NationStates Jolt Archive

2005-10-17 01:19:43

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- The White House set up, without announcement, a group to market a war in Iraq in August 2002, seven months before the March 2003 invasion, according to an article published by the New York Times on Sunday.

Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, and only one newspaper article or two have mentioned it in passing reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, said the article in the newspaper's opinion page.

The group had eight members, including Karl Rove, the top political adviser to President George W. Bush, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and then presidential security adviser Condoleezza Rice and others, and itsmission was to market a war in Iraq.

On July 23, 2002, a week or two before the WHIG first convened in earnest, a British official said that the Bush administration was ensuring that "the intelligence and facts" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "were being fixed around the policy" of going to war, said the article, written by columnist Frank Rick.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/17/content_3622477.htm

Please don't tell me you're quoting a newspaper from a country that limits freedom of the press...

Please don't tell me you're quoting a newspaper from a country that limits freedom of the press...

Ocean thinks that the only nations that limit freedom of the press are the US, India, and Israel.

Due to my general apathy I can only offer an irrelevent opinion on this matter. WHIG is such agreat name! I love it!:)

Did Bush and his cronies "sell" the Iraq war to the American people? Sure. That's not news. Every major political move in the US is preceeded by campaigns to get the American people to rally behind it. That's because, unlike the nation that publishes the news you quoted, our people actually still have a say in what government does.

See Ocean, the fact that W had to market the idea to us is evidence that we're a free and democratic country. You've actually succeeded in making America look good with this post. You must be getting a little rusty.

Please don't tell me you're quoting a newspaper from a country that limits freedom of the press...I just Quoted an Article reporting a Baroness Margaret Thatcher interview...

I might as well quote a Chinese Newspaper...Don't you think?...My day is complete now.

:D :D :p :D

Did Bush and his cronies "sell" the Iraq war to the American people? Sure. That's not news. Every major political move in the US is preceeded by campaigns to get the American people to rally behind it. That's because, unlike the nation that publishes the news you quoted, our people actually still have a say in what government does.

See Ocean, the fact that W had to market the idea to us is evidence that we're a free and democratic country. You've actually succeeded in making America look good with this post. You must be getting a little rusty.
Oh, I don't know. The issue of a marketing campaigns for any government policy implies that the masses are moved by presentation rather than content which doesn't reflect well on the populace but you could argue the same with any democratic society. Though in my opinion the american public are more complacent than most with the british public just behind them.

I just Quoted an Article reporting a Baroness Margaret Thatcher interview...

I might as well quote a Chinese Newspaper...Don't you think?...My day is complete now.

:D :D :p :DChinese Newspapers, due to the fact that the press's freedom is limited, are prone to writing in a form as to prevent censorship. The same thing happened in East Germany, where I've got a nice book on European uniforms that is unnecessarily cluttered with Communist rhetoric.

Chinese Newspapers, due to the fact that the press's freedom is limited, are prone to writing in a form as to prevent censorship. The same thing happened in East Germany, where I've got a nice book on European uniforms that is unnecessarily cluttered with Communist rhetoric.

I think that Ocean is trying to imply that freedom of the press is restricted in the US or UK, or both.

He's never really lived in a place where the government was really boning him in the ass, so he has to fantasize about what it must be like for the government to really restrict your freedoms.

Please don't tell me you're quoting a newspaper from a country that limits freedom of the press...I always want to know what all sides have to say...even if they are supposedly the Devil...

I even want to know what Saddam has to say about the Genocides committed under his Gov...

I even want to know what Saddam has to say about the Genocides committed under his Gov...Mad dictators like Saddam and Milosevic tend to repeat themselves...;)

Mad dictators like Saddam and Milosevic tend to repeat themselves...;)I still want to know what Saddam, Milosevic and Bush have to say about the crimes They are (the world makes them) guilty of...

If I only know one side of it...My knowledge is incomplete...

I still want to know what Saddam, Milosevic and Bush have to say about the crimes They are (the world makes them) guilty of...

If I only know one side of it...My knoledge is incomplete...

Ummm. Yeah. It's important for you to remember what his sons said about international outrage over their gassing of Halabja.

And I quote, "fuck the international community".

http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/

In case you forgot what they did.

Ummm. Yeah. It's important for you to remember what his sons said about international outrage over their gassing of Halabja.

And I quote, "fuck the international community".

http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/

In case you forgot what they did.
I thought "Chemical" Ali said that.

I thought "Chemical" Ali said that.
I'm trying to find the link for the quote now.

In any case, I thought I would post a Netherlands site showing the nice work done in Halabja. After all, Ocean doesn't believe that Saddam ever did anything wrong.

Ummm. Yeah. It's important for you to remember what his sons said about international outrage over their gassing of Halabja.I still want to know everything Saddam and Milosevic have to say...i mean we got to see all what OJ had to say at his trial...

Why wont the TV deliver on this ones?

I still want to know everything Saddam and Milosevic have to say...i mean we got to see all what OJ had to say at his trial...

Why wont the TV deliver on this ones?

Hey, I don't know about you, but I remember watching Milosevic for hours on TV.

But maybe you don't get cable. Milosevic obviously was more interested in being a complete ass, and uninterested in actually defending himself.

I thought "Chemical" Ali said that.BTW...

Did they ever catch that guy?

Hey, I don't know about you, but I remember watching Milosevic for hours on TV.

But maybe you don't get cable. Milosevic obviously was more interested in being a complete ass, and uninterested in actually defending himself.Is Saddam going to be on CableTV too?

Is Saddam going to be on CableTV too?
Milosevic was on CSPAN. I don't see why Saddam won't be on CSPAN.

CSPAN isn't exactly, biased, either.

CSPAN isn't exactly, biased, either.as long as it is Live...Thay way they cant edit out stuff they dont want to be public...

as long as it is Live...Thay way they cant edit out stuff they dont want to be public...It would be nice if you treated Chinese media with the same paranoia...:rolleyes:

The essential truths that you're all missing are that removal of Saddam Hussein had been US foreign policy since 1998 (since the day Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, 1998), and that the war in Iraq was essentially an enforcement of the ceasefire agreement signed in 1991 (the gist of it was that Saddam would be permitted to stay in office if he fulfilled a certain number of conditions, none of which were fulfilled), the fact that Bush let people call it a "pre-emptive strike" without countering it, merely shows Bush's clumsiness in terms of debate.

