the
U.S.,
> > > after Sept. 11, 2001.
> >
> > Do you think Cuba will get Guantanamo back when the treaty expires (if
it
> > hasn't already)?
>
> What does the treaty say?

It says that the lease expires in 99 years.

>
> The google hit that came up when I was looking for examples noted that
"the
> District Court ruled that U.S. courts only have jurisdiction in a
territory
> where the U.S. has sovereignty. Because the treaty with Cuba regarding
> Guantanamo Bay stated that Cuba technically has "complete sovereignty"
> (though, as the plaintiffs pointed out, the U.S. has all effective powers
in
> the area), the court held, Guantanamo Bay could not be considered a
> sovereign territory of the United States and therefore foreign nationals
> could not be given a trial in the U.S."
>
> Otherwise, I don't know what you're getting at. Are you asking whether the
> U.S. is obliged to conform with all treaties? If it does not, what
happens?
> I think I've answered this: It may be held accountable, as illustrated by
> the several examples I gave, in a U.S. court of law. In such a court, it
may
> prevail or not.

But in no case has a court issued a writ ordering the President to abide by
a treaty nor would a court issue such a writ. The Constitution
unambiguously grants the President the sole right to conduct foreign policy
and the law (and the reach of the courts) ends at the water's edge.

>
> I agree that, in the UN-Iraq case, we have a gray area, but I think the
> self-defense argument trumps any "Do not attack other country" provision
> contained within the UN's "laws." It's absurd to assert, as Mark has, that
> the U.S. broke the law.

I'm sure Mark meant international law, whatever that is. I think he agrees
that it is not against the law in the US for Congress to wage war on foreign
soil.


>
> > > Here's another recent example (of which you've undoubtedly heard) of
the
> > > interplay between treaties, the U.S. courts, and even the world's only
> > > international court (which of course is not recognized by all
> countries):
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I don't know what point you think this case supports.
>
> Herb, you asked who presided over cases involving treaties. This and the
> other examples respond to your query.

This is a case regarding whether or not a death row inmate has a right to a
hearing, not whether or not the President can abrogate a treaty.

>
> The last example is more to illustrate the interplay between the laws
we've
> discussed here to date. As I've repeatedly said, it's not black-and-white.
>
> > The President, under
> > his blanket power to conduct foreign policy, has chosen to deem himself
> > bound by a decision of the world court.
>
> What case or instance are you talking about here?

The one cited in your link, above. After the circuit court found that the
World Court decision had no standing, Bush *chose* to consider himself bound
by this particular decision, complicating the case.

>
> > If you get to choose when you are
> > bound then, are you really bound at all?
>
> If the President does something in violation of a treaty, then the
aggrieved
> party may be able to hold the U.S. accountable in a U.S. court of law.

Accountable, perhaps (whatever that means) but no court is going to order a
President to abide by a treaty overseas.

>
> Remember, U.S. courts are not accountable to the President. Checks and
> balances.

Well that's an entirely different question. As Andrew Jackson said
(approximately) "let the Supreme Court enforce its order."

>
> > > Enough pedantry. I suspect this was all stowed in the back of your
mind
> > > somewhere. I'm probably just joggling it. I personally was working
from
> a
> > > vague recollection that U.S. courts do hear treaty cases now and then.
> >
> > I have no doubt that you and I can be bound by a treaty obligaton, or
more
> > likely, legislation passed to implement a treaty.
>
> I am not wild about your wording above. I don't think you or I personally
> can be sued when the U.S. government violates a treaty. I guess we can be
> sued indirectly, since the cost of defending that suit, and any financial
> penalty, ultimately is bore by the taxpayers.

That's not what I meant. Some treaties make requirements of individuals
that you and I are bound to follow (how to apply for a visa or what taxes we
owe on foreign investments, eg).

>
> > Governments, however, are
> > only as bound as they choose to be.
>
> Sure. And I can go out and rape and pillage at will, too. There may or may
> not be consequences. E.g. maybe I'll get Alan Dershowitz to defend me and
> I'll get off the hook when in fact I am guilty as sin.

But there is a court that has jurisdiction over your crimes. No court has
jurisdiction over the President and Congress conducting a war overseas.

>
> Likewise, when the U.S. government violates a treaty, there may or may not
> be consequences.
>
> My point is that there is a mechanism for addressing this. That's what you
> asked about, after all.
>
> BTW, seems like most of the hits that come up when looking for cases
brought
> against the U.S. for violating treaties are American Indian ones. It is
NOT
> a foregone conclusion that the U.S., with all its might compared to the
> American Indians, will always win. Sometimes it loses.

Congress passed a law in 1790 that clearly stated how indian title to lands
could be extingished. For many years it was customary to ignore this law.
Lately, the courts have been enforcing it rendering land titles problematic
in many areas. In most of these cases, my impression is that it is private
landowners and States that are the defendants.

>
> > > > in violation of some US law?
> >
> > I'm saying that I can't drag the President into court seeking a writ
> > ordering him to respect a treaty.
>
> Not unless you personally were harmed, no, you cannot.

What if my son were killed in an "illegal war?"

>
> > I have no doubt that I might sue in
> > equity to regain any losses caused by his failure to do so.
>
> If you personally have concrete losses, I don't rule out the viability of
> such a case at all, except I think you'd probably be suing the U.S.
> government and Mr. Bush. He might end up exculpated, though, on some
grounds
> like it was the U.S. government acting, not himself personally.
>
> I suspect one could find court cases where individuals--probably
> businessmen--have indeed sued the U.S. for financial losses due to a
treaty
> violation.

I'm sure too.

>
> snip but comments read
> > > > To use Sam's analogy: there IS a bully in the schoolyard. If you
give
> > him
> > > a
> > > > wedgie, school rules are not going to help you.
> > >
> > > I absolutely don't think one should generalize like this. IIRC, in the
> > last
> > > decade or so many a military officer has been tried for war crimes in
> > > international courts; been found guilty; and put away. (I saw "Hotel
> > > Rwanda," depicting to a great extent the slaughter between Hutus and
> > Tutsis
> > > in Rwanda c. 1994, a couple of weeks ago, and it provided some
examples
> in
> > > the commentary.)
> >
> > Then you are aware of the despicable role played by the UN during this
> > genocide.
>
> I could only call it despicable if you or I were willing to go in there
and
> serve alongside UN peacekeepers (some of whom were in fact slaughtered in
> this effort in Rwanda, c. 1994).
>
> If you had been in control of the UN then, what would you have done, given
> the limited military resources and questionable support from many
countries?

I would have pissed or got off the pot. The UN sat on the pot and watched
until it got so bad that they evacuated white people only.

>
> I believe in stopping genocide when it is possible to do so. But were I
> living in Germany in 1942 with my family and utterly not at risk, I think
I
> would do what I could but with full recognition that it would not be
enough
> to stop the mass murder. I'd make a calculated decision and save myself,
> family, and any others I could hide. I hope I would, anyway.

We'd all like to stop genocide but not so much that we are willing to pay
the price of doing so (unless, of course, it involves white people in
Europe). My point is that the UN has certainly never stopped a genocide
that I am aware of.

>
> Or I'd get out of Dodge.
>
> > How many officers from the winning side have been tried at the
> > Hague?
>
> How about you doing some homework for a change?

On a weekend? Besides, how do you prove a negative? It would be easier for
you to cite one example than for me to review every case ever brought before
the Hague Tribunal and prove that none involved the winning side in the
Rwandan civil war.


>
> Either way, the fact is some of the murderers were brought to justice.
IMO,
> there has been progress. Saddam Hussein is going on trial, too, ya know.
> Nuremberg got the ball rolling.

It didn't roll very far, though, did it?

>
>

Re: David W

Even though I'm not a fan of top down government, I don't think
there's an overt conspiracy here. Any collusion I think is the result
of opportunism.

Whether the neocon idea worked in Iraq is another issue. I actually do
think they think they're doing the world a favour, not for getting rid
of Saddam (though that's a bonus in their eyes) but for having one
more way of controlling the politics of the mideast, as people have
been doing ever since oil become important. This is because the world
depends on oil and its supply and middle east regimes are somewhat
unstable.

--Ram

Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
> news:d5jvbt$rdh$
>> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
>> more violence. Sure, nation state governments might be afraid of
>> what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, a lot of individuals
>> who thought America was "weak" might be afraid at the show of power.

> Hmmm, I think that contrary to the expected outcome, America is actually
> proving to the world that it is in fact weak, having 4/5th of its military
> tied up in a second-world country and proving that it is completely unable
> to control the situation. Apart from unleashing absolute destruction,
> America's conventional power is indeed limited and weak.

>> But these are people who are interested in their own survival---not
>> all humans are. All this does is egg on the psycopaths who don't care
>> about their own lives and want to inflict as much violence as possible
>> for no clear reason. And their weapons are getting better and better.

> And Bush is continuously striving to get deadlier weapons.

>> It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is unleashed on a
>> civilian populace by terrorists.

> Excuse me, but the reality is that the US is the only country which has ever
> unleashed a nuclear weapon on civilian populations, and all that terrorist
> chatter is nothing but fear-mongering. Since Bush has unleashed the "war on
> terror", terrorism has increased 5-fold, not counting the state-terrorism
> perpetrated by "good" governments.

>> Then all the might in the world won't
>> matter. My guess is that it's less likely to happen in Canada or
>> Sweden than in the U.S. That's the reality of the neocon policy.

> Another Reichstag burning. There were just too many flaws in the entire 9/11
> story to absolve the neo-cons. They perpetrated it. There's not even any
> proof there were actual hijackers on the planes, except 'phone
> conversations' for which there exist absolutely no records... so we have to
> take Bush's word for it that those actually happened. Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.
> Fact is, you cannot make a cellphone call from the altitude those planes
> were flying at. These planes - since the 70's hijacking crisis - are
> equipped with remote control overrides, leaving the pilot unable to navigate
> and reassume control. The people in power are capable of absolutely anything
> to reach their goals.

Re: David W

Ram Samudrala wrote:
> Even though I'm not a fan of top down government, I don't think
> there's an overt conspiracy here. Any collusion I think is the result
> of opportunism.
>
> Whether the neocon idea worked in Iraq is another issue. I actually do
> think they think they're doing the world a favour, not for getting rid
> of Saddam (though that's a bonus in their eyes) but for having one
> more way of controlling the politics of the mideast, as people have
> been doing ever since oil become important. This is because the world
> depends on oil and its supply and middle east regimes are somewhat
> unstable.
>
> --Ram
>
Just which are these "unstable" middle east regimes? Saddam was in power
for 30 years and would have stayed in power without the US invasion. The
Saudi royal family have been there indefinitely. Ditto Kuwait, Brunei
etc. Mubarak has been President of Egypt for 20 years and shows no sign
of relinquishing power to anyone else. Even Israel has been in more or
less its present form since formation in 1948. Iran was stable under the
Shah and has been ruled by Ayatollahs ever since and shows no sign of
changing.

It seems more likely that the US is trying to propagate the myth of
instability so it can move in troops, set up bases and get as much
control of this oil producing region as it can.

Re: David W

Steven L. wrote:

>What exactly are they saying here?
>That the U.S. has to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam as a way of
>restoring U.S. military credibility and restore our "hayba"--the
>world's "awe" of America. IOW, we have to make an example of
>Iraq in order to show the world we are "indomitable."
>
>And they're right. If anything, they understated the case.
>
>It's been two generations now since the U.S. responded to Pearl
>Harbor by devastating our enemies including two nuclear attacks.
>The debacle in Vietnam resulted in an American nation that
>wouldn't risk a major bloody war anymore. (America supported the
>Gulf War only because American casualties were few and the war
>was over in a matter of months.)

>My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this
>level of discussion: When will the United States start acting
>like a superpower again and not like a scared rabbit? Because
>we cannot restore the respect the world had for our military
>might after 1945, without violence.

In WWII, all the world's greatest powers fought, but now in WWIII,
China's decision to remain on the sidelines lets it reap the most
benefits from the war. If anything, Bush's foolish decision to go to
war in Iraq and his mishandling of it has only accelerated China's
climb to the top, both economically and militarily. And his foreign
policy has been completely bumbling and has alienated both our allies
(Western Europe) and potential allies (India, Russia).

The only part of the world we must impress is China because they are by
far the most powerful potential enemy. But they're not impressed
withour military might because in their eyes they've never lost a
modern war -- they were on our side in WWII, they think they beat us in
Korea, and they were on the winning side in Vietnam.

Re: David W

Clemens Gehrmann wrote:
> "Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message

>At the same time, the prick maintains a base in Cuba against
>the will of the Cuban people and Cuban Government.

>>We have a 99 year lease on the base.
>
> a) It was a "Lease" negotiated with a US-puppet government,

>c) The US has broken the Lease by establishing a Concentration
>Camp within the confines of Guantanamo Bay, when the agreement
>explicitly states that the only permitted uses shall be "coaling
>and naval stations", not prison camps.

>
>
>In 1934, the US arranged for itself a perpetual lease "capable
>of being voided only by our abandoning the area or by mutual
>agreement between the two countries."

The U.S. should give up Guantanamo Bay only if Castro dies or we
normalize relations with Cuba since doing otherwise would mean giving
up a bargaining chip and helping Castro.

This isn't to say we shouldn't normalize relations as soon as possible
because the only real beneficiary of U.S. sanctions has been Castro.
And we should close down those prison camps and move the prisoners back
to Afghanistan or free them.

Ironically, Guantanamo Bay's permanent prison was once headed by a
Marine who was a strict disciplinarian but one who tolerated absolutely
no abuse of prisoners, including those at a large prison he commanded
in Japan soon after WWII.

Re: David W

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote in message
news:
>

[snip]

>
> In WWII, all the world's greatest powers fought, but now in WWIII,
> China's decision to remain on the sidelines lets it reap the most
> benefits from the war. If anything, Bush's foolish decision to go to
> war in Iraq and his mishandling of it has only accelerated China's
> climb to the top, both economically and militarily. And his foreign
> policy has been completely bumbling and has alienated both our allies
> (Western Europe) and potential allies (India, Russia).

I think you're onto something here. It occurred to me a long time ago that,
eventually, the theatre of warfare would change from the military to the
economic. It was, ultimately, economics that won the Cold War not force of
arms.

>
> The only part of the world we must impress is China because they are by
> far the most powerful potential enemy. But they're not impressed
> withour military might because in their eyes they've never lost a
> modern war -- they were on our side in WWII, they think they beat us in
> Korea, and they were on the winning side in Vietnam.

