Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You can correctly say that the pretenses to the war were false, but you will have a hard time proving that Bush knowingly lied, you can assert it because it is a possibility. However if there isn't 100% certainty then you have a problem as far as accusing Bush of "war crimes" because the law of our land, the only law that matters in this case says Bush did nothing wrong. The constitution provides for "common defence" as such the President of the United States is allowed to act in good faith, which he did by getting a resolution passed through by congress authorizing force in the Iraq conflict. As far as international law goes, it's a joke, a joke which has no authority or force. It also seems in the current political scheme it is something that is arbitrarily enforced or referred on the whims of political necessity by various countries or groups of people.
|
Mojo_PeiPei, how many American troops and innocent Iraqi civilians must suffer the loss of life or limb before you would be willing to consider reacting to the results of Bush and his administration's provocations and pretenses designed to provoke invasion and war, without your tendencies, up to now, to divert the issue to disputing the numbers of reported casualties, or by making your argument quoted above?
What increase in the numbers of dead would influence a shift in your focus to a willingness to consider that now that the WMD fabrication is neutered and exposed for what it actually was......."intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.", there is a possibility based upon results of weapons inspections in Iraq, and this reported "secret memo", validated by officials in the UK Labour government, in affirming statements, and in a total lack of reports of any efforts to dispute the accuracy of the contents of the memo, even on the eve of last week's national election in th UK, that Bush himself committed high treason and violations of his oath of office? Are articles of impeachment, under these circumstances, that far fetched a possibility?
If not, how many American troops would need to be ordered to fight and then die under fabricated and misleading circumstances, defending against non-existant threats to U.S. security? For an invasion for a declared purpose of pre-emptively eliminating a WMD program that was described and sold to the American people as an imminent threat to our "national security" but now is disclosed by reliable sources, to be merely, ."intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
You were an ardent defender and believer, Mojo_, up until last week, when you conceded that you had not seen White House admissions that there is no evidence of Iraqi WMD transfers to Syria or to other hidden, foreign sites. I would think that these unexpected reports would surprise and anger you, now, or at some point. Does it not disturb you that lack of WMD discovery and the contents of the UK "secret memo" seem eeirily reminiscent to the following?
I am disturbed, and I expected since before the invasion that this comparison was relevant. When you allow for this possibility, and I think that you will at some point, I predict that you won't be posting a "so what" defense of Bush and Blair and their respective administrations.............
Quote:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/im...e+poland&hl=en
..............These minutes demonstrate that the Nazi conspirators were proceeding in accordance with a plan. They demonstrate the cold-blooded premeditation of the assault on Poland. They demonstrate that the questions concerning Danzig, which the Nazis had agitated with Poland as a political pretext, were not true questions, but were false issues, issues agitated to conceal their motive of aggressive, expansion for food, and Lebensraum....................
........"I have called you together to give you a picture of the political situation, in order that you may have insight into the individual element on which I base my decision to act, and in order to strengthen your confidence. After this, we will discuss military details.
"It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in Spring. [Apparently this referred to (L-79).]
............"Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The aim is elimination of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line. Even if war should break out in the West, the destruction of Poland shall be the primary objective. Quick decision because of the season.
<h3>"I shall give a propagandistic cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked, later on, whether we told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the Right is what matters but Victory.</h3>
"Have no pity. Brutal attitude. 80,000,000 people shall get what is their right. Their existence has to be secured. The strongest has the Right. Greatest severity............
(Quotes from "you know who" in two speeches given on 22 August, 1939)
|
Mojo_, can you see yourself, fifteen years from now, explaining to your children that you defended this presidential administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq, considering what you have been exposed to by your participation in this forum, and by living in the U.S. in these times? How would you explain your quoted statement and your defense of Bush's invasion to them?