The Congressional Authority for war was all about enforcement, not pre-emption.

Whether Bush formed a special group to furnish Bush with persuasive arguments isn't relevant, nor is it even unusual. Governments engage the services of such people all the time for all manner of policies. I don't think the US Government got the taxpayers' moneys' worth.

East Germany, where I've got a nice book on European uniforms

(irrelevant aside) You know what I love about East German uniforms, the fact that they were designed by, and for the National Socialists (they weren't produced due to how the war was going). Kind of like the old Russian saying, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

It would be nice if you treated Chinese media with the same paranoia...:rolleyes:There is no moral absolutes...even if The Sith lords says there is...

_________________________________
When Subject is Chinese dissidents...I shall not trust the Chinese media.

When the Subject is abuses Committed by the Chinese Gov...I shall not take the Chinese media "news" for granted.

When the subject is a war that The Chinese Gov is Involved...I shall not take the Chinese media "truths" for granted.

When the subject is a war that the India-or-Pakistan Gov is Involved...I shall not take the India-or-Pakistan media "reports" for granted.

When the subject is a war that the Israel-or-Palestine Gov is Involved...I shall not take the Israel-or-Palestine media "facts" for granted.
_________________

Having said that...
What par of the Article do say it is a LIE?
What do you contest?

There is no moral absolutes...even if The Sith lords says there is...

If the subject is a war that The Chinese Gov is Involved...There is no way in hell I would trust the Chinese media.

If Subject is Chinese dissidents...I shall not trust the Chinese media.

If the Subject is abuses Commited by the Chinese Gov...I shall not trust the Chinese media.

If the subject is a war that the India/Pakistan Gov is Involved...There is no way in hell I would trust the India/Pakistan media.

If the subject is a war that the Israel/Palestine Gov is Involved...There is no way in hell I would trust the Israel/Palestine media.
_________________

Having said that...
What par of the Article do say it is a LIE?
What do you contest?

In the US, the mainstream news organizations are not owned by the government. The most the government can do is fine them for showing Janet Jackson's nipple, or fine Howard Stern for saying "fuck". It can't do anything about the content on the Internet, cable, or satellite, which is just about everywhere in the US.

The President, for example, cannot call up the major newsrooms and say, "today, no bad stories about me, ok?"

It might be said that corporations own our media, but in large part, corporations are interested in what sells - and scandal sells. A politician caught with his pants around his ankles (whether it's for a blowjob, or the result of bad intel on WMD) sells copy. So the corporations aren't going to hold back if they can sell more story.

The Chinese media, on the other hand, are owned and controlled by their government. They have no ability to print anything except what the government approves.

And a government only prints stories in its own interests, to support its own actions.

If you think the Chinese media is so independent, perhaps you should start listening to Voice of America.

There is no moral absolutes...even if The Sith lords says there is...

If the subject is a war that The Chinese Gov is Involved...There is no way in hell I would trust the Chinese media.

If Subject is Chinese dissidents...I shall not trust the Chinese media.

If the Subject is abuses Commited by the Chinese Gov...I shall not trust the Chinese media.

If the subject is a war that the India/Pakistan Gov is Involved...There is no way in hell I would trust the India/Pakistan media.

If the subject is a war that the Israel/Palestine Gov is Involved...There is no way in hell I would trust the Israel/Palestine media.
_________________

Having said that...
What par of the Article do say it is a LIE?
What do you contest?

You're missing the point.

Governments engage groups to sell their policies all the time. Where is the essential difference between engaging outside people to persuade people to support a war, and engaging a group of people to sell universal healthcare? Both cases are simply government using the people's money to sell political ideas.

If you think you're making some new, unique, devastating critique of Bush, you're wrong. All you're saying is that Bush is an elected leader of a modern westen democracy who follows the current trends.

And the best response to that is "whoop-de-doo"

(irrelevant aside) You know what I love about East German uniforms, the fact that they were designed by, and for the National Socialists (they weren't produced due to how the war was going). Kind of like the old Russian saying, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Irrelevant is right. The book only went to 1912. :p

Firstly, the Chinese communists have never shown themselves trustworthy.


Therefore, Chinese coverage of anything is not credible.So the Article must be collection of LIES [/sarcasm]

So the Article must be collection of LIES [/sarcasm]

If you can't find any other corroborating sources, I'd say that they were lies.

So the Article must be collection of LIES [/sarcasm]No, but written in a form that should be screened for bias.

If you think the Chinese media is so independent...using you mind reading powers again?...

I never-ever said the Chinese media is Independent...

Now I have question for you all.

Will you say: the (Big 4) US TV networks are independent ??

So the Article must be collection of LIES

It is not for us to show the claims are lies, it is for you to show that they are true, and using a source with no credibility whatsoever is hardly likely to do that.

Having shown your claims are true, you must then show that those facts are actually a critique of Bush, and as I have pointed out, even if the claims were true, it would prove nothing more than the fact that Bush is an elected leader of a modern Western democracy, who follows the current trends of such governments. Not exactly a damning critique.

My response to your point reiterated "whoop-de-doo"

Ummm. Yeah. It's important for you to remember what his sons said about international outrage over their gassing of Halabja.

And I quote, "fuck the international community".

http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/

In case you forgot what they did.

And yet there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to support it was Iran that did it, go figure.

As to ""fuck the international community" isn't that what we've been hearing from the Bush administration since 2003 about Iraq? Yes, I thought so.

If you can't find any other corroborating sources, I'd say that they were lies.Common Sierra...you are not a n00b...you know i have it ready.

Now I have question for you all.

Will you say: the (Big 4) US TV networks are independent ??

They are not the organs of a totalitarian state. Chinese news agencies are.

As to ""fuck the international community" isn't that what we've been hearing from the Bush administration since 2003 about Iraq? Yes, I thought so.

When the "international community" won't enforce its own rules because it jeopardises the bottom line of the French government, and risks exposure of the corruptions of the acolytes of the "international community", "fuck the international community" is a merited response.

They are not the organs of a totalitarian state. Chinese news agencies are.