I'm not sure the Vietnamese would agree that China was on its side. Didn't
China invade Vietnam very briefly only to withdraw in chaos?

>

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> news:ghdfe.8735$

>>When will the United States start acting like a superpower
>>again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore
>>the respect the world had for our military might after 1945,
>>without violence.

>I think there is an element of truth to this line of reasoning
>but getting ourselves bogged down in a quagmire doesn't strike
>me as an effective way to awe our adversaries. I read somewhere
>that the number of terrorist attacks in the world tripled last
>year over the year before.

Does that include attacks inside Iraq, which would be expected because
of the war there?

>I am convinced that we will leave Iraq with our tails between
>our legs. The only questions are when and how much human life
>and treasure we will piss down this hole first. How much "hayba"
>will we have then?

But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
well, the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.

Re: David W

Clemens Gehrmann wrote:

> Another Reichstag burning. There were just too many flaws
> in the entire 9/11 story to absolve the neo-cons. They
> perpetrated it. There's not even any proof there were actual
> hijackers on the planes, except 'phone conversations' for
> which there exist absolutely no records...

Then where are the passengers and the hijackers now? What of all the
witnesses who saw the hijackers well before 9/11 at flight schools and
a martial arts school? I've seen nothing credible proving the 9/11
hijackings occurred in any way contrary the scenario provided by the
mainstream media and the U.S. government. But in regards to the Iraqi
war, U.S. government has lied, deceived, and disinformed the public,
and the mainstream press has been all too accommodating.

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
> news:d5jvbt$rdh$

> > It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is
> > unleashed on a civilian populace by terrorists.

> Excuse me, but the reality is that the US is the only country
> which has ever unleashed a nuclear weapon on civilian populations,
> and all that terrorist chatter is nothing but fear-mongering.

It's ridiculous to compare the two because terrorists use violence to
increase violence while the bombing of Japan was meant to end it. What
should the U.S. have done with its nuclear weapons back then, bomb a
purely military target or an unoccupied area? Would that have been
enough to stop the war, considering the fanaticism of most of the
military leaders and the selfishness of Hirohito? After all they
wanted to keep fighting even after the Hiroshima blast, although war
funding had already been halted by July. And it wasn't as if the
Japanese were completely ignorant about the A-bomb because even some
low-ranking Japanese POWs asked if the U.S. had a bomb the size of a
matchbox that could flatten a city. My own grandfather thought the
U.S. possessed the A-bomb and had used a large computer to develop it,
so a year before the end of the war had his children wear nothing but
white, to protect them against skin burn caused by nuclear flash.

Re: David W

"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Clemens Gehrmann wrote:
>
>> Another Reichstag burning. There were just too many flaws
>> in the entire 9/11 story to absolve the neo-cons. They
>> perpetrated it. There's not even any proof there were actual
>> hijackers on the planes, except 'phone conversations' for
>> which there exist absolutely no records...
>
> Then where are the passengers and the hijackers now?

Whether there were hijackers, we will never know, except by claim of the
Bush administration. The passengers are dead.

> What of all the witnesses who saw the hijackers well before 9/11 at flight
> schools and
> a martial arts school?

You assume. You assume that the Bush administration spoke the truth, and
assemble the "facts" based on that. "What if" the people you are being shown
as being the hijackers are nothing but passengers of Middle Eastern descent?

> I've seen nothing credible proving the 9/11 hijackings occurred in any way
> contrary the scenario provided by the mainstream media and the U.S.
> government.

That is probably because you have never approached the whole issue with a
critical mind. The pieces just don't fit, starting from the "phone calls"
for none of which there is a record they ever happened, to no interceptors
being launched, and the story goes from there. It all doesn't make any
sense, except, of course, if it was meant to happen. Then it makes perfect
sense.

> But in regards to the Iraqi war, U.S. government has lied, deceived, and
> disinformed the public, and the mainstream press has been all too
> accommodating.

If the Bush administration was hell-bent on starting a war in the Middle
East in order to control the source of the largest supply of oil in the
world, what makes you think the misinformation campaign only started with
the invasion of Iraq, and did not already begin with the entire 9/11
"Terrorist" scenario? When did Bush start lieing? I think you simply do not
believe Bush and his gang to be capable of making a decision to kill
thousands of Americans to get what he wants, but I believe he is capable to
kill whoever it takes to get his way. 9/11 made the American Public so angry
that it was willing to swallow hook, line and sinker, and give permission to
Bush to accomplish what he had set out to do.

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
> "R. Anton Rave" <> wrote in message
> news:

>>In WWII, all the world's greatest powers fought, but now in
>>WWIII, China's decision to remain on the sidelines lets it
>>reap the most benefits from the war. If anything, Bush's
>>foolish decision to go to war in Iraq and his mishandling of
>>it has only accelerated China's climb to the top, both
>>economically and militarily. And his foreign policy has
>>been completely bumbling and has alienated both our allies
>>(Western Europe) and potential allies (India, Russia).
>
>I think you're onto something here. It occurred to me a long
>time ago that, eventually, the theatre of warfare would change
>from the military to the economic. It was, ultimately,
>economics that won the Cold War not force of arms.

I can't ignore the contributions made by nuclear weapons (used the most
effective way, by stockpiling them, not exploding them), the long term
Cold War blueprint laid out by Dean Acheson and George Kennan (emphasis
on "long term"), the death of every Soviet citizen who ever had a
picture taken with Stalin or Lenin, and several U.S. presidents in a
row who knew how to deal with foreign countries (unlike the current
fool).

Unfortunately China won't make the biggest mistake the Soviets made in
the Cold War, that is, run their economy into the ground. This not
only means they'll be able to match us, weapon for weapon, but will
also be able to pursuade foreign countries with aid and investments.
But as long as we don't humiliate or anger Russia, such as by expanding
NATO too much or lecturing them about democracy, we have nothing to
worry about because they'll be on our side in any U.S.-China
confrontation.

>>The only part of the world we must impress is China because
>>they are by far the most powerful potential enemy. But they're
>>not impressed withour military might because in their eyes
>>they've never lost a modern war -- they were on our side in WWII,
>>they think they beat us in Korea, and they were on the winning
>>side in Vietnam.

>I'm not sure the Vietnamese would agree that China was on its
>side. Didn't China invade Vietnam very briefly only to withdraw
>in chaos?

Around 1979, but that war is irrelevant in China's view (and that's the
view that counts) because unlike the other wars it wasn't about
dominance of the world.

Re: David W

Clemens Gehrmann wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
> news:

>>I've seen nothing credible proving the 9/11 hijackings
>>occurred in any way contrary the scenario provided by the
>>mainstream media and the U.S. government.

>The pieces just don't fit, starting from the "phone calls"
>for none of which there is a record they ever happened, to
>no interceptors being launched, and the story goes from there.

Contrary to how NORAD is portrayed in movies and TV, it doesn't catch
every stray plane because there are so many objects in flight, and
NORAD doesn't know exactly where they're supposed to be or go.

People like you detract from the credibility of Bush critics and
unfortunately only help keep him in office.

>It all doesn't make any sense, except, of course, if it was
>meant to happen. Then it makes perfect sense.

Who killed President Kennedy and why?

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > Otherwise, I don't know what you're getting at. Are you asking whether
the
> > U.S. is obliged to conform with all treaties? If it does not, what
> happens?
> > I think I've answered this: It may be held accountable, as illustrated
by
> > the several examples I gave, in a U.S. court of law. In such a court, it
> may
> > prevail or not.
>
> But in no case has a court issued a writ ordering the President to abide
by
> a treaty nor would a court issue such a writ.

No court has ever issued a writ ordering a President not to burglarize his
opponent's headquarters, either.

In other words, the legal obligation to abide by a treaty is the same as a
legal obligation not to drink and drive, etc. In both instances, violations
may result in consequences.

> The Constitution
> unambiguously grants the President the sole right to conduct foreign
policy
> and the law (and the reach of the courts) ends at the water's edge.

That's too vague to win my concurrence.

Many foreign policy issues require Congress's concurrence. Plus, if any act
(treaty-related or otherwise) by Congress or the President is illegal, the
courts may get involved.

snip
> > Herb, you asked who presided over cases involving treaties. This and the
> > other examples respond to your query.
>
> This is a case regarding whether or not a death row inmate has a right to
a
> hearing, not whether or not the President can abrogate a treaty.

So look at the other cases I cited. Or google yourself.

[snip] I think the posts speak for themselves

Re: David W

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
> Herb wrote:
> > "R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
> >>In WWII, all the world's greatest powers fought, but now in
> >>WWIII, China's decision to remain on the sidelines lets it
> >>reap the most benefits from the war. If anything, Bush's
> >>foolish decision to go to war in Iraq and his mishandling of
> >>it has only accelerated China's climb to the top, both
> >>economically and militarily. And his foreign policy has
> >>been completely bumbling and has alienated both our allies
> >>(Western Europe) and potential allies (India, Russia).
> >
> >I think you're onto something here. It occurred to me a long
> >time ago that, eventually, the theatre of warfare would change
> >from the military to the economic. It was, ultimately,
> >economics that won the Cold War not force of arms.
>
> I can't ignore the contributions made by nuclear weapons (used the most
> effective way, by stockpiling them, not exploding them), the long term
> Cold War blueprint laid out by Dean Acheson and George Kennan (emphasis
> on "long term"), the death of every Soviet citizen who ever had a
> picture taken with Stalin or Lenin, and several U.S. presidents in a
> row who knew how to deal with foreign countries (unlike the current
> fool).

Academics have performed studies of economic sanctions applied in various
situations for over a decade, and in fact made a persuasive argument that
Gulf War 1 would not have been necessary if sanctions had simply been
continued.

It's long-established that the transformation of not just the former Soviet
Union, but post-1975 Vietnam and South Africa were facilitated as much
through economic means as through war violence.

Re: David W

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
H wrote
> >I am convinced that we will leave Iraq with our tails between
> >our legs. The only questions are when and how much human life
> >and treasure we will piss down this hole first. How much "hayba"
> >will we have then?
>
> But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
> well,

By what measure? Just the other day another few dozen were murdered by
insurgents.

> the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
> be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.

Why does it have to be "won"? And aren't we already said to have won it?

If not, when do you think it may be said we won this war?

I agree with Herb. This is precisely another Vietnam. Guerillas in Iraq have
a just enough power to be a critical mass and will be successful in
thwarting democracy there. Enough people in Iraq hate Americans (for killing
their relatives) or are on the fence on the matter, or just DO NOT want
foreigners telling them how to live their lives, that there is no chance for
peace while the U.S. is present.

It's only economic means that will bring peace to Iraq, though possibly some
UN peacekeepers may help.

Re: David W

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Clemens Gehrmann wrote:
>> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
>>>I've seen nothing credible proving the 9/11 hijackings
>>>occurred in any way contrary the scenario provided by the
>>>mainstream media and the U.S. government.
>
>>The pieces just don't fit, starting from the "phone calls"
>>for none of which there is a record they ever happened, to
>>no interceptors being launched, and the story goes from there.
>
> Contrary to how NORAD is portrayed in movies and TV, it doesn't catch
> every stray plane because there are so many objects in flight, and
> NORAD doesn't know exactly where they're supposed to be or go.

Who cares about NORAD? NORAD deals with potential military threats from
other nations. However, your comment reveals your complete ignorance of the
work air traffic controllers do.

Re: David W

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Herb wrote:
> > "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> > news:ghdfe.8735$
>
> >>When will the United States start acting like a superpower
> >>again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore
> >>the respect the world had for our military might after 1945,
> >>without violence.
>
> >I think there is an element of truth to this line of reasoning
> >but getting ourselves bogged down in a quagmire doesn't strike
> >me as an effective way to awe our adversaries. I read somewhere
> >that the number of terrorist attacks in the world tripled last
> >year over the year before.
>
> Does that include attacks inside Iraq, which would be expected because
> of the war there?

Good question. I don't know the answer but I would tend to think not or it
would be a lot more than triple. Didn't the war in Iraq end two years ago,
anyway?


>
> >I am convinced that we will leave Iraq with our tails between
> >our legs. The only questions are when and how much human life
> >and treasure we will piss down this hole first. How much "hayba"
> >will we have then?
>
> But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
> well, the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
> be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.

I have yet to hear someone describe what victory will look like in Iraq.

>

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:wrrfe.10240$

[snip]

> >
> > But in no case has a court issued a writ ordering the President to abide
> by
> > a treaty nor would a court issue such a writ.
>
> No court has ever issued a writ ordering a President not to burglarize his
> opponent's headquarters, either.
>
> In other words, the legal obligation to abide by a treaty is the same as a
> legal obligation not to drink and drive, etc. In both instances,
violations
> may result in consequences.

I don't understand the parallel. Yes, all acts involve consequences.
Abrogating a treaty has political and diplomatic consequences but is not
felonious.

A court ordered Nixon to provide evidence that he encouraged perjury which
was a felony for which he could have been sent to prison. Bush simply
abandoned the ABM treaty with no vote of Congress and no chance of a grand
jury hearing testimony.


>
> > The Constitution
> > unambiguously grants the President the sole right to conduct foreign
> policy
> > and the law (and the reach of the courts) ends at the water's edge.
>
> That's too vague to win my concurrence.

Talk to the founding fathers. They wrote the clause.

>
> Many foreign policy issues require Congress's concurrence. Plus, if any
act
> (treaty-related or otherwise) by Congress or the President is illegal, the
> courts may get involved.

Like what? Spending money requires an act of Congress and treaties must be
ratified by the Senate. Other than that, the President is free to "conduct
the foreign policy" on his own. When you say "illegal" I'm sure you mean
under US law (Boland Amendment, eg) and NOT "international law."

>
> snip
> > > Herb, you asked who presided over cases involving treaties. This and
the
> > > other examples respond to your query.
> >
> > This is a case regarding whether or not a death row inmate has a right
to
> a
> > hearing, not whether or not the President can abrogate a treaty.
>
> So look at the other cases I cited. Or google yourself.
>
> [snip] I think the posts speak for themselves

Yes they do: the courts have no jurisdiction to review the foreign policy
(per se) of the United States vis-a-vis "international law."

>
>

Re: David W

In article
<4yrfe.10247$>,
"Elle" <> wrote:

> I agree with Herb. This is precisely another Vietnam. Guerillas in Iraq have
> a just enough power to be a critical mass and will be successful in
> thwarting democracy there. Enough people in Iraq hate Americans (for killing
> their relatives) or are on the fence on the matter, or just DO NOT want
> foreigners telling them how to live their lives, that there is no chance for
> peace while the U.S. is present.

