Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The UN already ruled it so. That was SC 687. It laid down the specific conditions under which the Iraqi government could expect to survive without the continuation of hostilities.
|
Since the end of hostilities with the Kurds, which was back in 1992, the ruling had been finished. There was a reason Powell spoke to the UN, and there was a reason the US tried to push the UN to invade. A new ruling was necessary to invade Iraq for WMD charges.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The misinformation is a moot point, any reasonable person would agree that the Iraqis were not adhering to the strictures of 687. Again, legal but ill-advised.
|
Misrepresenting intel on a country in order to reach a favorable ruling would have probably landed us off the security council.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The appropriate response is built into the resolution itself, read the full text of any of the SC resoultions I have posted. For example:
Bold supplied by me.
This is the way it works:
UN 660 - Tells Iraq to get out of Kuwait.
UN 678 - Authorizes force.
UN 687 - Ceasefire. This suspends, not reovkes, the right of member states to use force based upon certain requirements of Iraq.
UN1441 - States that the requirements have not been met, therefor the suspension of use of force is lifted.
The security council decided that in 1991, and have offered no superceding resolutions since.
|
That's not how it works. First, they laid down their arms and stopped their attack on the Kurds. There was a ceasefire. It wasn't permanent, but the council didn't require a permanent ceasefire. The weapons inspectors never found anything. The matter was closed, and it was just about sending inspectors in every now and then to make sure he wasn't a threat. He was an idiot and kicked them out now and again, but they never found anything.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Gimme a break, we have no part in the genocide in Darfur (other than our passive acceptance, and the use of the word is innapropriate for Iraq. If you wish to use inaction as a benchmark, the Clintons administraion is obviously a bunch of brownshirts for allowing the Rwandan genocide to proceed [unopposed].
|
I suggested that Darfur was a genocide, not that we were involved besides not interfering.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Habeas corpus is alive and well, the judicial branch is sorting that out right now. The Patriot Act reads nothing like the enabling act, and will soon be history at any rate. The US has always acted unilateraly when it served our interests (or the interests of the administration in power). China, Vietnam, Iran, Grenada, and Libya have all felt the brunt of our unilateral action (and those just since the founding of the League of Nations). Of course, if you will refer to my arguments above you will see that the attack on Iraq was not unilateral.
|
“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,
no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.. "Military Commissions Act of 2006".
Not only that, but:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alberto Gonzales
The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas.
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000
This means that aliens or civilians are no longer protected.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
So again, your comparison of the United States with Nazi Germany is as distastful as it is insulting. The Germans put the Nazi party into power, allowed themselves to be duped by the Riechstag fire, and then either actively participated in or turned a blind eye to the military conquest, rape, and pillage of the continent of Europe, including the systematic murder of as many as 11 million people. The United States invaded Iraq under the authority of UN678 and UN1441.
If you can draw a parrallel there, more power to you.
|
The US invaded Iraq under the guise of WMDs and links to 9/11 and then the populace either actively participated in or turned a blind eye to the military conquest of Iraq, including rapes, pillaging, and the systematic murder of 600,000-1,000,000 Iraqis.
Germany legally gave Hitler the power to do what he wished to do because he managed to trick everyone in Germany into thinking that Communists and Jews were behind terrorist attacks and used them as a way to enrage and make militant the populace....
Bush and Bushco lied to the public about who was responsible for 9/11 by linking it to Saddam, and said that Saddam had the capability to strike and kill Americans, and use them as a way to enrage and make militant the populace.
Not seeing the eery similarity does insulting to those who gave their lives in WWII to stop tyranny, tyranny like we're starting to see develop here in the US. No, this isn't WWII, but you can't ignore the glaring similitude.