When the "international community" won't enforce its own rules because it jeopardises the bottom line of the French government, and risks exposure of the corruptions of the acolytes of the "international community", "fuck the international community" is a merited response.

You just have to love that good old American double standard, it never ceases to amaze. :)

It is not for us to show the claims are lies, it is for you to show that they are true..I posted the Link...but not to prove It is true...

And yet there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to support it was Iran that did it, go figure.

As to ""fuck the international community" isn't that what we've been hearing from the Bush administration since 2003 about Iraq? Yes, I thought so.
Not according to Human Rights Watch.


Iraq’s Crime Of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds
Iraq’s 1988 Anfal campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living within its borders resulted in the death of at least 50,000 and as many as 100,000 people, many of them women and children. This book, co-published with Yale University Press, investigates the Anfal campaign and concludes that this campaign constituted genocide against the Kurds. The book is the result of research by a team of Human Rights Watch investigators who analyzed eighteen tons of captured Iraqi government documents (10 of these documents are reproduced in the appendix) and carried out field interviews with more than 350 witnesses, most of them survivors of the Anfal campaign. It confirms that the campaign was characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass summary executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants; the widespread use of chemical weapons, among them mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands; the arbitrary jailing and warehousing of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months, in conditions of extreme deprivation and without judicial order; the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers to barren resettlement camps after the demolition of their homes; and the wholesale destruction of some two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations. The book is a searing indictment of the Iraqi government’s carefully planned and executed program to destroy a people, harrowing in its detailed and objective recounting of crimes against innocents.


http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iraq

And yet there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to support it was Iran that did it, go figure.

As to ""fuck the international community" isn't that what we've been hearing from the Bush administration since 2003 about Iraq? Yes, I thought so.

Apparently, the idea that Iran did is doesn't hold much water, especially amongst groups you regard as credible.

Human Rights Watch says it was Saddam.
The Kurds believe it was Saddam.

Even Stephen Pelletiere, who says that the Kurds were not the target, is adamant that Iraqi forces were using gas against Iranians who had occupied the town.

So it's pretty hard to say the Iranians did it.

BTW, most nations sooner or later say "fuck the international community".

Paul Martin, in one of his famous moments during the Chretien bombing of Serbia, said, "we don't need the UN anymore".

Not as colorful, but it's the same idea.

You just have to love that good old American double standard, it never ceases to amaze.

What double-standard? The "international community" clearly demonstrated its depravity and corruption throughout its history of dealings with Iraq, especially the UN Secretariat. Clearly telling them what they could go do with themselves was a justified response.

Now I have question for you all.

Will you say: the (Big 4) US TV networks are independent ??Depends. They are generally independent insofar as they get to suffer the consequences of their actions. Chinese media that goes against the state gets its admin replaced or is banned outright. American media that goes against the state never gets invited on Presidential trips. That's a serious incentive for any news channel to become slightly biased in favor of the President, since if only the Bush lackey's provide footage of him travelling to a disaster area, the Bush lackey's will be the only ones with a product to sell.
In the end, the American media that broadcast or publish nationally are dependent on their owners. I personally prefer a mix of commercially owned channels and publicly owned channels. The latter, unlike state controlled media, get funded with public money (in Germany, it's the money you pay for having a television or radio ready for reception) und are run by a board of representatives from various parts of society. Being freed from the need to "sell that story" reduces the amount of sensationalist bias intended to tell the audience what they want to hear considerably.

I posted the Link...but not to prove It is true...

Well, I don't know exactly about the article but here is what I do know for a fact..PNAC is who gave birth to the new group The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress. This was long before the war even started. In fact it's been there since day one of the Bush administration.

What double-standard? The "international community" clearly demonstrated its depravity and corruption throughout its history of dealings with Iraq, especially the UN Secretariat. Clearly telling them what they could go do with themselves was a justified response.The double-standard is that the guy responsible for Saddam still being in power and not having been removed didn't get pulled through the mud while the international community was.

Not according to Human Rights Watch.


My husband, you may recall him as Zeppistan did a quite in-depth research into this very thing and came up with some very compelling evidence that it very well may of been Iran. However, he is at work right now and I don't know where he keeps his files on such things on his puter. However, I will ask him to give me the article he wrote on it over 2 years ago, or at least point me in the right direction of where he came across his information. If you knew Zeppistan at all while he was here, then you also know he didn't use non-credible sources for what he wrote.

My husband, you may recall him as Zeppistan did a quite in-depth research into this very thing and came up with some very compelling evidence that it very well may of been Iran. However, he is at work right now and I don't know where he keeps his files on such things on his puter. However, I will ask him to give me the article he wrote on it over 2 years ago, or at least point me in the right direction of where he came across his information. If you knew Zeppistan at all while he was here, then you also know he didn't use non-credible sources for what he wrote.

If it's based on Pelletiere's story (which is where most of the Iranian connection came from), he's now saying that it was Iraqi forces firing WMD at Iranian troops who were in Halabja.

Paul Martin, in one of his famous moments during the Chretien bombing of Serbia, said, "we don't need the UN anymore".

Care to source that?

I think that Ocean is trying to imply that freedom of the press is restricted in the US or UK, or both.

He's never really lived in a place where the government was really boning him in the ass, so he has to fantasize about what it must be like for the government to really restrict your freedoms.

LOL! I quite like that comment. And so very true.

Uh-oh Ocean. Someone's knocking at your door.

My husband, you may recall him as Zeppistan did a quite in-depth research into this very thing and came up with some very compelling evidence that it very well may of been Iran. However, he is at work right now and I don't know where he keeps his files on such things on his puter. However, I will ask him to give me the article he wrote on it over 2 years ago, or at least point me in the right direction of where he came across his information. If you knew Zeppistan at all while he was here, then you also know he didn't use non-credible sources for what he wrote.
I started posting here shortly before he stopped I guess. I remember seeing his name around once or twice early on. Anyway, I'll look at the evidence. I like to think I'm fairly open minded.

If you can't find any other corroborating sources, I'd say that they were lies.
It would be nice if you treated Chinese media with the same paranoia...:rolleyes:Uh-oh Ocean. Someone's knocking at your door...lies.....using a source with no credibility whatsoever is hardly likely to do that.:rolleyes: Fine...
I will post non-chinese sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/05/cia.leak.probe/
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=print&id=16364
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja04prados
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38597-2004Jul9.html

What double-standard? The "international community" clearly demonstrated its depravity and corruption throughout its history of dealings with Iraq.