Again, what's the point? I can remember many of us saying these
exact same things three years ago or so, BEFORE the war started,
as a Google search will surely affirm. It didn't matter then, and
it doesn't matter now.

The Caesars of the world will have their way.

I suppose I sound pessimistic. Well, you can't argue fervently
against the election of one president (Gore vs. W.), argue
fervently against what seemed to me to be an unprovoked
preemptive war based on hoodwinkery (this recent Desert Whatever)
argue fervently against the re-election of the same president
(Kerry versus W.), have the British re-elect Blair for "an
historical unprecedented third term", all the while seeming to be
in the minority when arguing with most anybody about it, have
MOST OF ONE'S DIRE PREDICTIONS COME TO PASS, and yet no one seems
to give a rat's ass . . . and not be a little put off by the
whole thing, a tad disillusioned. As a friend of mine recently
said, it looks like things are going to have to get a whole lot
worse before they get better. Maybe that will never happen. Maybe
this is the new stability.

The only thing I can think of that would make rock the situation
is if a draft was imposed, and that doesn't look like it's going
to happen anytime soon.

You have your varied opinions among military families, but by and
large many are proud to have sons and daughters serving in Iraq.
It beats working at the 7-11 back home, or on unemployment.
Around here there are lots of signs on houses that say "Proud
parent of a marine serving in Iraq with such-and-such outfit,"
with yellow ribbons and such. This is the new ethos.

In other words, this is the new reality. Bush and Co. either
through cleverness or brute force have changed history. Now we
deal with it. It seems like it could be a situation that could
remain stable for a long, long time. The closest analogy that I
can think of, though far from perfect, is the Roman Empire.

The war aside, it certainly seems as though the days of the New
Deal have been thoroughly dismantled. It seems to me that those
who are least served by these sorts of actions are the loudest
proponents. But that's where the illogic comes in. I suppose
Limbaugh and company have done their jobs well in educating the
masses.

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:4yrfe.10247$

[snip]

> It's only economic means that will bring peace to Iraq, though possibly
some
> UN peacekeepers may help.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that.

>
>

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5jvbt$rdh$
> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
> more violence.

The Civil War, WWI, and WWII didn't beget more violience. Pacifisim's logic
is flawed.


Sure, nation state governments might be afraid of
> what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, a lot of individuals
> who thought America was "weak" might be afraid at the show of power.
> But these are people who are interested in their own survival---not
> all humans are. All this does is egg on the psycopaths who don't care
> about their own lives and want to inflict as much violence as possible
> for no clear reason. And their weapons are getting better and better.
>
> It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is unleashed on a
> civilian populace by terrorists. Then all the might in the world won't
> matter. My guess is that it's less likely to happen in Canada or
> Sweden than in the U.S. That's the reality of the neocon policy.
>
> --Ram
>
> Steven L. <> wrote:
>
>> NoEd wrote:
>
>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>> news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>>>
>>>>Ed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>>>>this purported lie?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>>>>>with a no bid contract.
>>>>>I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>>>>
>>>>I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
>>>>USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
>>>>most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
>>>>meeting all the important people.
>>>
>>>
>>> He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would
>>>>be
>>>>a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow
>>>>the
>>>>evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
>>>>Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
>>>>bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)
>>>
>>>
>>> He did so he would be thought of as a hero?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
>>>>President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the
>>>>world,
>>>>leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
>>>>eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
>>>>be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>>>>
>>>>Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete
>>>>noir,
>>>>je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)
>>>
>>>
>>> You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US
>>> and
>>> anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything
>>> personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.
>
>> Let me clarify the neo-con thinking that drove our invasion of Iraq.
>> (As you know, the neo-con analysts were the "brain trust" that resulted
>> in our invading Iraq.)
>
>> The neo-cons have their own website, Project For The New American
>> Century, on which you will find this
>> article written months *before* 9-11:
>
>> "Liberate Iraq"
>>
>
>> It's a long article.
>> But the gist of it is in these three paragraphs:
>
>> "Totalitarians have a sixth sense for democratic weakness. A carnivore,
>> Saddam Hussein probably knew early on (a good guess would be June 1993,
>> when President Clinton cruise-missiled the empty intelligence
>> headquarters) that Washington had no will to fight. By August 1996, when
>> the United States failed to use its airpower to defend the Iraqi
>> National Congress's lightly armed forces against Baghdad's mechanized
>> brigades, there was no doubt.
>> "America's hayba -- its ability to inspire awe, the critical factor in
>> the Middle East's ruthless power politics -- had vanished. And once
>> hayba is lost, only a demonstration of indomitable force restores it. A
>> U.S. election, followed by President George W. Bush's slightly bigger
>> bombing run over Iraq on February 16, doesn't cut it after years of
>> pointless raids accompanied by American braggadocio....
>> "The 'Arab street' has turned against the United States because Saddam
>> Hussein once again has the look of a winner. Always popular with
>> influential writers and intellectuals in the Arab world for his
>> fire-breathing rhetoric against the age-old Western enemy, Saddam has
>> restored his hayba by surviving and increasing his strength. By
>> contrast, he casts Muslim Arab rulers who too closely associate with
>> America as quislings, not statesmen wisely dealing with an indomitable,
>> foreign power."
>
>
>> What exactly are they saying here?
>> That the U.S. has to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam as a way of
>> restoring U.S. military credibility and restore our "hayba"--the world's
>> "awe" of America. IOW, we have to make an example of Iraq in order to
>> show the world we are "indomitable."
>
>> And they're right. If anything, they understated the case.
>
>> It's been two generations now since the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor
>> by devastating our enemies including two nuclear attacks. The debacle
>> in Vietnam resulted in an American nation that wouldn't risk a major
>> bloody war anymore. (America supported the Gulf War only because
>> American casualties were few and the war was over in a matter of months.)
>
>> And all our military hardware and troops are useless if the world has
>> lost respect for America's willingness to defend its vital interests no
>> matter what the cost.
>
>> My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this level of
>> discussion: When will the United States start acting like a superpower
>> again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore the
>> respect the world had for our military might after 1945, without
>> violence.
>
>
>> --
>> Steven D. Litvintchouk
>> Email:
>
>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

No you're the blind fool who lives in a complete contradiction, i.e. abhors
capitalism but trades stocks? You probably have had substance abuse and/or
relationship problems.



"Clemens Gehrmann" <> wrote in
message news:ceefe.29412$
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> "Peace" can always be achieved by backing down from terror and evil, but
>> as has been proven, evil and terror will not contain itself. The world
>> is a better place without SH and a free Iraq. Who cares what the
>> worthless and corrupt UN thinks.
>
> SH, GWB, Blair and cohorts ARE all equally 'Evil' and 'Terror', you blind
> fool.
>

Re: David W

They are unstable in terms of the risk to global oil supply. Hussein
first started a war with Iran, and then with Kuwait, which was a waste
of oil-based resources that could've been used to supply the
world. Likewise with the Iranian revolution. Bin Laden came out of
Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is a place with a lot of tribal rivalry
that has been well-documented.

I don't believe these are necessarily good reasons to do anything,
BTW. I'm just saying this is what I think the real logic of the
neocons who think they are saving the world is. I don't believe the
thinking is to secure the oil supply just for the U.S., but also for
the world (it's not just the U.S. that's threatened if something
happens to the world oil supply).

The problem with the logic is that the means don't serve the ends.

--Ram

David Wilkinson <> wrote:

> Ram Samudrala wrote:
>> Even though I'm not a fan of top down government, I don't think
>> there's an overt conspiracy here. Any collusion I think is the result
>> of opportunism.
>>
>> Whether the neocon idea worked in Iraq is another issue. I actually do
>> think they think they're doing the world a favour, not for getting rid
>> of Saddam (though that's a bonus in their eyes) but for having one
>> more way of controlling the politics of the mideast, as people have
>> been doing ever since oil become important. This is because the world
>> depends on oil and its supply and middle east regimes are somewhat
>> unstable.
>>
>> --Ram
>>
> Just which are these "unstable" middle east regimes? Saddam was in power
> for 30 years and would have stayed in power without the US invasion. The
> Saudi royal family have been there indefinitely. Ditto Kuwait, Brunei
> etc. Mubarak has been President of Egypt for 20 years and shows no sign
> of relinquishing power to anyone else. Even Israel has been in more or
> less its present form since formation in 1948. Iran was stable under the
> Shah and has been ruled by Ayatollahs ever since and shows no sign of
> changing.

> It seems more likely that the US is trying to propagate the myth of
> instability so it can move in troops, set up bases and get as much
> control of this oil producing region as it can.

Re: David W

Yea, right.



"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> The amount of excess time you have on your hands is incredible. What
>> law school did you attend?
>
> Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. You may have noticed that I've
> vanished for weeks at a time - family matters, overloads at work, etc.
>
> If I had more time, I would like to go back to school; lacking the time,
> I try to keep my mind active by reading subjects that are totally
> unrelated to anything I otherwise do. Interaction (in a class, at work,
> or informally, as here) helps to refine ideas and challenge one's biases
> in a way that reading alone does not.
>
> I am not a lawyer. I did have a great American history class in high
> school (I still have the notes) where we spent months on constitutional
> issues, down to studying individual Supreme Court cases.
> --
> Mark Freeland
>

Re: David W

So now you're saying that Bush and Blair lied about WMD to get at the oil?
Hmmm? Is this for their personal gain? Probably not. It seems there were
many in SH's wallet extracting a few green backs for their personal gain.
Of course, they were against the war. You got to love those anti War
leaders.

You simply dislike the US and anyone or any country that supports the US.
The war on terrorism is real, very real. Until the world finds alternative
energy sources, terrorism must be suppressed. There is no moral relativism
about the issue. Iran will be next.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5geat$iks$
> Ed wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Both main parties let us down.
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing that by "us" you mean those opposed to the war.
>>
>> When the government here first started building support for the invasion
>> I was all for it. WMD and they were headed here and to the European
>> allies. Blow them to hell. When it was becoming painfully obvious that
>> neither was true I became opposed.
>>
>> N. Korea has WMD, Iran is close, what's up with that? N. Korea fired a
>> test missile over Japan and nothing happened. I don't get it. What would
>> happen if Japan fired a test missile over N. Korea? Probably nothing I
>> guess.
>>
>>
>>
> You've missed the point Ed. The US did not attack Iraq because it thought
> it had WMDs but because it knew that Iraq did NOT have WMDs or any other
> worthwhile defence, but they did have oil. The difference is that North
> Korea may well have WMDs and certainly has about a million trained troops
> under arms and also has no oil, so why attack them.

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:4yrfe.10247$
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>It's only economic means that will bring peace to Iraq, though possibly
>
> some
>
>>UN peacekeepers may help.
>
>
> Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
>
>
>>
>
>
As I remember it the UN people in some numbers were in Iraq in a
peaceful role to help rebuild the country at one stage, some time after
the US "won" the war. Their headquarters was bombed and their lives
endangered so they left. It is not the UN's job to sort out the mess the
US has made of Iraq by destroying its government and trying to replace
it with one that is not appropriate to the country or people. The UN
refused to sanction the attack but the US thought it knew better and
went ahead anyway. The US caused the problem so let them sort it out.

Re: David W

NoEd <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
> news:d5jvbt$rdh$
>> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
>> more violence.

> The Civil War, WWI, and WWII didn't beget more violience.

It did. Violence hasn't stopped due to these wars. All these wars
taught people that violence is a workable solution, and so the
violence continues. WWI and WWII were really one war. WWII has taught
people that having nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire species
is worth possessing and it only takes one psychopath in the end to
make this happen.

> Pacifisim's logic is flawed.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing
evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding
deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that. --Martin Luther King Jr.

--Ram

> Sure, nation state governments might be afraid of
>> what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, a lot of individuals
>> who thought America was "weak" might be afraid at the show of power.
>> But these are people who are interested in their own survival---not
>> all humans are. All this does is egg on the psycopaths who don't care
>> about their own lives and want to inflict as much violence as possible
>> for no clear reason. And their weapons are getting better and better.
>>
>> It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is unleashed on a
>> civilian populace by terrorists. Then all the might in the world won't
>> matter. My guess is that it's less likely to happen in Canada or
>> Sweden than in the U.S. That's the reality of the neocon policy.
>>
>> --Ram
>>
>> Steven L. <> wrote:
>>
>>> NoEd wrote:
>>
>>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>>>>
>>>>>Ed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result of
>>>>>>>this purported lie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>>>>>>with a no bid contract.
>>>>>>I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>>>>>
>>>>>I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
>>>>>USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
>>>>>most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
>>>>>meeting all the important people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would
>>>>>be
>>>>>a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow
>>>>>the
>>>>>evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
>>>>>Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
>>>>>bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He did so he would be thought of as a hero?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to become
>>>>>President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the
>>>>>world,
>>>>>leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
>>>>>eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved to
>>>>>be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete
>>>>>noir,
>>>>>je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US
>>>> and
>>>> anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything
>>>> personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.
>>
>>> Let me clarify the neo-con thinking that drove our invasion of Iraq.
>>> (As you know, the neo-con analysts were the "brain trust" that resulted
>>> in our invading Iraq.)
>>
>>> The neo-cons have their own website, Project For The New American
>>> Century, on which you will find this
>>> article written months *before* 9-11:
>>
>>> "Liberate Iraq"
>>>
>>
>>> It's a long article.
>>> But the gist of it is in these three paragraphs:
>>
>>> "Totalitarians have a sixth sense for democratic weakness. A carnivore,
>>> Saddam Hussein probably knew early on (a good guess would be June 1993,
>>> when President Clinton cruise-missiled the empty intelligence
>>> headquarters) that Washington had no will to fight. By August 1996, when
>>> the United States failed to use its airpower to defend the Iraqi
>>> National Congress's lightly armed forces against Baghdad's mechanized
>>> brigades, there was no doubt.
>>> "America's hayba -- its ability to inspire awe, the critical factor in
>>> the Middle East's ruthless power politics -- had vanished. And once
>>> hayba is lost, only a demonstration of indomitable force restores it. A
>>> U.S. election, followed by President George W. Bush's slightly bigger
>>> bombing run over Iraq on February 16, doesn't cut it after years of
>>> pointless raids accompanied by American braggadocio....
>>> "The 'Arab street' has turned against the United States because Saddam
>>> Hussein once again has the look of a winner. Always popular with
>>> influential writers and intellectuals in the Arab world for his
>>> fire-breathing rhetoric against the age-old Western enemy, Saddam has
>>> restored his hayba by surviving and increasing his strength. By
>>> contrast, he casts Muslim Arab rulers who too closely associate with
>>> America as quislings, not statesmen wisely dealing with an indomitable,
>>> foreign power."
>>
>>
>>> What exactly are they saying here?
>>> That the U.S. has to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam as a way of
>>> restoring U.S. military credibility and restore our "hayba"--the world's
>>> "awe" of America. IOW, we have to make an example of Iraq in order to
>>> show the world we are "indomitable."
>>
>>> And they're right. If anything, they understated the case.
>>
>>> It's been two generations now since the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor
>>> by devastating our enemies including two nuclear attacks. The debacle
>>> in Vietnam resulted in an American nation that wouldn't risk a major
>>> bloody war anymore. (America supported the Gulf War only because
>>> American casualties were few and the war was over in a matter of months.)
>>
>>> And all our military hardware and troops are useless if the world has
>>> lost respect for America's willingness to defend its vital interests no
>>> matter what the cost.
>>
>>> My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this level of
>>> discussion: When will the United States start acting like a superpower
>>> again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore the
>>> respect the world had for our military might after 1945, without
>>> violence.
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Steven D. Litvintchouk
>>> Email:
>>
>>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > > But in no case has a court issued a writ ordering the President to
abide
> > by
> > > a treaty nor would a court issue such a writ.
> >
> > No court has ever issued a writ ordering a President not to burglarize
his
> > opponent's headquarters, either.
> >
> > In other words, the legal obligation to abide by a treaty is the same as
a
> > legal obligation not to drink and drive, etc. In both instances,
> violations
> > may result in consequences.
>
> I don't understand the parallel. Yes, all acts involve consequences.
> Abrogating a treaty has political and diplomatic consequences but is not
> felonious.

It may have financial consequences. Being impeached and then removed by the
senate is also not felonious. Most breaches of contracts are not felonious;
yet one may be held accountable by the courts for such breaches.

> A court ordered Nixon to provide evidence that he encouraged perjury which
> was a felony for which he could have been sent to prison. Bush simply
> abandoned the ABM treaty with no vote of Congress and no chance of a grand
> jury hearing testimony.

I don't understand. What is your objection to his abandoning the ABM treaty?
Do you think it was unlawful in some way?

> > > The Constitution
> > > unambiguously grants the President the sole right to conduct foreign
> > policy
> > > and the law (and the reach of the courts) ends at the water's edge.
> >
> > That's too vague to win my concurrence.
>
> Talk to the founding fathers. They wrote the clause.

You talk to the founding fathers. They did not write what you wrote above.

> > Many foreign policy issues require Congress's concurrence. Plus, if any
> act
> > (treaty-related or otherwise) by Congress or the President is illegal,
the
> > courts may get involved.
>
> Like what? Spending money requires an act of Congress and treaties must
be
> ratified by the Senate.

That's no small potatoes.

> Other than that,

You're forgetting that the power to declare war rests with Congress. You're
forgetting the c. 1970s War Powers Act.

> the President is free to "conduct
> the foreign policy" on his own.

This is not a quotation from the Constitution. I completely disagree that
the President is free to conduct the foreign policy on his own.

> When you say "illegal" I'm sure you mean
> under US law (Boland Amendment, eg) and NOT "international law."

I mean under U.S. law.

> > snip
> > > > Herb, you asked who presided over cases involving treaties. This and
> the
> > > > other examples respond to your query.
> > >
> > > This is a case regarding whether or not a death row inmate has a right
> to
> > a
> > > hearing, not whether or not the President can abrogate a treaty.
> >
> > So look at the other cases I cited. Or google yourself.
> >
> > [snip] I think the posts speak for themselves
>
> Yes they do: the courts have no jurisdiction to review the foreign policy
> (per se) of the United States vis-a-vis "international law."

The Constitution, Article III, Seciton 2, and my citations fully demonstrate
that you're wrong. You should try actually reading the Amistad case, for
one.

This has become repetitive and ridiculous and the worst of Usenet.

The posts continue to speak for themselves.

Re: David W

"sam grey" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Herb. This is precisely another Vietnam. Guerillas in Iraq
have
> > a just enough power to be a critical mass and will be successful in
> > thwarting democracy there. Enough people in Iraq hate Americans (for
killing
> > their relatives) or are on the fence on the matter, or just DO NOT want
> > foreigners telling them how to live their lives, that there is no chance
for
> > peace while the U.S. is present.
>
> Again, what's the point? I can remember many of us saying these
> exact same things three years ago or so, BEFORE the war started,
> as a Google search will surely affirm. It didn't matter then, and
> it doesn't matter now.

Sam, so you've given up?

I have not. At a minimum, I can attempt to find ways to persuade people,
especially lower income people who I believe are bearing the brunt of U.S.
deaths and maimings in Iraq, that this was a mistaken effort and we should
learn from it and stop the next Bush from attaining office.

> The Caesars of the world will have their way.
>
> I suppose I sound pessimistic.

Yup. You seem to be trying to persuade me to give up, too. AFAIC, that's
ethically wrong for any educated, well-to-do person. I'm surprised at you.

Well, you can't argue fervently
> against the election of one president (Gore vs. W.), argue
> fervently against what seemed to me to be an unprovoked
> preemptive war based on hoodwinkery (this recent Desert Whatever)
> argue fervently against the re-election of the same president
> (Kerry versus W.), have the British re-elect Blair for "an
> historical unprecedented third term", all the while seeming to be
> in the minority when arguing with most anybody about it, have
> MOST OF ONE'S DIRE PREDICTIONS COME TO PASS, and yet no one seems
> to give a rat's ass . . . and not be a little put off by the
> whole thing, a tad disillusioned. As a friend of mine recently
> said, it looks like things are going to have to get a whole lot
> worse before they get better. Maybe that will never happen. Maybe
> this is the new stability.
>
> The only thing I can think of that would make rock the situation
> is if a draft was imposed, and that doesn't look like it's going
> to happen anytime soon.
>
> You have your varied opinions among military families, but by and
> large many are proud to have sons and daughters serving in Iraq.

The media is increasingly reporting otherwise: Many of these young men and
women were ambivalent from the get-go. Some have even filed suit (notably,
some hiding out in Canada).


> It beats working at the 7-11 back home, or on unemployment.
> Around here there are lots of signs on houses that say "Proud
> parent of a marine serving in Iraq with such-and-such outfit,"
> with yellow ribbons and such. This is the new ethos.
>
> In other words, this is the new reality. Bush and Co. either
> through cleverness or brute force have changed history. Now we
> deal with it. It seems like it could be a situation that could
> remain stable for a long, long time. The closest analogy that I
> can think of, though far from perfect, is the Roman Empire.
>
> The war aside, it certainly seems as though the days of the New
> Deal have been thoroughly dismantled. It seems to me that those
> who are least served by these sorts of actions are the loudest
> proponents. But that's where the illogic comes in. I suppose
> Limbaugh and company have done their jobs well in educating the
> masses.

I think it's cyclical. This generation will take a hard lesson with Iraq.
The next generation will be smarter.

Re: David W

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> So now you're saying that Bush and Blair lied about WMD to get at the oil?
> Hmmm? Is this for their personal gain? Probably not. It seems there
> were many in SH's wallet extracting a few green backs for their personal
> gain. Of course, they were against the war. You got to love those anti
> War leaders.
>
> You simply dislike the US and anyone or any country that supports the US.
> The war on terrorism is real, very real. Until the world finds
> alternative energy sources, terrorism must be suppressed. There is no
> moral relativism about the issue. Iran will be next.

Unless the US gets relieved in Iraq, - which I hope will never happen, as I
believe the US alone should bear the burden of the crime they committed -,
your country is way too weak to wage conventional war on Iran, and
unconventional war (i.e. nukes) might just get you the same in return from
other nuclear powers... meaning potentially lights out for all of us at
least in the northern hemisphere. Your gang is playing a very dangerous game
which could become a hot world war. Putin is no fool. He clearly sees the
game Bush is playing. Expect some major weapons shipments to Iran from
Russia, if it appears the US is readying to go in. It won't be pretty.

PNAC Co-Signers was: Re: David W

Steven L. wrote:

>
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>> message news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>>
>>> Ed wrote:
>>>
>>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result
>>>>> of this purported lie?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big
>>>> time with a no bid contract.
>>>> I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>>>
>>>
>>> I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting
>>> the USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the,
>>> allegedly, most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a
>>> Statesman and meeting all the important people.
>>
>>
>>
>> He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.
>>
>>
>>
>>> He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It
>>> would be a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to
>>> overthrow the evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless,
>>> and the liberated Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero
>>> (Remember the single lucky bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and
>>> end the war at a stroke?)
>>
>>
>>
>> He did so he would be thought of as a hero?
>>
>>
>>> Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to
>>> become President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence
>>> the world, leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>>
>>
>>
>> But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal
>>> and eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he
>>> proved to be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>>>
>>> Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete
>>> noir, je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)
>>
>>
>>
>> You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US
>> and anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained
>> anything personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.
>
>
> Let me clarify the neo-con thinking that drove our invasion of Iraq. (As
> you know, the neo-con analysts were the "brain trust" that resulted in
> our invading Iraq.)
>
> The neo-cons have their own website, Project For The New American
> Century,

Among the signers of the PNAC "Declaration of Principles," here are some
names you may recognize:

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Steve Forbes
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz




--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: David W

Elle wrote:
> "R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
> H wrote
>
>>>I am convinced that we will leave Iraq with our tails between
>>>our legs. The only questions are when and how much human life
>>>and treasure we will piss down this hole first. How much "hayba"
>>>will we have then?
>>
>>But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
>>well,
>
>
> By what measure? Just the other day another few dozen were murdered by
> insurgents.
>
You are not following the news, or it is censored or suppressed in the
USA. There are two dozen killed EVERY day. For insurgents read freedom
fighters, depending on your point of view.

>
>>the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
>>be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.
>
>
> Why does it have to be "won"? And aren't we already said to have won it?
>
> If not, when do you think it may be said we won this war?
>
And who was it "won" against? The idea was to topple Saddam and then all
would be sweetness and light. The suppressed democrats in Iraq, which
was supposed to be everyone else except Saddam, would immediately hold
elections, the new government would be acclaimed and accepted by all,
the gunmen would lay down their arms and beat their swords into
ploughshares and they would all live happily ever after. Not quite how
it worked out was it.

> I agree with Herb. This is precisely another Vietnam. Guerillas in Iraq have
> a just enough power to be a critical mass and will be successful in
> thwarting democracy there. Enough people in Iraq hate Americans (for killing
> their relatives) or are on the fence on the matter, or just DO NOT want
> foreigners telling them how to live their lives, that there is no chance for
> peace while the U.S. is present.
>
> It's only economic means that will bring peace to Iraq, though possibly some
> UN peacekeepers may help.
>
>
The level of corruption and crime is such, and not just among the
Iraqis, that all aid supplied may be assumed will be stolen and misused.
Who was that man in the rebuilding organisation who "lost" $100m
recently? UN peacekeepers will not go there as it is too dangerous and
it is a US problem, not a UN one. If 150,000 heavily armed US troops
can't keep order then how could a few thousand UN peacekeepers.

The "democratic government" is already a fiasco. It has a offices of
President, two Vice-Presidents, a Prime Minister, possibly deputy Prime
Ministers and 37 cabinet ministers. They have spent 3 or 4 months just
arguing about who the office holders are to be and still have not quite
settled even that. The Sunnis are not playing ball and refused to take
part in the election. Everyone has lost patience with the whole thing
and insurgency has resumed.

This is still only interim government 2, to replace the first puppet
government under Allawi. Its main job is to draw up a constitution
before holding yet more elections for the "real" government 3. Meanwhile
neither the Iraqi government nor the US troops are able to keep any sort
of law and order and chaos reigns. Foreigners have to cringe in heavily
guarded camps like the Green Zone and travel, when they do at all, in
armoured vehicles, subject to roadside bombs, rocket propelled grenades
and small arms fire.

Sooner or later the US will realise, as the British realised 30 or 40
years ago when they gave up trying to run Iraq and pulled out, that
these people are ungovernable by foreign intervention and the only
solution is to let them sort themselves out. Last time a series of civil
wars between bandit groups ensued and led to Saddam emerging as military
dictator and he ruled for 30 years or so with the level of force
required to keep the peace. He is still available if the US has the good
sense to give him his old job back with compensation and rearm his
troops :-)

Re: David W

In article
<g7tfe.10285$>,
"Elle" <> wrote:

> Sam, so you've given up?

There's a difference between giving up and acknowledging that the
masses in power have made their preferences known through what,
for the most part, appears to be legitimate democratic methods.
Several times, now, too. As Herb once said, living in a
democratic system means occasionally or frequently having to
concede that the rest of the people want to do something you're
not so keen on doing. That's the way the democratic game is
played. Your only alternative is to form a new party or an
insurgency.

It's not so much that I've given up, but that I'm talked out.
Anyone who was going to listen to me listened to me a long time
ago, and they were of mostly like mind anyway to begin with.
Everyone else pretty much has their mind made up. As Dale
Carnegie once said, you never really can win an argument through
logic or force. You have to allow the other person to see what
you see through your eyes. That hasn't happened.

The situation at present is expensive, chaotic, inhumane,
inequitable, hegemonic, imperialistic, and--sustainable. For a
while. Maybe a long while.

Like I said, the real tipping point in public consensus will come
if there is imposed a draft, but I doubt the administration will
be dumb enough to try to do this. In the meantime, the majority
of the people who could do something about the matter en masse
will be too preoccupied following the details of the Michael
Jackson trial or Googling the internet for the contents of Paris
Hilton's hacked cell phone.

Before the election, I belonged to a Kerry election group. We met
regularly and attempted to strateragize how best to get the
message across that Kerry was the better candidate. After the
election, we didn't really know what to do, so we turned the
group into a book reading club. We read such things as What's the
Matter with Kansas? and The Myth of a Christian America. After a
while, I realized that I didn't have to educate myself further in
this way--I already agreed more or less with what these authors
were talking about in the first place. I didn't have to read
their books to agree that they were mostly right in my opinion,
and--what was worse--I didn't feel that becoming better informed
on these matters was going to help me persuade any on the right
to my point of view. Because the people who needed to be
persuaded were not going to listen to these kinds of arguments.
Because what we are experiencing these days is more of a
religious and cultural dissonance in the U.S. based on belief
systems. And belief always triumphs facts and logic, in the end,
no matter which side you're on. It's a rare person who argues in
order to be enlightened.