Unlike the Americans, yeah, right, got ya. :rolleyes:

Saddam was an American asset, in fact a CIA asset, get your facts straight. After Bush Sr. gave the green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait he reneged because the House of Saud wanted him to stop Iraq, in fear that Saddam would roll into Saudi Arabia, which of course was simple paranoia on their part because Saddam only invaded Kuwait because they were stealing oil from under-ground pipelines from Iraq and flooding the world market with oil.

The double-standard is that the guy[s] responsible for Saddam still being in power and not having been removed didn't get pulled through the mud while the international community was.

You mean Clinton, and Bush I. Unlike Bush, Clinton never gained Congressional authority to actually use military force to remove Saddam. Of course, for a leader with the sheer contempt for the US Constitution that Clinton had, that should have been no obstacle.

As for Bush, he thought that he only had a mandate from the UN to liberate Kuwait, not all Iraq, and his Congressional Authority only extended to that.

The main difference between Clinton and the international community is that Clinton wasn't been paid billions of dollars intended to aid the Iraqi people.

If it's based on Pelletiere's story (which is where most of the Iranian connection came from), he's now saying that it was Iraqi forces firing WMD at Iranian troops who were in Halabja.

I can't recall, but I doubt Zep would base his opinions on a single source, I have rarely ever seen him do that.

Saddam was an American asset, in fact a CIA asset, get your facts straight.

Given the dearth of facts in your post, you're in no position to ask anyone else to supply evidence.

After Bush Sr. gave the green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait he reneged because the House of Saud wanted him to stop Iraq, in fear that Saddam would roll into Saudi Arabia, which of course was simple paranoia on their part because Saddam only invaded Kuwait because they were stealing oil from under-ground pipelines from Iraq and flooding the world market with oil.

Firstly, Bush never gave a green light. Secondly, whether he had or not is irrelevant. Thirdly, there is no evidence that Kuwait was slant drilling. Fourth, even if there was, invasion wasn't necessary. Five, there is no evidence that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was anything more than armed robbery. Six, Kuwait has the right to whatever oil marketing strategies it sees fit, it is the cartel arrangement that is illigitimate.

Fine I will post non-chinese sources:

Nice, now you can deal with the second issue I brought up, "you must then show that those facts are actually a critique of Bush, and as I have pointed out, even if the claims were true, it would prove nothing more than the fact that Bush is an elected leader of a modern Western democracy, who follows the current trends of such governments. Not exactly a damning critique."

Care to source that?
I've linked to it before, when Lacadaemon brought up Martin and Chretien as war criminals in another thread.

However, I'll refer you to even more recent comments by Martin, who think that Canada has the right to bomb Sudan, without asking UN permission.

I've linked to it before, when Lacadaemon brought up Martin and Chretien as war criminals in another thread.

However, I'll refer you to even more recent comments by Martin, who think that Canada has the right to bomb Sudan, without asking UN permission.

:eek: and people jump on the US. Where's the condemnation for this comment?

..."you must then show that those facts are actually a critique of Bush, and ...blah-blah-blah-blah-, blah-blah-blah-blah ..and more blah-blah-blah..."LOL... WTF?

I never said those facts are actually a critique of Bush...

Sierra is having way too much influence on some posters around...some of them behaving just like him... Like him they are assuming I said something...or I "think" something...:confused:

Sierra...what is your secret man? :D

:eek: and people jump on the US. Where's the condemnation for this comment?

Lacadaemon and others have condemned Chretien for this before on this forum.

:eek: and people jump on the US. Where's the condemnation for this comment?
Why should he be condemned? Sudan needs a good bombing. I guess Al Shifa wasn't enough. The UN is hell bent on protecting Sudan from being punished for it's genocides.

Why should he be condemned? Sudan needs a good bombing. I guess Al Shifa wasn't enough. The UN is hell bent on protecting Sudan from being punished for it's genocides.

People jump on the US for doing it and now Canada is saying it should be done without UN permission?

Also, I was being sarcastic. Your right. Sudan does need to be bombed. Now why hasn't Canada up and bombed them yet! I would be cheering them on if they start their bombing.

Why should he be condemned? Sudan needs a good bombing. I guess Al Shifa wasn't enough. The UN is hell bent on protecting Sudan from being punished for it's genocides.

Yes, well Stephistan says that we'll be violating international law if we bomb Sudan without UN permission. And she'll want us up on charges in the International Criminal Court, because she believes that these international law institutions really work.

She doesn't for a minute believe that they are fake implements of convenient justice.

Meanwhile, genocide will continue around the world, under the UN's careful watch. And that's good says Steph - because we're not violating any international laws - what's going on in Sudan is not "genocide" under the UN definition, so it's perfectly legal.

I never said those facts are actually a critique of Bush

You mustn't have listened in English classes, use elipses.

What, then is the point of the thread? What are you trying to say, other than Bush is a quite normal Western leader in terms of the methods of government he uses. You may as well have made a thread about how your local council had a radio ad.

I think you believed you were revealing something important that would show how duplicitious Bush was, but won't concede that what Bush did was in fact totally normal in modern Western government.

Meanwhile, genocide will continue around the world, under the UN's careful watch. And that's good says Steph - because we're not violating any international laws - what's going on in Sudan is not "genocide" under the UN definition, so it's perfectly legal.

Considering Genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention which is a treaty. :rolleyes:

Given the dearth of facts in your post, you're in no position to ask anyone else to supply evidence.



Firstly, Bush never gave a green light. Secondly, whether he had or not is irrelevant. Thirdly, there is no evidence that Kuwait was slant drilling. Fourth, even if there was, invasion wasn't necessary. Five, there is no evidence that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was anything more than armed robbery. Six, Kuwait has the right to whatever oil marketing strategies it sees fit, it is the cartel arrangement that is illigitimate.