And I thought: this is why liberals lose all the time. When
there's a contentious point, they like to read about it and learn
more about it and debate it. This is NOT what the other side
does. As I think Adlai Stevenson once said (might have been
someone else), an intellectual would always rather argue than
fight.

During this past recent phase of history, arguing, debating, has
not worked. Brute force has more been the order of the day.

So, history will take its course. I will of course take advantage
of what opportunities arise to try to attempt to cajole policy
back on the path I'd rather have it on. But for a little guy like
me, these aren't very frequent, and certainly talking on Usenet
about it is pretty low on the power or utility scale. It is,
however, high on entertainment potential. I enjoy reading all the
discussions, although regrettably they are, in the end, academic.

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: David W

Sam, I share most of your sentiments expressed. It is beyond comprehension
how degenerate society is in condoning this sort of violence. In the end, I
can get angry, and the injustice of it all, and that's about the extent of
it. For quite a while I have tried to avoid reading about Iraq (until I read
these posts on usenet), and haven't much stayed up to date on purpose,
because there is no use. Those who strive for dominance will continue to do
so, whether I like it or not. Peace.

"sam grey" <> wrote in message
news:
> In article
> <g7tfe.10285$>,
> "Elle" <> wrote:
>
>> Sam, so you've given up?
>
> There's a difference between giving up and acknowledging that the
> masses in power have made their preferences known through what,
> for the most part, appears to be legitimate democratic methods.
> Several times, now, too. As Herb once said, living in a
> democratic system means occasionally or frequently having to
> concede that the rest of the people want to do something you're
> not so keen on doing. That's the way the democratic game is
> played. Your only alternative is to form a new party or an
> insurgency.
>
> It's not so much that I've given up, but that I'm talked out.
> Anyone who was going to listen to me listened to me a long time
> ago, and they were of mostly like mind anyway to begin with.
> Everyone else pretty much has their mind made up. As Dale
> Carnegie once said, you never really can win an argument through
> logic or force. You have to allow the other person to see what
> you see through your eyes. That hasn't happened.
>
> The situation at present is expensive, chaotic, inhumane,
> inequitable, hegemonic, imperialistic, and--sustainable. For a
> while. Maybe a long while.
>
> Like I said, the real tipping point in public consensus will come
> if there is imposed a draft, but I doubt the administration will
> be dumb enough to try to do this. In the meantime, the majority
> of the people who could do something about the matter en masse
> will be too preoccupied following the details of the Michael
> Jackson trial or Googling the internet for the contents of Paris
> Hilton's hacked cell phone.
>
> Before the election, I belonged to a Kerry election group. We met
> regularly and attempted to strateragize how best to get the
> message across that Kerry was the better candidate. After the
> election, we didn't really know what to do, so we turned the
> group into a book reading club. We read such things as What's the
> Matter with Kansas? and The Myth of a Christian America. After a
> while, I realized that I didn't have to educate myself further in
> this way--I already agreed more or less with what these authors
> were talking about in the first place. I didn't have to read
> their books to agree that they were mostly right in my opinion,
> and--what was worse--I didn't feel that becoming better informed
> on these matters was going to help me persuade any on the right
> to my point of view. Because the people who needed to be
> persuaded were not going to listen to these kinds of arguments.
> Because what we are experiencing these days is more of a
> religious and cultural dissonance in the U.S. based on belief
> systems. And belief always triumphs facts and logic, in the end,
> no matter which side you're on. It's a rare person who argues in
> order to be enlightened.
>
> And I thought: this is why liberals lose all the time. When
> there's a contentious point, they like to read about it and learn
> more about it and debate it. This is NOT what the other side
> does. As I think Adlai Stevenson once said (might have been
> someone else), an intellectual would always rather argue than
> fight.
>
> During this past recent phase of history, arguing, debating, has
> not worked. Brute force has more been the order of the day.
>
> So, history will take its course. I will of course take advantage
> of what opportunities arise to try to attempt to cajole policy
> back on the path I'd rather have it on. But for a little guy like
> me, these aren't very frequent, and certainly talking on Usenet
> about it is pretty low on the power or utility scale. It is,
> however, high on entertainment potential. I enjoy reading all the
> discussions, although regrettably they are, in the end, academic.
>
> --
>
> "Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
> never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed,
> in
> news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: David W

Ram Samudrala wrote:
> They are unstable in terms of the risk to global oil supply. Hussein
> first started a war with Iran, and then with Kuwait, which was a waste
> of oil-based resources that could've been used to supply the
> world. Likewise with the Iranian revolution. Bin Laden came out of
> Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is a place with a lot of tribal rivalry
> that has been well-documented.
>
> I don't believe these are necessarily good reasons to do anything,
> BTW. I'm just saying this is what I think the real logic of the
> neocons who think they are saving the world is. I don't believe the
> thinking is to secure the oil supply just for the U.S., but also for
> the world (it's not just the U.S. that's threatened if something
> happens to the world oil supply).
>
> The problem with the logic is that the means don't serve the ends.
>
> --Ram
>
Ram. I think you are being influenced by government propaganda. If you
want to understand what is really happening it is usually best to assume
that things are not what they seem or what they are made out to be.
There is the official story or line that the government puts across that
it hopes will be acceptable to the people, or most of them, and there is
the real reason or reasons that they don't want to talk about.

Saddam did indeed attack Iran, but who were his allies? No less than the
USA who supplied his arms including chemical weapons, from Rumsfeld
himself, supplier of WMDs to Saddam! Attacking Kuwait was probably
Saddam's idea and a bad one, but he was easily thrown out again and
contained afterwards. There was no possibility of him attacking any
other country after that so he was never a threat again.

Bin Laden is from a Saudi family but operated from Afghanistan as a
terrorist so there is no obvious threat to or from Saudi Arabia AFAIK.

The Iranian revolution was a popular uprising to overthrow a monarch who
was too much into secret police and who died of cancer soon afterwards
anyway. The Islamic fundamentalist governments that replaced him under
the Ayatollahs are totally stable, probably a lot more so than the USA
some of whose recent Presidents have been variously impeached, forced to
resign to avoid impeachment, shot and wounded and assassinated.

I still can't see any real instability in the region. It is very likely
just a front, like the imaginary threat from WMDs and the hardly less
imaginary "war on terror" to justify what governments always want to do,
get control of essential supples like oil.

Re: David W

You're saying that there is no real instability, but I think the
instability has been in that region for millenia. Bin Laden is a sign
of Saudi instability, for example. Hussein just going off half-cocked
is yet another sign.

I think you're missing my point though. I don't have too many
disagreements with what you've said and in fact, it reinforces my
point. The US (and the world) has been interfering in the Middle East
ever since oil became important and that itself has led to
instability, just like Iraq right now is not stable. But it's a never
ending cycle.

My point is what the neocons who truly think they're making the world
a better place believe. This is NOT the government propaganda--the
propaganda has been WMD and then democracy. "Securing the world's oil
supply" has never part of the propaganda here at least.

--Ram

David Wilkinson <> wrote:

> Ram Samudrala wrote:
>> They are unstable in terms of the risk to global oil supply. Hussein
>> first started a war with Iran, and then with Kuwait, which was a waste
>> of oil-based resources that could've been used to supply the
>> world. Likewise with the Iranian revolution. Bin Laden came out of
>> Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is a place with a lot of tribal rivalry
>> that has been well-documented.
>>
>> I don't believe these are necessarily good reasons to do anything,
>> BTW. I'm just saying this is what I think the real logic of the
>> neocons who think they are saving the world is. I don't believe the
>> thinking is to secure the oil supply just for the U.S., but also for
>> the world (it's not just the U.S. that's threatened if something
>> happens to the world oil supply).
>>
>> The problem with the logic is that the means don't serve the ends.
>>
>> --Ram
>>
> Ram. I think you are being influenced by government propaganda. If you
> want to understand what is really happening it is usually best to assume
> that things are not what they seem or what they are made out to be.
> There is the official story or line that the government puts across that
> it hopes will be acceptable to the people, or most of them, and there is
> the real reason or reasons that they don't want to talk about.

> Saddam did indeed attack Iran, but who were his allies? No less than the
> USA who supplied his arms including chemical weapons, from Rumsfeld
> himself, supplier of WMDs to Saddam! Attacking Kuwait was probably
> Saddam's idea and a bad one, but he was easily thrown out again and
> contained afterwards. There was no possibility of him attacking any
> other country after that so he was never a threat again.

> Bin Laden is from a Saudi family but operated from Afghanistan as a
> terrorist so there is no obvious threat to or from Saudi Arabia AFAIK.

> The Iranian revolution was a popular uprising to overthrow a monarch who
> was too much into secret police and who died of cancer soon afterwards
> anyway. The Islamic fundamentalist governments that replaced him under
> the Ayatollahs are totally stable, probably a lot more so than the USA
> some of whose recent Presidents have been variously impeached, forced to
> resign to avoid impeachment, shot and wounded and assassinated.

> I still can't see any real instability in the region. It is very likely
> just a front, like the imaginary threat from WMDs and the hardly less
> imaginary "war on terror" to justify what governments always want to do,
> get control of essential supples like oil.

Re: David W

"Clemens Gehrmann" <> wrote in
message news:vqtfe.43993$

> least in the northern hemisphere. Your gang is playing a very dangerous
> game which could become a hot world war. Putin is no fool. He clearly sees
> the game Bush is playing. Expect some major weapons shipments to Iran from
> Russia, if it appears the US is readying to go in. It won't be pretty.

With the US stretched thin in so many military adventures, I am wondering if
China might take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and North Korea might
decide to go back into South Korea.

Re: David W

Damn look at all this fun I've been missing...

"HW "Skip" Weldon" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Good question. And while we're into "Monday morning quarterbacking",
> what ever happened to all those folks who claimed that the Evil Bush
> was going to steal the Iraq oil?
>
i'm still waiting for 3m barrels per day that cheney/wolfie duo promised.
think about this: if it weren't for oil and israel, why would neocons, and
bush for that matter, care so much about almighty's gift to middle east?
we'd be ignoring that wretched place like we ignore africa.

Re: David W

A walking contradiction rarely makes since, and you provide another example.


"Clemens Gehrmann" <> wrote in
message news:vqtfe.43993$
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> So now you're saying that Bush and Blair lied about WMD to get at the
>> oil? Hmmm? Is this for their personal gain? Probably not. It seems
>> there were many in SH's wallet extracting a few green backs for their
>> personal gain. Of course, they were against the war. You got to love
>> those anti War leaders.
>>
>> You simply dislike the US and anyone or any country that supports the US.
>> The war on terrorism is real, very real. Until the world finds
>> alternative energy sources, terrorism must be suppressed. There is no
>> moral relativism about the issue. Iran will be next.
>
> Unless the US gets relieved in Iraq, - which I hope will never happen, as
> I believe the US alone should bear the burden of the crime they
> committed -, your country is way too weak to wage conventional war on
> Iran, and unconventional war (i.e. nukes) might just get you the same in
> return from other nuclear powers... meaning potentially lights out for all
> of us at least in the northern hemisphere. Your gang is playing a very
> dangerous game which could become a hot world war. Putin is no fool. He
> clearly sees the game Bush is playing. Expect some major weapons shipments
> to Iran from Russia, if it appears the US is readying to go in. It won't
> be pretty.
>

Re: David W

Its tough being the defender of the free world.


"Don" <> wrote in message
news:iYvfe.46359$
> "Clemens Gehrmann" <> wrote in
> message news:vqtfe.43993$
>
>> least in the northern hemisphere. Your gang is playing a very dangerous
>> game which could become a hot world war. Putin is no fool. He clearly
>> sees the game Bush is playing. Expect some major weapons shipments to
>> Iran from Russia, if it appears the US is readying to go in. It won't be
>> pretty.
>
> With the US stretched thin in so many military adventures, I am wondering
> if China might take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and North Korea
> might decide to go back into South Korea.
>

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5lmac$8ql$
> NoEd <> wrote:
>
>> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
>> news:d5jvbt$rdh$
>>> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
>>> more violence.
>
>> The Civil War, WWI, and WWII didn't beget more violience.


>
> It did. Violence hasn't stopped due to these wars. All these wars
> taught people that violence is a workable solution, and so the
> violence continues. WWI and WWII were really one war. WWII has taught
> people that having nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire species
> is worth possessing and it only takes one psychopath in the end to
> make this happen.

The last time I checked the south was still part of the union, the slaves
were freed, and neither the Japanese nor the Germans have started another
war. Again your logic is flawed. Should the war against facism not been
fought and won simply becasue all future violence could not be prevented?
Huh. Tell that to the Jews in the concentration camps.


>
>> Pacifisim's logic is flawed.
>
> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
> begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.

This is simply not true. If you shoot an intruder to your home raping you
wife does that beget more violence. Illogical.

Instead of diminishing
> evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater,
> but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
> hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding
> deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot
> drive out hate; only love can do that. --Martin Luther King Jr.

Hog Wash!! Give a few real world examples. Sort of makes you feel warm all
over, but reality will not been suspended.


>
> --Ram
>
>> Sure, nation state governments might be afraid of
>>> what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, a lot of individuals
>>> who thought America was "weak" might be afraid at the show of power.
>>> But these are people who are interested in their own survival---not
>>> all humans are. All this does is egg on the psycopaths who don't care
>>> about their own lives and want to inflict as much violence as possible
>>> for no clear reason. And their weapons are getting better and better.
>>>
>>> It's only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is unleashed on a
>>> civilian populace by terrorists. Then all the might in the world won't
>>> matter. My guess is that it's less likely to happen in Canada or
>>> Sweden than in the U.S. That's the reality of the neocon policy.
>>>
>>> --Ram
>>>
>>> Steven L. <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OK. What personal benefit have Bush and Blair received as a result
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>this purported lie?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At the very least Cheney got to pay back his former employer big time
>>>>>>>with a no bid contract.
>>>>>>>I doubt you'll see how Bush benefited in the everyday media.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
>>>>>>most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
>>>>>>meeting all the important people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He did because he wanted to Bush's buddy? Come On.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>He hoped to persuade the UN to back him in a combined effort. It would
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>a simple and quick matter for the US with his UK backing to overthrow
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>evil dictator Saddam, who was virtually defenceless, and the liberated
>>>>>>Iraqi people would acclaim him as a co-Hero (Remember the single lucky
>>>>>>bomb approach that was to kill Saddam and end the war at a stroke?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He did so he would be thought of as a hero?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Admired by his many allies, he would be reluctantly persuaded to
>>>>>>become
>>>>>>President of Europe and presumably, later, of the UN and hence the
>>>>>>world,
>>>>>>leaving all those little carping critics in England behind.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the rest of Europe whould hold his support against him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Presumably full conversion to Roman Catholicism, honorary Cardinal and
>>>>>>eventually Pope, followed by canonisation to St Tony unless he proved
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>be immortal was in there somewhere as plan "B".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where did it all go wrong? Zut, Alors! Cet cochon Chirac et son bete
>>>>>>noir,
>>>>>>je pense! (with apologies to anyone who speaks French!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are simply blabbering trying to justify your antagonism for the US
>>>>> and
>>>>> anyone who supports the US. Neither Bush nor Blair gained anything
>>>>> personally, so you're going to have to prove they are mad.
>>>
>>>> Let me clarify the neo-con thinking that drove our invasion of Iraq.
>>>> (As you know, the neo-con analysts were the "brain trust" that resulted
>>>> in our invading Iraq.)
>>>
>>>> The neo-cons have their own website, Project For The New American
>>>> Century, on which you will find
>>>> this
>>>> article written months *before* 9-11:
>>>
>>>> "Liberate Iraq"
>>>>
>>>
>>>> It's a long article.
>>>> But the gist of it is in these three paragraphs:
>>>
>>>> "Totalitarians have a sixth sense for democratic weakness. A carnivore,
>>>> Saddam Hussein probably knew early on (a good guess would be June 1993,
>>>> when President Clinton cruise-missiled the empty intelligence
>>>> headquarters) that Washington had no will to fight. By August 1996,
>>>> when
>>>> the United States failed to use its airpower to defend the Iraqi
>>>> National Congress's lightly armed forces against Baghdad's mechanized
>>>> brigades, there was no doubt.
>>>> "America's hayba -- its ability to inspire awe, the critical factor in
>>>> the Middle East's ruthless power politics -- had vanished. And once
>>>> hayba is lost, only a demonstration of indomitable force restores it. A
>>>> U.S. election, followed by President George W. Bush's slightly bigger
>>>> bombing run over Iraq on February 16, doesn't cut it after years of
>>>> pointless raids accompanied by American braggadocio....
>>>> "The 'Arab street' has turned against the United States because Saddam
>>>> Hussein once again has the look of a winner. Always popular with
>>>> influential writers and intellectuals in the Arab world for his
>>>> fire-breathing rhetoric against the age-old Western enemy, Saddam has
>>>> restored his hayba by surviving and increasing his strength. By
>>>> contrast, he casts Muslim Arab rulers who too closely associate with
>>>> America as quislings, not statesmen wisely dealing with an indomitable,
>>>> foreign power."
>>>
>>>
>>>> What exactly are they saying here?
>>>> That the U.S. has to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam as a way of
>>>> restoring U.S. military credibility and restore our "hayba"--the
>>>> world's
>>>> "awe" of America. IOW, we have to make an example of Iraq in order to
>>>> show the world we are "indomitable."
>>>
>>>> And they're right. If anything, they understated the case.
>>>
>>>> It's been two generations now since the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor
>>>> by devastating our enemies including two nuclear attacks. The debacle
>>>> in Vietnam resulted in an American nation that wouldn't risk a major
>>>> bloody war anymore. (America supported the Gulf War only because
>>>> American casualties were few and the war was over in a matter of
>>>> months.)
>>>
>>>> And all our military hardware and troops are useless if the world has
>>>> lost respect for America's willingness to defend its vital interests no
>>>> matter what the cost.
>>>
>>>> My problem is that the debate over Iraq never got to this level of
>>>> discussion: When will the United States start acting like a superpower
>>>> again and not like a scared rabbit? Because we cannot restore the
>>>> respect the world had for our military might after 1945, without
>>>> violence.
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Steven D. Litvintchouk
>>>> Email:
>>>
>>>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
>

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5j4b9$ei6$
>
> I expect the Blair scenario went something like this. By supporting the
> USA and Bush he got to be a friend and trusted ally of the, allegedly,
> most powerful man in the world, trotting the world as a Statesman and
> meeting all the important people.
>
I personally believe blair's intentions were more pragmatic, similar to
clinton's. the sanctions that were killing hundreds of thousands iraqis
were problematic and had to go. and it could go away only if saddam went
away. a bit different from the US neocons calculus of ideology and greed.
the only problem is that we now know that saddam was already crumbling and
it would've been a lot cheaper just to wait out.

Re: David W

NoEd <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
> news:d5lmac$8ql$
>> NoEd <> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
>>> news:d5jvbt$rdh$
>>>> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
>>>> more violence.
>>
>>> The Civil War, WWI, and WWII didn't beget more violience.

>> It did. Violence hasn't stopped due to these wars. All these wars
>> taught people that violence is a workable solution, and so the
>> violence continues. WWI and WWII were really one war. WWII has taught
>> people that having nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire species
>> is worth possessing and it only takes one psychopath in the end to
>> make this happen.

> The last time I checked the south was still part of the union, the
> slaves were freed, and neither the Japanese nor the Germans have
> started another war. Again your logic is flawed. Should the war
> against facism not been fought and won simply becasue all future
> violence could not be prevented? Huh. Tell that to the Jews in the
> concentration camps.

Last I checked, the profileration of nuclear weapons has reached a
point where the entire human species can be wiped out several times
over, and it's a matter of time before some psycopath detonates one in
a major city. That's what the idea of using violence as a solution
gets you.

The statement is "violence begets more violence." It's because of WWI
that Hitler rose to power. All the WWII did was treat a problem (from
WWI) caused by human attitudes regarding physical violence and war,
but it did not cure it as 9/11 showed (and more importantly, as the
scenario to use nuclear weapons shows).


>>
>>> Pacifisim's logic is flawed.
>>
>> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
>> begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.

> This is simply not true. If you shoot an intruder to your home
> raping you wife does that beget more violence. Illogical.

That's because you're taking the short term view. The same thing that
lets you shoot an intruder is what enables this intruder to come into
your house in the first place, the capacity to commit physical
violence. Today you might feel justified in shooting the intruder, but
tomorrow the intruder's brother might well feel justified in killing
you. Or it'll just teach the next intruder to have a bigger gun.

>> Instead of diminishing
>> evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater,
>> but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
>> hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding
>> deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot
>> drive out hate; only love can do that. --Martin Luther King Jr.

> Hog Wash!! Give a few real world examples. Sort of makes you feel
> warm all over, but reality will not been suspended.

The entire civil rights movement in this country and Indian
independence are examples were pacifistic views have had a tremendous
influence.

You're right that it is not realistic to expect that humans will
simply give up physical violence, but that doesn't undermine the logic
of violence begetting more violence. The *logic* of King's words is
right. Humans are not logical creatures and that's the reality you
speak of. But humans can learn to channel physical violence. Most
humans go about their day to day activities without ever committing
physical violence. Why is there less physical violence in North
America compared to Sudan?

--Ram

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5m46m$jrk$
> NoEd <> wrote:
>
>> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
>> news:d5lmac$8ql$
>>> NoEd <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:d5jvbt$rdh$
>>>>> The logic of the neocons however is flawed. Violence will always beget
>>>>> more violence.
>>>
>>>> The Civil War, WWI, and WWII didn't beget more violience.
>
>>> It did. Violence hasn't stopped due to these wars. All these wars
>>> taught people that violence is a workable solution, and so the
>>> violence continues. WWI and WWII were really one war. WWII has taught
>>> people that having nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire species
>>> is worth possessing and it only takes one psychopath in the end to
>>> make this happen.
>
>> The last time I checked the south was still part of the union, the
>> slaves were freed, and neither the Japanese nor the Germans have
>> started another war. Again your logic is flawed. Should the war
>> against facism not been fought and won simply becasue all future
>> violence could not be prevented? Huh. Tell that to the Jews in the
>> concentration camps.
>
> Last I checked, the profileration of nuclear weapons has reached a
> point where the entire human species can be wiped out several times
> over, and it's a matter of time before some psycopath detonates one in
> a major city. That's what the idea of using violence as a solution
> gets you.

No. You said violence begets violence. I showed you that was wrong. If the
US were NOT armed to the teeth with both neclear and non nuclear weapons,
would there have been more or less wars sence 1945? I say far more.

>
> The statement is "violence begets more violence." It's because of WWI
> that Hitler rose to power. All the WWII did was treat a problem (from
> WWI) caused by human attitudes regarding physical violence and war,
> but it did not cure it as 9/11 showed (and more importantly, as the
> scenario to use nuclear weapons shows).

WWI created Hitler? Huh. No way. No WWII stopped facisim. Since there
will ALWAYS be humans with attitudes favoring war, war to stop those with
these attitudes is just and necessiary. I want to see you argue that those
who stop those with attitudes that favor war also created those with
attitudes that favor war, e.g. did US and UK create SH, Hitler, Stalin, OBL,
etc.

>
>
>>>
>>>> Pacifisim's logic is flawed.
>>>
>>> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
>>> begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
>
>> This is simply not true. If you shoot an intruder to your home
>> raping you wife does that beget more violence. Illogical.
>
> That's because you're taking the short term view. The same thing that
> lets you shoot an intruder is what enables this intruder to come into
> your house in the first place, the capacity to commit physical
> violence. Today you might feel justified in shooting the intruder, but
> tomorrow the intruder's brother might well feel justified in killing
> you. Or it'll just teach the next intruder to have a bigger gun.

What?? LOL. I would be right; the intruder's brother would have been wrong.
You cannot remove context from moral considerations. It is precisely context
that determines whether an action is moral or immoral. Your position is that
violence is always wrong. But then that is an abosolute, so you must agree
there are moral absolutes since you use one to support your postion (Ayn
Rand's logic).

>
>>> Instead of diminishing
>>> evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater,
>>> but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
>>> hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding
>>> deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot
>>> drive out hate; only love can do that. --Martin Luther King Jr.
>
>> Hog Wash!! Give a few real world examples. Sort of makes you feel
>> warm all over, but reality will not been suspended.
>
> The entire civil rights movement in this country and Indian
> independence are examples were pacifistic views have had a tremendous
> influence.

Pacifism will not stop terrorism as it could not stop slavery and facisim..
It can work best is certain cases, but not in all cases.

>
> You're right that it is not realistic to expect that humans will
> simply give up physical violence, but that doesn't undermine the logic
> of violence begetting more violence. The *logic* of King's words is
> right. Humans are not logical creatures and that's the reality you
> speak of. But humans can learn to channel physical violence. Most
> humans go about their day to day activities without ever committing
> physical violence. Why is there less physical violence in North
> America compared to Sudan?

Of course violence of the agreesor is illogical, but the violence of the
defender is.

>
> --Ram

Re: David W

NoEd <> wrote:

> No. You said violence begets violence. I showed you that was wrong.
> If the US were NOT armed to the teeth with both neclear and non
> nuclear weapons, would there have been more or less wars sence 1945?
> I say far more.

WWI led to WWII. It is one of the clearest cases of where one war led
to another. And WWII lead to the cold war which resulted in a HUGE
amount of violence. See below for one pointer and you can do the
further research yourself.

>> The statement is "violence begets more violence." It's because of WWI
>> that Hitler rose to power. All the WWII did was treat a problem (from
>> WWI) caused by human attitudes regarding physical violence and war,
>> but it did not cure it as 9/11 showed (and more importantly, as the
>> scenario to use nuclear weapons shows).

> WWI created Hitler? Huh. No way.

This is an easy one. Do a google search on the relationship between
WWI and WWII--there's a ton of stuff on this. If you don't believe it,
then there's nothing else I can do. But here's ONE example:


"Origins of World War Two

Resentment at the harsh peace of World War One fuelled the rise of
Adolf Hitler...."

> No WWII stopped facisim.

So there's no more facism in the world then?

> Since there will ALWAYS be humans with attitudes favoring war, war
> to stop those with these attitudes is just and necessiary.

But it is illogical and will give rise to more violence.

> I want to see you argue that those who stop those with attitudes
> that favor war also created those with attitudes that favor war,
> e.g. did US and UK create SH, Hitler, Stalin, OBL, etc.

No, the US and UK did not create anyone. The logic you use, that
violence is an acceptable solution, did. People can use the same logic
whether they're "good" or "bad" (even though I'm not making any moral
judgements here).

WWII lead to the cold war which lead to the possibility of the entire
human species being annhilated, not to mention all the cold war
proxies fought in the world, which also led to the current 9/11
US-Iraq war. This is begetting more violence.

> What?? LOL. I would be right; the intruder's brother would have been
> wrong.

So what? It wouldn't stop the violence, which is the problem I'm
referring to.

> You cannot remove context from moral considerations. It is precisely
> context that determines whether an action is moral or immoral. Your
> position is that violence is always wrong. But then that is an
> abosolute, so you must agree there are moral absolutes since you use
> one to support your postion (Ayn Rand's logic).

The words I used were "violence begets more violence". I've not yet
made a value judgement about good and bad. Where did I say "violence
is always wrong"? I'm saying it's illogical, if the goal is to end
physical violence once and for all.

No, I don't agree with moral absolutes. I'm just saying violence as a
solution to a problem (of violence usually but it can be anything)
begets more violence since it endorses the logic that violence can be
used as a solution. In other words, if you don't want to live in a
violent world, you should completely eschew violence.

> Of course violence of the agreesor is illogical, but the violence of
> the defender is.

No, for the reasons I gave you above, since the "aggressor" and
"defender" are not clearly delineated. In your specific example, for
killing the rapist, you become an aggressor in the eyes of the
rapist's brother. All your moral absolutism or relativism is
irrelevant since you just go through the cycle of violence. Bin Laden
thinks he's fighting a just and moral war, and he thinks the U.S. is
the aggressor. And suppose the U.S. does win against Bin Laden, then
someone else will take their place. And so on. This is the world that
lives by the logic you espouse here. That's all I'm saying.

--Ram

Re: David W

In article <A_gfe.30736$>,
Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:
> b) If that were so, then why is the US still occupying the land? The "Lease"
> was entered into in 1903 and would - if what you say is true - have expired
> in 2002

The lease was renewed in 1934, and the lease currently continues
until both sides mutually agree to end it.