While I will admit this site is biased, you will note that at the bottom of the screen they source where they got their information, places like UPI and Frontline as well as NYT. So, make of it what you will. These are not new things that have come to light. For those of us old enough to remember quite a lot of it in our own lives on the news etc, I know it was certainly common knowledge that these things took place. I remember the Iran/Iraq war quite well and I also remember America playing two ends against the middle. But believe what you want.. I can't change your mind if it's made up, whether what you believe is true or not is not my concern, I just feel compelled to at least say something when I see ignorance in any form, that I know to be untrue.

Anyway, this is the link, hey, even turn up your speakers, it has a catchy tune! ;)

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Why should he be condemned? Sudan needs a good bombing. I guess Al Shifa wasn't enough. The UN is hell bent on protecting Sudan from being punished for it's genocides.

What the heck do you expect? The UN won't ever approve punishing because the Chinese (with a veto that rightly belongs to Taiwan) need Sudanese oil, and the Russians (with a veto) need Sudanese arms purchases.

France probably won't firstly because the US wants Sudan punished, and second because France still treats Africa as though they are still a set of colonies.

France will intervene in Africa whenever they feel like it.

The solution: abandon the UN totally. Bulldoze the building into the East River, and sell the site to a property developer, tell the senior members of the Sec to leave the US in two hours or be summarily shot.

While I will admit this site is biased, you will note that at the bottom of the screen they source where they got their information, places like UPI and Frontline as well as NYT. So, make of it what you will. These are not new things that have come to light. For those of us old enough to remember quite a lot of it in our own lives on the news etc, I know it was certainly common knowledge that these things took place. I remember the Iran/Iraq war quite well and I also remember America playing two ends against the middle. But believe what you want.. I can't change your mind if it's made up, whether what you believe is true or not is not my concern, I just feel compelled to at least say something when I see ignorance in any form, that I know to be untrue.

Anyway, this is the link, hey, even turn up your speakers, it has a catchy tune! ;)

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html


What Steph objects to, at its essence, is the idea that Americans think they can act abroad without UN permission.

It wouldn't matter to her who the President was. Or did it?

Steph, did you tell the world that Clinton was a cretin for firing cruise missiles at Sudan without getting UN permission?

Or bombing Serbia without permission?

IIRC, he attacked seven countries without provocation (Michael Moore's TV show is my source!).

What Steph objects to, at its essence, is the idea that Americans think they can act abroad without UN permission.

It wouldn't matter to her who the President was. Or did it?

Steph, did you tell the world that Clinton was a cretin for firing cruise missiles at Sudan without getting UN permission?

Or bombing Serbia without permission?

IIRC, he attacked seven countries without provocation (Michael Moore's TV show is my source!).

Did the UN approve Operation Desert Fox?

What Steph objects to, at its essence, is the idea that Americans think they can act abroad without UN permission.

I don't believe you're in a position to tell others what *I* think, as you don't know me from a hole in the ground. So, perhaps the forum would be better served by sticking to what you know and sparing us the dramatics of things you don't, like my positions and what I think. I believe I am in a better position to say what I believe/think or otherwise than you. You know what they say about people who "assume"

I don't believe you're in a position to tell others what *I* think, as you don't know me from a hole in the ground. So, perhaps the forum would be better served by sticking to what you know and sparing us the dramatics of things you don't, like my positions and what I think. I believe I am in a better position to say what I believe/think or otherwise than you. You know what they say about people who "assume"

Judging by what you post on here, he is pretty much dead on in his assessment.

So tell me what is the rule about violating a cease-fire.

I don't believe you're in a position to tell others what *I* think, as you don't know me from a hole in the ground. So, perhaps the forum would be better served by sticking to what you know and sparing us the dramatics of things you don't, like my positions and what I think. I believe I am in a better position to say what I believe/think or otherwise than you. You know what they say about people who "assume"

I've certainly read enough of your posts over the past year to know that you object to a world that is not governed by a UN with the power to enforce international law, and to prevent the US from acting unilaterally.

Either that, or you've changed your mind.

..You may as well have made a thread about how your local council had a radio ad....Well..If I ever want to Post an incredibly stupid article like that...I will make sure it does not come from a Chinese newspaper ... :p :p ;) :p

Judging by what you post on here, he is pretty much dead on in his assessment.

Well by "judging" if that is what our purpose here is, then I would have to say that by "judging" by how many times my husband and I have made you look completely foolish, you should perhaps not "judge" anything. ;)


Anyway, this is turning into a pissing contest, to which I leave to small children and boys. I don't think I'll get caught up in it. Not worth my time really. It's not like I'm going to change any minds.

I know it was certainly common knowledge that these things took place. I remember the Iran/Iraq war quite well and I also remember America playing two ends against the middle. But believe what you want.. I can't change your mind if it's made up, whether what you believe is true or not is not my concern, I just feel compelled to at least say something when I see ignorance in any form, that I know to be untrue.

Anyway, this is the link, hey, even turn up your speakers, it has a catchy tune! ;)

You remember what Penepole Keith said about 'common knowledge': "common it may be, knowledge it is not"

I know during the Iran/Iraq war they gave some assistance to both sides.

Here it is by the numbers:

USSR: 57%
France: 13%
China: 12%
Czechoslovakia: 7%
Poland: 4%
Brazil: 2%
Egypt: 1%
Romania: 1%
Denmark: 1%
Libya: 1%
USA: 1%
UK: 0%

Now, some might find this strange, but when US arms sales amount to the same as an Arab country making copies of other people's stuff, a Soviet vassal state, and a little European country which no one associates with the arms trade, saying the US provided major assistance to Iraq is not justified. Even Brazil sold more. In terms of what country had the most stake in arming Iraq, over 40% of France's arms at that time went to Iraq.

US assistance to Iran may have been of more help than US assistance to Iraq, but considering the sheer incompetance of both sides, any amount of assistance wasn't likely to enable a particular side to achieve much. Evidence has also emerged that Iraq's biggest suppliers also supplied Iran. North Korea also sold to Iran (and continues to do so)

Well by "judging" if that is what our purpose here is, then I would have to say that by "judging" by how many times my husband and I have made you look completely foolish, you should perhaps not "judge" anything. ;)

No you haven't. I just don't pay to much attention to it anymore because I know your politics.

Anyway, this is turning into a pissing contest, to which I leave to small children and boys. I don't think I'll get caught up in it. Not worth my time really. It's not like I'm going to change any minds.