> No doubt, Russia has similar
> agreements with the bases it occupies. My point is, these agreements were
> signed with governments established under occupation, and should therefore
> be considered null and void. It's like making a contract with a prisoner.

If Cuba ever develops a democratic form of government, instead of the
dictator thug it currently has, then if the lease should continue can
be addressed.

Re: David W

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

> Its tough being the defender of the free world.

What I worry about most is Russia taking back Alaska and Mexico taking back
Texas.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5lm88$8vo$
> Herb wrote:
> > "Elle" <> wrote in message
> > news:4yrfe.10247$
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>It's only economic means that will bring peace to Iraq, though possibly
> >
> > some
> >
> >>UN peacekeepers may help.
> >
> >
> > Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> As I remember it the UN people in some numbers were in Iraq in a
> peaceful role to help rebuild the country at one stage, some time after
> the US "won" the war. Their headquarters was bombed and their lives
> endangered so they left. It is not the UN's job to sort out the mess the
> US has made of Iraq by destroying its government and trying to replace
> it with one that is not appropriate to the country or people. The UN
> refused to sanction the attack but the US thought it knew better and
> went ahead anyway. The US caused the problem so let them sort it out.

David:

Is there some reason you are saying "US" and "they" instead of "US and UK"
and "we?" Take some responsibility. You are in this up to your eyeballs.

-herb

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5me03$qtd$
> NoEd <> wrote:
>
>> No. You said violence begets violence. I showed you that was wrong.
>> If the US were NOT armed to the teeth with both neclear and non
>> nuclear weapons, would there have been more or less wars sence 1945?
>> I say far more.
>
> WWI led to WWII. It is one of the clearest cases of where one war led
> to another. And WWII lead to the cold war which resulted in a HUGE
> amount of violence. See below for one pointer and you can do the
> further research yourself.

No hyperinflation lead to WWII.


>
>>> The statement is "violence begets more violence." It's because of WWI
>>> that Hitler rose to power. All the WWII did was treat a problem (from
>>> WWI) caused by human attitudes regarding physical violence and war,
>>> but it did not cure it as 9/11 showed (and more importantly, as the
>>> scenario to use nuclear weapons shows).
>
>> WWI created Hitler? Huh. No way.
>
> This is an easy one. Do a google search on the relationship between
> WWI and WWII--there's a ton of stuff on this. If you don't believe it,
> then there's nothing else I can do. But here's ONE example:
>
>
> "Origins of World War Two
>
> Resentment at the harsh peace of World War One fuelled the rise of
> Adolf Hitler...."

Then why did WWII not lead to WWIII?


>
>> No WWII stopped facisim.
>
> So there's no more facism in the world then?
>
>> Since there will ALWAYS be humans with attitudes favoring war, war
>> to stop those with these attitudes is just and necessiary.
>
> But it is illogical and will give rise to more violence.

Just repeating your mantra is not arguementation.

>
>> I want to see you argue that those who stop those with attitudes
>> that favor war also created those with attitudes that favor war,
>> e.g. did US and UK create SH, Hitler, Stalin, OBL, etc.
>
> No, the US and UK did not create anyone. The logic you use, that
> violence is an acceptable solution, did. People can use the same logic
> whether they're "good" or "bad" (even though I'm not making any moral
> judgements here).

So the French and the English should have surrendered in WWI to prevent
WWII? You are making moral judgements, i.e. violence is always wrong.


>
> WWII lead to the cold war which lead to the possibility of the entire
> human species being annhilated, not to mention all the cold war
> proxies fought in the world, which also led to the current 9/11
> US-Iraq war. This is begetting more violence.
>
>> What?? LOL. I would be right; the intruder's brother would have been
>> wrong.
>
> So what? It wouldn't stop the violence, which is the problem I'm
> referring to.

Sure it would. The guy raping my wife is dead. He can't rape or kill again.

>
>> You cannot remove context from moral considerations. It is precisely
>> context that determines whether an action is moral or immoral. Your
>> position is that violence is always wrong. But then that is an
>> abosolute, so you must agree there are moral absolutes since you use
>> one to support your postion (Ayn Rand's logic).
>
> The words I used were "violence begets more violence". I've not yet
> made a value judgement about good and bad. Where did I say "violence
> is always wrong"? I'm saying it's illogical, if the goal is to end
> physical violence once and for all.

>
> No, I don't agree with moral absolutes.

But you said violence begets violence, and all violence is bad. That is an
absolute. It is impossible to avoid absolutes unless you can argue the non
existence of what exists, but to do that you would have to somehow step out
of existence. Go for it.


I'm just saying violence as a
> solution to a problem (of violence usually but it can be anything)
> begets more violence since it endorses the logic that violence can be
> used as a solution. In other words, if you don't want to live in a
> violent world, you should completely eschew violence.
>
>> Of course violence of the agreesor is illogical, but the violence of
>> the defender is.
>
> No, for the reasons I gave you above, since the "aggressor" and
> "defender" are not clearly delineated.

Those who or would murder are the aggressors. Clear?


In your specific example, for
> killing the rapist, you become an aggressor in the eyes of the
> rapist's brother.

So is rape always wrong?

All your moral absolutism or relativism is
> irrelevant since you just go through the cycle of violence.

What??? More touchy feely blabber

Bin Laden
> thinks he's fighting a just and moral war, and he thinks the U.S. is
> the aggressor.

So, is he?


And suppose the U.S. does win against Bin Laden, then
> someone else will take their place. And so on. This is the world that
> lives by the logic you espouse here. That's all I'm saying.

So here we are. The aggressor and and defender are moral equivalents. The
defender becomes as bad as the aggressor by thwarting the aggressor.
Sounds like my UCLA days. What else can be said?

>
> --Ram

Re: David W

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message
news:d5mg46$5t0$
> In article <A_gfe.30736$>,
> Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:
>> b) If that were so, then why is the US still occupying the land? The
>> "Lease"
>> was entered into in 1903 and would - if what you say is true - have
>> expired
>> in 2002
>
> The lease was renewed in 1934, and the lease currently continues
> until both sides mutually agree to end it.

The "agreement" has been broken by illegal activities committed in breach of
the "contract", as I noted.

>> No doubt, Russia has similar
>> agreements with the bases it occupies. My point is, these agreements were
>> signed with governments established under occupation, and should
>> therefore
>> be considered null and void. It's like making a contract with a prisoner.
>
> If Cuba ever develops a democratic form of government, instead of the
> dictator thug it currently has, then if the lease should continue can
> be addressed.

Excuse me, your country is the one with the dictator thug. Fidel Castro has
way more interest in doing things for the people of Cuba than Bush has for
the people of the US. Castro overthrew a corrupt dictatorship which had the
backing of the US. Like it or not, Fidel Castro has the backing of the vast
majority of the Cuban people, and his government is recognized by the entire
world, minus the US, as the legitimate government of Cuba. Aside from that,
who's made you the rulers of the world to decide what country must accept
what form of government, while I was napping?

Re: David W

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:iYvfe.46359$
> "Clemens Gehrmann" <> wrote in
> message news:vqtfe.43993$
>
>> least in the northern hemisphere. Your gang is playing a very dangerous
>> game which could become a hot world war. Putin is no fool. He clearly
>> sees the game Bush is playing. Expect some major weapons shipments to
>> Iran from Russia, if it appears the US is readying to go in. It won't be
>> pretty.
>
> With the US stretched thin in so many military adventures, I am wondering
> if China might take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and North Korea
> might decide to go back into South Korea.

I think China is more interested in peaceful reunification, and that would
be the motivation behind meeting with the opposition leaders. I don't
believe North Korea has any intention on invading the south. Their weapons
development is most likely to prevent an attack by the US, because as Iraq
has proven, a weak country on the US hit list WILL be invaded. If they're
smart, they will not let anyone disarm them while there is no guarantee of
their safety.

If there would be a will, there would be a way for world peace. Draw up a UN
Resolution which makes it mandatory for all countries of the world to
declare war on any country which instigates war against another sovereign
state, and there you will have world peace. Not even the US would dare to
invade a place like Grenada under those threats. All other issues like e.g.
genocide to be handled by the Security Council.

Re: David W

NoEd <> wrote:

>> WWI led to WWII. It is one of the clearest cases of where one war led
>> to another. And WWII lead to the cold war which resulted in a HUGE
>> amount of violence. See below for one pointer and you can do the
>> further research yourself.

> No hyperinflation lead to WWII.

Like I said, there's a ton of literature relating WWII to WWI. To me,
that is a given. If you don't believe it, that's fine, but that's my
position. I've pointed you to at least one source and told you how to
find more.

> Then why did WWII not lead to WWIII?

There's still time.

Seriously, it did in a way since it led to the cold war which led to a
lot of proxy wars, including wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, which
led to Bin Laden which led to 9/11 which led to the Iraq war. Violence
begets violence.

> So the French and the English should have surrendered in WWI to
> prevent WWII?

I'm not saying anything about what should be done. I'm saying
"violence begets violence". It's a purely logical statement and
argument.

> You are making moral judgements, i.e. violence is always wrong.

Nope, I'm not making any moral judgements. I'm saying if the goal is
to eliminate or significantly reduce violence in this world, using
violence to do so is illogical.

> Sure it would. The guy raping my wife is dead. He can't rape or
> kill again.

But his brother might rape again after killing you. Violence begets
violence.

> But you said violence begets violence, and all violence is bad.

Nope, I didn't say "all violence is bad". Do quote me on saying "all
violence is bad" in this thread at least.

> Those who or would murder are the aggressors. Clear?

Again, who is a murderer depends on the perspective of the person
using the label. Bin Laden has called Americans "murderers".

> So is rape always wrong?

"Right" and "wrong" are value judgements that I am not using here (nor
is this the argument I'm making).

>> Bin Laden thinks he's fighting a just and moral war, and he thinks
>> the U.S. is the aggressor.

> So, is he?

It depends on whose perspective you take. The 19 people who flew
planes into buildings on 9/11 agreed with him at least to some
degree. And they just used the same logic you're using now to justify
violence.

> So here we are. The aggressor and and defender are moral
> equivalents. The defender becomes as bad as the aggressor by
> thwarting the aggressor.

Not "as bad" -- I am not making value judgements. It's just that the
defender's long term goals (if they are to diminish physical violence
significantly in this world) are set back when the defender commits an
act of physical violence. Not making any statements about moral
equivalence. Since I think all morality and ethics are relative, it's
a matter of the frame of reference. The defender thinks you're the
aggressor. The aggressor thinks you're the defender. And so on it
goes. This is the world you've chosen with your logic, that's all I'm
saying.

--Ram

Re: David W

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d5lm88$8vo$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"Elle" <> wrote in message
>>>news:4yrfe.10247$
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's only economic means that will bring peace to Iraq, though possibly
>>>
>>>some
>>>
>>>
>>>>UN peacekeepers may help.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>As I remember it the UN people in some numbers were in Iraq in a
>>peaceful role to help rebuild the country at one stage, some time after
>>the US "won" the war. Their headquarters was bombed and their lives
>>endangered so they left. It is not the UN's job to sort out the mess the
>>US has made of Iraq by destroying its government and trying to replace
>>it with one that is not appropriate to the country or people. The UN
>>refused to sanction the attack but the US thought it knew better and
>>went ahead anyway. The US caused the problem so let them sort it out.
>
>
> David:
>
> Is there some reason you are saying "US" and "they" instead of "US and UK"
> and "we?" Take some responsibility. You are in this up to your eyeballs.
>
> -herb
>
>
Collectively, as part of the UK, yes. Individually, no. If the leaders
of a democracy I live in do something I strongly disapprove of and speak
out against, am I to blame?

Re: David W

TK Sung wrote:
> Damn look at all this fun I've been missing...
>
> "HW "Skip" Weldon" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>Good question. And while we're into "Monday morning quarterbacking",
>>what ever happened to all those folks who claimed that the Evil Bush
>>was going to steal the Iraq oil?
>>
>
> i'm still waiting for 3m barrels per day that cheney/wolfie duo promised.
> think about this: if it weren't for oil and israel, why would neocons, and
> bush for that matter, care so much about almighty's gift to middle east?
> we'd be ignoring that wretched place like we ignore africa.
>
>
An article from my ISP's news page today:


Iraq promises to boost oil output

Iraq is hoping to boost its oil exports back to the levels of a year ago
in order to re-assert its role in oil cartel Opec, its new oil minister
says.

Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, one of the final appointments to Iraq's new
government, promised to make boosting production his highest priority.

Frequent sabotage has handicapped Iraq's efforts to get production back
to the levels seen before March 2003.

Iraq currently pumps 1.7 million barrels a day, and exports 1.4 million.

Before the US-led invasion which ousted Saddam Hussein, daily production
was some 3 million barrels.


Our new motto in the ministry is fight corruption and boost production
Ibrahim Bar al-Uloum, Iraqi oil minister

Iraq is reckoned to have the world's second largest oil reserves after
Saudi Arabia, and is dependent on oil for almost all its export earnings.

Oil-rich, petrol-poor

By joining the cabinet, Mr Bar al-Uloum is returning to his old job.

He was formerly oil minister from September 2003 to June 2004, at which
time exports were about 1.75 million barrels a day.

"We will work towards increasing production with the aim of reaching
previous output levels," he said just after his appointment was confirmed.

"Our new motto in the ministry is fight corruption and boost production."

His hopes for a production boost were not just for export purposes, he
promised, but to help ease the dearth of fuel on the domestic market.

"We will try to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people by putting
an end to these shortages," he said.

A return to former production levels would also put Iraq back at the
heart of Opec, according to Mr Bahr al-Uloum.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

>> Is there some reason you are saying "US" and "they" instead of "US and
>> UK"
>> and "we?" Take some responsibility. You are in this up to your
>> eyeballs.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>>
> Collectively, as part of the UK, yes. Individually, no. If the leaders of
> a democracy I live in do something I strongly disapprove of and speak out
> against, am I to blame?

Same here. Not everyone in the US was for the invasion. I think what you
mean when you say "US" is the government of the US. Often, it doesn't come
accross that way though.

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>
>>>Is there some reason you are saying "US" and "they" instead of "US and
>>>UK"
>>>and "we?" Take some responsibility. You are in this up to your
>>>eyeballs.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Collectively, as part of the UK, yes. Individually, no. If the leaders of
>>a democracy I live in do something I strongly disapprove of and speak out
>>against, am I to blame?
>
>
> Same here. Not everyone in the US was for the invasion. I think what you
> mean when you say "US" is the government of the US. Often, it doesn't come
> accross that way though.
>
>
Yes, that is what I mean, and even then I am critising just some of
their actions. I am not attempting any sort of balanced comment on the
US people or their government as a whole and if I did it would come out
almost totally positive and in their favour. It's a great country and a
great people.