What's the matter? Can't stand on getting called to account for what you actually believe?

You remember what Penepole Keith said about 'common knowledge': "common it may be, knowledge it is not"

I know during the Iran/Iraq war they gave some assistance to both sides.

Here it is by the numbers:

USSR: 57%
France: 13%
China: 12%
Czechoslovakia: 7%
Poland: 4%
Brazil: 2%
Egypt: 1%
Romania: 1%
Denmark: 1%
Libya: 1%
USA: 1%
UK: 0%

Now, some might find this strange, but when US arms sales amount to the same as an Arab country making copies of other people's stuff, a Soviet vassal state, and a little European country which no one associates with the arms trade, saying the US provided major assistance to Iraq is not justified. Even Brazil sold more. In terms of what country had the most stake in arming Iraq, over 40% of France's arms at that time went to Iraq.

US assistance to Iran may have been of more help than US assistance to Iraq, but considering the sheer incompetance of both sides, any amount of assistance wasn't likely to enable a particular side to achieve much. Evidence has also emerged that Iraq's biggest suppliers also supplied Iran. North Korea also sold to Iran (and continues to do so)


There's no explaining this to people who believe that the only evil country in the world is the US.

So tell me what is the rule about violating a cease-fire.

Resume firing!

Did the UN approve Operation Desert Fox?

One thing at a time. Congress didn't even approve it.

Here it is by the numbers:

USSR: 57%
USA: 1%
Interesting...I wonder what is the source...
(I hope its a Chinese Newspaper :D )

Resume firing!

You are correct. When a Cease-fire is violated, war picks up where it left off. Congrats. No one here has ever answered it correctly.

*hands you a cookie*

One thing at a time. Congress didn't even approve it.

Actually, I believe they did.

Interesting...I wonder what is the source...

SIPRI: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Correction The first set of figures came from a third party, the following come from the Institute itself. Here is the link to the original: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf

These figures cover 1970-2004, so the US figure is not all assistance to Saddam Hussein as the US has provided arms to the new, democratic Iraqi government.

USSR 59.57%
China 12.43%
Czechoslovakia 11.05%
Poland 6.57%
Brazil 3.84%
Egypt 1.65%
Denmark 1.18%
USA 0.52%
Austria 0.47%
Romania 0.43%
Switzerland 0.42%
South Africa 0.34%
Yugoslavia 0.32%
Germany (FRG) 0.24%
Italy 0.20%
UK 0.19%
Jordan 0.18%
Hungary 0.17%
Spain 0.07%
East Germany (GDR) 0.06%
Canada 0.06%
UAE 0.02%

Here are details of what was transferred: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf

(N.B. Pay careful attention to the dates, the study covers arms transferrs to Iraq between 1970, and 2004, meaning the study will also include arms transferred to the new democratic Iraq, Australia for example has sold aircraft to the new government to help police the coast line, some suppliers supplied both Saddam Hussein, and the democratic government, Poland for example)

SIPRI: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Correction The first set of figures came from a third party, the following come from the Institute itself. Here is the link to the original: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf

These figures cover 1970-2004, so the US figure is not all assistance to Saddam Hussein as the US has provided arms to the new, democratic Iraqi government.

USSR 59.57%
China 12.43%
Czechoslovakia 11.05%
Poland 6.57%
Brazil 3.84%
Egypt 1.65%
Denmark 1.18%
USA 0.52%
Austria 0.47%
Romania 0.43%
Switzerland 0.42%
South Africa 0.34%
Yugoslavia 0.32%
Germany (FRG) 0.24%
Italy 0.20%
UK 0.19%
Jordan 0.18%
Hungary 0.17%
Spain 0.07%
East Germany (GDR) 0.06%
Canada 0.06%
UAE 0.02%

Here are details of what was transferred: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf

(N.B. Pay careful attention to the dates, the study covers arms transferrs to Iraq between 1970, and 2004, meaning the study will also include arms transferred to the new democratic Iraq, Australia for example has sold aircraft to the new government to help police the coast line, some suppliers supplied both Saddam Hussein, and the democratic government, Poland for example)


Those damnable Swedes! Why can't they stick to porn movies!

Actually, I believe they did.

They didn't, Clinton acted under Public Law 102-1, which was passed in 1991 which authorised President Bush to use military force to enforce UN SC resolutions. He did not ask for specific approval for Desert Fox.

To get back on the topic at hand, wasn't this bandied about several months ago and there was a general consensus that the confusion was over the difference in the ways Brits and Americans use the word fixed, sorta like the difference in the way we use biscuit?

.... there was a general consensus that the confusion was over the difference in the ways Brits and Americans use the word fixed, sorta like the difference in the way we use biscuit?there is a difference in the ways Brits and (some)Americans see the "smoking gun memo"...

Maybe there is confusion over the difference in the ways Brits and (some)Americans use the word Lies and the word Fake...

(Some)Americans are blind...

has nothing to do with Biscuits...there is Cake involved...but no Biscuits...

To get back on the topic at hand, wasn't this bandied about several months ago and there was a general consensus that the confusion was over the difference in the ways Brits and Americans use the word fixed, sorta like the difference in the way we use biscuit?

That's pretty much what went down.

Anyway, the question isn't relevant as they were enforcing a cease-fire agreement every provision of which Saddam violated.

You've actually succeeded in making America look good with this post.

And a little stupid.

You just have to love that good old American double standard, it never ceases to amaze. :)

Don't you have a former and current Prime-Minister you should be trying for war crimes? No?

(Canadian double standards :rolleyes: again. )

Don't you have a former and current Prime-Minister you should be trying for war crimes? No?

(Canadian double standards :rolleyes: again. )

Canada and Australia have identical systems in terms of where the power to make war is vested: namely in the head-of-state (Queen Elizabeth II), but is by custom only exercised by Her Majesty's Representative (the Governor-General) with the approval of Parliament.

If Parliament passes a bill permitting the use of armed force, and that bill is signed by eith the Governor-General of Canada, or the Queen of Canada, then the Canadian Prime Minister may legally order the Canadian Forces in. Not that it would make much difference, but sometimes its the thought that counts.

Canada and Australia have identical systems in terms of where the power to make war is vested: namely in the head-of-state (Queen Elizabeth II), but is by custom only exercised by Her Majesty's Representative (the Governor-General) with the approval of Parliament.What???

No Canadians or Aussies out there???

No1 is going to tell him he is dead Wrong???

What???

No Canadians or Aussies out there???

No1 is going to tell him he is dead Wrong???

I'm dead right. Signing the UN Charter doesn't override a Constitution.

If you think I'm wrong, please quote the relevant sections of the Canadian Constitution, and the Australian Constitution.

I'm dead right. Signing the UN Charter doesn't override a Constitution.

If you think I'm wrong, please quote the relevant sections of the Canadian Constitution, and the Australian Constitution.

You are dead right. Ocean is also one of those who believed that the UN Charter also overrode the US Constitution, no matter how many times he was shown evidence to the contrary.

Ocean won't believe it unless you show him a link to al-Jazeera.

What???

No Canadians or Aussies out there???

No1 is going to tell him he is dead Wrong???

He has never sourced half of anything he says, so I take it with huge amounts of salt and besides, why bother? Canada has nothing to do with this thread, It's completely off topic. You know you don't have an argument or a leg to stand on when you go so far off topic that it's nothing short of laughable, thus is the case with people bringing Canada into this topic.

Stephistan, someone here brought up the idea of charging a former Canadian PM with war crimes because he did something constitutional that the UN didn't approve of. Before posting, please read the thread, it is the height of bad manners not to.

The way war powers in Commonwealth realms (countries ruled by Queen Elizabeth II) are pretty well known.

Canada and Australia have identical systems in terms of where the power to make war is vested: namely in the head-of-state (Queen Elizabeth II)... with the approval of Parliament.Like i said...

Bull shit...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9810555&postcount=87

Like i said...

Bull shit...

If that is bullshit, then explain why Chretien ordered the bombing of Serbia without UN permission.

Explain why the Canadian Armed Forces followed that order and carried out the bombing.

Explain why no one has brought any charges against either Chretien, or anyone on down the chain of command to the lowest ranking airman involved in the bombing.

I'm dead right.You are dead right.
...
Ocean won't believe it unless you show him a link to al-Jazeera.If that is bullshit, then explain why Chretien ordered the bombing of Serbia....Sierra get yourself a history book...

For your Information Chretien is NOT Queen Elizabeth...he has never been the Queen...and he will never be the Queen.

Stephistan, someone here brought up the idea of charging a former Canadian PM with war crimes because he did something constitutional that the UN didn't approve of. Before posting, please read the thread, it is the height of bad manners not to.

So, it's still completely off topic. If you'd like to start a thread on the subject I'll be more than happy to reply.

The way war powers in Commonwealth realms (countries ruled by Queen Elizabeth II) are pretty well known.

Which might hold water if Canada had not broken away from the UK in 1982. We have our own constitution. Yes, we still have a GG, but it's nothing more than a figure-head position, a show of respect, if the GG ever actually tried to use any said powers alotted to them prior to our breaking away, they'd find themselves out of a job. Canada decides what Canada does, no one else.

Sierra get yourself a history book...

For your Information Chretien is NOT Queen Elizabeth...he has never been the Queen...and he will never be the Queen.

You said that the UN Charter is superior to the Canadian Constitution - you assert that Canada would be breaking its own laws if it used force without UN permission.

Obviously, that is not the case. It looks like your PM can ring up the Canadian Air Force and order up a bombing. And can tell the UN to stop bothering him.

Paul Martin is right now making the very same noises about Sudan. He says we can't wait for the UN.

Hmm. Who is right, Ocean, or two PMs of Canada?

If that is bullshit, then explain why Chretien ordered the bombing of Serbia without UN permission.

Explain why the Canadian Armed Forces followed that order and carried out the bombing.

Explain why no one has brought any charges against either Chretien, or anyone on down the chain of command to the lowest ranking airman involved in the bombing.

If I recall correctly which I know I do, Canada's involvement in that was of peace-keeper. Canada did not go to war with anyone. You better check your facts. There also if you recall was an active genocide being committed, you might also want to look up that as well and what the rules of war say about it. :rolleyes:

And I'd like to add that the GG is apointed by our democratically elected Prime Minster.
The Queen doesn't even hold much power in England let alone Canada. :rolleyes:

Hmm. Who is right, Ocean, or two PMs of Canada?

I would be able to give you an answer to that if you could source any of your assertions which to date you have not. Oh and it's PM, we only have one.

If I recall correctly which I know I do, Canada's involvement in that was of peace-keeper. Canada did not go to war with anyone. You better check your facts. There also if you recall was an active genocide being committed, you might also want to look up that as well and what the rules of war say about it. :rolleyes:

Chretien's bombing was legal under Canadian law. Just not legal under the UN Charter. Bombing a country like that is most certainly an act of war. If it isn't, I don't know what else you could do that might qualify (well, invade).

You said that the UN Charter is superior to the Canadian Constitution - you assert that Canada would be .....blah-blah-blah
blah-blah-blah blah-blah-blah
Hmm. Who is right, Ocean, or two PMs of Canada?LOL...
There we go again Sierra...

Sierra, When did I say that...Please use the Quote function to Prove I ever said that.

i posted this so often ... I better save it in notepad... :D

Wow, single word responses.

You are obviously too thick to understand the Westminster system of government. I've known people with less brains than a tadpole who've managed to work it out in considerable less time than it has taken for you not to work it out.

Let me explain, constitutionally, the executive arm of the Canadian Government is headed by the Queen. The Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces is the Queen.

However, she doesn't directly exercise those powers.

You see, the Westminster system of government is dependent on convention and precedent.

The Queen's powers are exercised in Canada by the Governor-General (her representative, necessary because the Queen usually hangs out in London, not Ottawa) with the "advice" (direction in fact) of Parliament.

Here's an article on it. It does refer to the British monarchy, but the constitutional role is identical to that of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Monarchy

Of course, the Prime Minister of Canada is leader of the largest party in Parliament, and can control those MP's. Military power effectively rests in the hands of the Parliament.