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Yes, that is what I mean, and even then I am critising just some of their
> actions. I am not attempting any sort of balanced comment on the US people
> or their government as a whole and if I did it would come out almost
> totally positive and in their favour. It's a great country and a great
> people.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think there are times when people lose sight of just how focused we are
when we say we're anti any country. It rarely means the people or the
culture.

Then you have people like Bin Laden and Zarqawi who are anti-American and
would love to see us all dead or suffering.

Re: David W

In article <nLBfe.92793$>,
Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:
> The "agreement" has been broken by illegal activities committed in breach of
> the "contract", as I noted.

If Cuba thinks the contract is invalid, they can complain to the
embassy. They haven't.

> Like it or not, Fidel Castro has the backing of the vast
> majority of the Cuban people,

A sham claim, given the political repression. Let him hold a free and
fair election and see what happens.

> Aside from that,
> who's made you the rulers of the world to decide what country must accept
> what form of government, while I was napping?

We're the leaders of the free world because other countries respect
us, in spite of our country sometimes doing the wrong thing.

At least I'm not the one spreading conspiracy theories about who flew
the aircraft into the World Trade Center towers.

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5mq6a$4dt$
> NoEd <> wrote:
>
>>> WWI led to WWII. It is one of the clearest cases of where one war led
>>> to another. And WWII lead to the cold war which resulted in a HUGE
>>> amount of violence. See below for one pointer and you can do the
>>> further research yourself.
>
>> No hyperinflation lead to WWII.
>
> Like I said, there's a ton of literature relating WWII to WWI. To me,
> that is a given. If you don't believe it, that's fine, but that's my
> position. I've pointed you to at least one source and told you how to
> find more.

WWI didn't cause WWII. Then what war cause WWI, the Napoleonic wars, the
Roman wars, the Greek Wars? And yes, I will "believe" what I want. Without
hyperinflation there would have been no WWII. The are many thousands of
Hitlers today. A mad man was given weapons could also be the cause of
WWII.;

>
>> Then why did WWII not lead to WWIII?
>
> There's still time.
>
> Seriously, it did in a way since it led to the cold war which led to a
> lot of proxy wars, including wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, which
> led to Bin Laden which led to 9/11 which led to the Iraq war. Violence
> begets violence.
>
>> So the French and the English should have surrendered in WWI to
>> prevent WWII?
>
> I'm not saying anything about what should be done. I'm saying
> "violence begets violence". It's a purely logical statement and
> argument.
>
>> You are making moral judgements, i.e. violence is always wrong.
>
> Nope, I'm not making any moral judgements. I'm saying if the goal is
> to eliminate or significantly reduce violence in this world, using
> violence to do so is illogical.
>
>> Sure it would. The guy raping my wife is dead. He can't rape or
>> kill again.
>
> But his brother might rape again after killing you. Violence begets
> violence.
>
>> But you said violence begets violence, and all violence is bad.
>
> Nope, I didn't say "all violence is bad". Do quote me on saying "all
> violence is bad" in this thread at least.
>
>> Those who or would murder are the aggressors. Clear?
>
> Again, who is a murderer depends on the perspective of the person
> using the label. Bin Laden has called Americans "murderers".
>
>> So is rape always wrong?
>
> "Right" and "wrong" are value judgements that I am not using here (nor
> is this the argument I'm making).
>
>>> Bin Laden thinks he's fighting a just and moral war, and he thinks
>>> the U.S. is the aggressor.
>
>> So, is he?
>
> It depends on whose perspective you take. The 19 people who flew
> planes into buildings on 9/11 agreed with him at least to some
> degree. And they just used the same logic you're using now to justify
> violence.
>
>> So here we are. The aggressor and and defender are moral
>> equivalents. The defender becomes as bad as the aggressor by
>> thwarting the aggressor.
>
> Not "as bad" -- I am not making value judgements. It's just that the
> defender's long term goals (if they are to diminish physical violence
> significantly in this world) are set back when the defender commits an
> act of physical violence. Not making any statements about moral
> equivalence. Since I think all morality and ethics are relative, it's
> a matter of the frame of reference. The defender thinks you're the
> aggressor. The aggressor thinks you're the defender. And so on it
> goes. This is the world you've chosen with your logic, that's all I'm
> saying.

Relative morality is our real difference. Then you can't say sending people
to the gulag or to a concentration camp is wrong. Your only absolute is
there are no absolutes. Putting murders in prison is wrong because from
their frame of reference their act of murder was right. If I think an act is
moral, its moral, a very 60s point of view.

>
> --Ram
>
>
>

Re: David W

NoEd <> wrote:

> WWI didn't cause WWII.

My words were: "Like I said, there's a ton of literature relating WWII
to WWI. To me, that is a given. If you don't believe it, that's fine,
but that's my position. I've pointed you to at least one source and
told you how to find more." You could try telling me why that BBC
source is wrong.

>Then what war cause WWI

The attitude that violence is an acceptable solution to a problem.

> Relative morality is our real difference. Then you can't say
> sending people to the gulag or to a concentration camp is wrong.
> Your only absolute is there are no absolutes. Putting murders in
> prison is wrong because from their frame of reference their act of
> murder was right. If I think an act is moral, its moral, a very 60s
> point of view.

I'm saying morality is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of logic
as it pertains to violence. I'm making a logical statement: violence
as a solution to stop violence will never stop it because it
perpetuates the attitude that violence is an acceptable solution.

The reality of it is that humans are neither moral nor logical.

--Ram

Re: David W

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
> well, the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
> be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.
>
how well the US or insurgents fight is irrelevant. iraq will be won only
when iraqis can manage themselves and the US can leave. the problems is,
that'll never happen till another saddam hussein comes along. the current
iraqi government, which came to power with the US backing, can survive only
with the US backing. As soon as we leave, the iraqi government will
collapse just like s. vietnam. I'll bet a barrel of oil on that.

Re: David W

TK Sung wrote:
> "R. Anton Rave" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
>>well, the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
>>be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.
>>
>
> how well the US or insurgents fight is irrelevant. iraq will be won only
> when iraqis can manage themselves and the US can leave. the problems is,
> that'll never happen till another saddam hussein comes along. the current
> iraqi government, which came to power with the US backing, can survive only
> with the US backing. As soon as we leave, the iraqi government will
> collapse just like s. vietnam. I'll bet a barrel of oil on that.
>
>
I agree with all that.

Did you see the Iraqi "Government" has a President, two Vice-Presidents,
a Prime Minister, four Deputy Prime Ministers, plus countless Ministers
of this and that, and all for 24m people? And they still have no power
or control over the country. What there is resides in Washington and
with the US military.

Re: David W

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> "R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
> > But Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The enemy hasn't fought nearly as
> > well, the U.S. has fought better than in Vietnam, and this war has to
> > be won by the U.S. while Vietnam didn't.
> >
> how well the US or insurgents fight is irrelevant. iraq will be won only
> when iraqis can manage themselves and the US can leave. the problems is,
> that'll never happen till another saddam hussein comes along. the current
> iraqi government, which came to power with the US backing, can survive
only
> with the US backing. As soon as we leave, the iraqi government will
> collapse just like s. vietnam. I'll bet a barrel of oil on that.

But then TK what happened 10-15 years after the South Vietnam government
collapsed, hm?

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5msn4$b5s$

[snip]

Yes, or at least as much as any liberal Democrat from the US. Aren't free
people responsible for the actions of their governments? Did you lift a
finger to resist these "war crimes?"

-herb

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:d5mq6a$4dt$

> Not "as bad" -- I am not making value judgements. It's just that the
> defender's long term goals (if they are to diminish physical violence
> significantly in this world) are set back when the defender commits an
> act of physical violence. Not making any statements about moral
> equivalence. Since I think all morality and ethics are relative, it's
> a matter of the frame of reference. The defender thinks you're the
> aggressor. The aggressor thinks you're the defender. And so on it
> goes. This is the world you've chosen with your logic, that's all I'm
> saying.
>
> --Ram

Ram:

You seem to be ignoring the very example that established that non-violence
in the face of violence is absurd: the Holocaust. The largely non-violent
Jewish response only accelerated the Nazi violence. In the end, the only
thing that stopped it was violence on the part of the Allies.

-herb

PS: FWIW, WWI and WWII were not separate conflicts. They were the same war.
Failure to resolve the conflict at Versailles merely led to it continuing
thereafter.

Re: David W

David, I'm sorry I mentioned Blair. Look what I started and what you have to
put up with.

Re: David W

Ed wrote:
> David, I'm sorry I mentioned Blair. Look what I started and what you have to
> put up with.
>
>
>
>
>
Ed, I think it was a good thing as it got the NG going again. It seemed
to be almost dying out, what with zero progress of the market and no one
much knowing what to do next, and the number of notes had dropped right
off.

All the usual suspects re-emerged from their cells or coffins or
wherever they go when off NG duty and had another go at Iraq and
governments generally.

Perhaps now we can get back to investment strategies again and someone
can tell me how to chose 10 shares that will even equal the market let
alone beat it.

Re: David W

Herb <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
> news:d5mq6a$4dt$

>> Not "as bad" -- I am not making value judgements. It's just that the
>> defender's long term goals (if they are to diminish physical violence
>> significantly in this world) are set back when the defender commits an
>> act of physical violence. Not making any statements about moral
>> equivalence. Since I think all morality and ethics are relative, it's
>> a matter of the frame of reference. The defender thinks you're the
>> aggressor. The aggressor thinks you're the defender. And so on it
>> goes. This is the world you've chosen with your logic, that's all I'm
>> saying.
>>
>> --Ram

> Ram:

> You seem to be ignoring the very example that established that non-violence
> in the face of violence is absurd: the Holocaust. The largely non-violent
> Jewish response only accelerated the Nazi violence. In the end, the only
> thing that stopped it was violence on the part of the Allies.

My point is that there were reasons why Hitler came to power, and that
was related to violence. Again, it's short-term vs. long-term
thinking. My point isn't that violence does not treat a problem, but
that if you use it as a treatment, others will continue to use
violence as a means of treating their own problems and this cycle will
perpetuate. That's all.

> PS: FWIW, WWI and WWII were not separate conflicts. They were the same war.
> Failure to resolve the conflict at Versailles merely led to it continuing
> thereafter.

Exactly my point.

--Ram

Re: David W

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:0QMfe.164$
>
> But then TK what happened 10-15 years after the South Vietnam government
> collapsed, hm?
>
s. vietnam no longer exists? vietnam is doing relatively well? you are not
suggesting that we leave iraq now, are you?

Re: David W

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d5muhu$5j2$
>
> Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, one of the final appointments to Iraq's new
> government, promised to make boosting production his highest priority.
>
lol!, that's as if he has the power to do so when even the mighty US can't.
they should put chalabi in power. he is the only one with enough guiles and
balls to become another saddam hussein and put the country back in order
without forever depending on the US.

Re: David W

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message
news:d5ni43$bhp$
> In article <nLBfe.92793$>,
> Clemens Gehrmann <> wrote:
>> The "agreement" has been broken by illegal activities committed in breach
>> of
>> the "contract", as I noted.
>
> If Cuba thinks the contract is invalid, they can complain to the
> embassy. They haven't.

Yes, they do regularly. They want the US off Cuba.

>> Like it or not, Fidel Castro has the backing of the vast
>> majority of the Cuban people,
>
> A sham claim, given the political repression. Let him hold a free and
> fair election and see what happens.

No sham. Anyone who's been to Cuba can verify that claim. You simply don't
care to inform yourself of how Cuban elections work. Don't be so ignorant
following US propaganda. Inform yourself. Cuba has regular elections, and
unlike US propaganda, you don't have to be a member of the Communist Party
to be elected. What Cuba does not allow is a party system controlled by
corporate interests though, and that's really the essence of what the US
government is complaining about. But that does not translate into lack of
democracy.

>> Aside from that,
>> who's made you the rulers of the world to decide what country must accept
>> what form of government, while I was napping?
>
> We're the leaders of the free world because other countries respect
> us, in spite of our country sometimes doing the wrong thing.

No, you're nothing but self-proclaimed leaders. Nobody declared or elected
you such. Maybe a few governments "respect" you, but most people of the
world do not. They fear you as one would fear an abusive neighbour, because
your country spreads terror, poverty, war and death around the globe.

> At least I'm not the one spreading conspiracy theories about who flew
> the aircraft into the World Trade Center towers.

Where does that come into the current discussion? And yes, sure you do. You
spread it was Muslims, when there is no proof except Bush's word. That too
is a conspiracy theory, widely accepted but entirely unproven. ;-)

Re: David W

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > But then TK what happened 10-15 years after the South Vietnam government
> > collapsed, hm?
> >
> s. vietnam no longer exists? vietnam is doing relatively well? you are
not
> suggesting that we leave iraq now, are you?

My point is that South Vietnam imploded regardless of the U.S. effort. Then
within a decade or so, capitalist efforts, not war efforts, changed the
government to largely what the U.S. wanted, anyway. IOW, 59,000 American
soldiers died needlessly, and the U.S. effort their merely delayed the
inevitable, bad and good.

I think we should put in some place some kind of government in Iraq and get
out. What's going to happen will happen, but it won't be a long-term Saddam
Hussein.

Re: David W

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote
> Herb <> wrote:
>
> > "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote
> >> Not "as bad" -- I am not making value judgements. It's just that the
> >> defender's long term goals (if they are to diminish physical violence
> >> significantly in this world) are set back when the defender commits an
> >> act of physical violence. Not making any statements about moral
> >> equivalence. Since I think all morality and ethics are relative, it's
> >> a matter of the frame of reference. The defender thinks you're the
> >> aggressor. The aggressor thinks you're the defender. And so on it
> >> goes. This is the world you've chosen with your logic, that's all I'm
> >> saying.

It's incredibly difficult to read such morality from a guy who routinely
rips off his university/employer by using his university email to post
extensively to Usenet on groups unrelated to his work and during the
workday.

You worry about the message violence sends to others. What about the message
you send to your children and others about routinely robbing your employer?
Or worse, giving them a rationalization for such conduct?

You're just the wrong person to try to deliver this message of non-violence,
Ram.

Re: David W