I'm dead right.You are dead right.
...
Ocean won't believe it unless you show him a link to al-Jazeera.If that is bullshit, then explain why Chretien ordered the bombing of Serbia....And I'd like to add that the GG is apointed by our democratically elected Prime Minster.
The Queen doesn't even hold much power in England let alone Canada. :rolleyes:finally...

and I spect Australians to tell you as much...

Sierra and Disraeliland ..you both dead Wrong...you dont have a clue about Canadian or Australian politics

So, it's still completely off topic. If you'd like to start a thread on the subject I'll be more than happy to reply.



Which might hold water if Canada had not broken away from the UK in 1982. We have our own constitution. Yes, we still have a GG, but it's nothing more than a figure-head position, a show of respect, if the GG ever actually tried to use any said powers alotted to them prior to our breaking away, they'd find themselves out of a job. Canada decides what Canada does, no one else.

Have you read your own Constitution?

Didn't think so.

"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

"The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated."

In other words, the Governor-General carries out the duties of the Queen.

"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Stephistan, do you understand the role of convention and precedent in the Westminster system?

The way war powers in Commonwealth realms (countries ruled by Queen Elizabeth II) are pretty well known....are pretty well known..where... :confused:

where are you from?

finally...

and I spect Australians to tell you as much...

Sierra and Disraeliland ..you both dead Wrong...you dont have a clue about Canadian or Australian politics

Well, he is sort of right about the Australians, as they have never broke away from the UK, however dead wrong about Canada because we did.

Anyway.. this thread is pretty much dead as it has gone wayyyyyyyy off topic.

I would be able to give you an answer to that if you could source any of your assertions which to date you have not. Oh and it's PM, we only have one.

I've sourced the Canadian bombing of Serbia on multiple threads so far. I can't be blamed if you don't read them. Without UN permission.

LOL...
There we go again Sierra...

Sierra, When did I say that...Please use the Quote function to Prove I ever said that.

i posted this so often ... I better save it in notepad... :D

Canada and Australia have identical systems in terms of where the power to make war is vested: namely in the head-of-state (Queen Elizabeth II), but is by custom only exercised by Her Majesty's Representative (the Governor-General) with the approval of Parliament.

If Parliament passes a bill permitting the use of armed force, and that bill is signed by eith the Governor-General of Canada, or the Queen of Canada, then the Canadian Prime Minister may legally order the Canadian Forces in. Not that it would make much difference, but sometimes its the thought that counts.

What???

No Canadians or Aussies out there???

No1 is going to tell him he is dead Wrong???
I'm dead right. Signing the UN Charter doesn't override a Constitution.

If you think I'm wrong, please quote the relevant sections of the Canadian Constitution, and the Australian Constitution.

You're saying that Disraeliland is wrong. He says Canada can decide to go to war. You say Canada can't.

You NEVER rebut his final claim EVER. You NEVER source anything to rebut him.

So, by default, you are asserting that Canada cannot go to war - in fact, since you say he is dead wrong, you are implying that the UN Charter overrides the Canadian Constitution.

But you NEVER rebut it - and NEVER source anything.

Sierra and Disraeliland ..you both dead Wrong...you dont have a clue about Canadian or Australian politics

You've shown no evidence of a clue about anything.

Well, he is sort of right about the Australians, as they have never broke away from the UK, however dead wrong about Canada because we did.

Have you ever heard of the Australia Act of 1986? (law were passed by the Commonwealth. All the states, and the UK Parliament passed enabling leglislation)

The Act resolved finally the role of the UK Parliament in Australia over the states, namely none, after passage the UK could no longer legislate for Australian states.

It also terminated appeals from Australian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, establishing the High Court of Australia as the highest court in Australia.

The Commonwealth had already broken away from Britain with the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (which also assured Canada's independence).

about your post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9810829&postcount=108You're saying that Disraeliland is wrong. Im still saying he is wrong... Chretien is not The Queen Elizabeth...He has never been a Queen.

Also Id like to point out..you are NOT using the Quote Function in a fair way(you are cheating)...You are using to make it appear what you are saying is true ...But it is false.

Let me show you the right way.(It shows exactly what I posted)

Canada and Australia have identical systems in terms of where the power to make war is vested: namely in the head-of-state (Queen Elizabeth II), but is by custom only exercised by Her Majesty's Representative (the Governor-General) with the approval of Parliament.
What???

No Canadians or Aussies out there???

No1 is going to tell him he is dead Wrong???

and here is the link that proves thats exactly what I posted:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9810555&postcount=87

Im still saying he is wrong... Chretien is not The Queen Elizabeth...He has never been a Queen.

Chimpanzees have mastered the Westminster system, Labor Party politicians have even worked it out.

Could you produce some rebuttal that actually addresses the Westminster system, instead of resorting to facetious remarks.

I'll explain it to you.

The Queen is the head of the executive, and Commander-in-Chief. As she can't hang out in Ottawa all the time, she appoints a Governor-General (by convention, she appoints the person recommended by the Prime Minister). By Convention again, she doesn't exercise executive powers without the advice of Parliament and Cabinet.

In Canada, both are effectively controlled by the Prime Minister. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Canada has the effective ability to use the Canadian Forces to enforce Canadian Government policy. This is because he effectively controls Parliament by virtue of being the leader of the largest party or coalition controlling the MP's in that party or coalition, and because he is the head of the cabinet.

If you've any knowledge of the Westminster system, and you claim knowledge, then you'd have been able to work this out yourself.

Im still saying he is wrong... Chretien is not The Queen Elizabeth...He has never been a Queen.

Also Id like to point out..you are NOT using the Quote Function in a fair way(you are cheating)...You are using to make it appear what you are saying is true ...But it is false.

Let me show you the right way.(It shows exactly what I posted)

and here is the link that proves thats exactly what I posted:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9810555&postcount=87

We're not arguing about who is Queen. We're arguing about the Canadian government's ability to use force without UN permission.

They can, and they have used force without UN permission. And are threatening to do it again.

Here's a link for the blind and ignorant:

http://www.peace.ca/eggletonsays.htm

I happen to agree with Eggleton, by the way. I'm just pointing out that Canada evidently has the same disregard for international law and the UN as the United States. It also seems to have the same disregard for UN observers and inspectors, even when those observers are Canadians.

In joining NATO's attack on Kosovo and Serbia, Ottawa for the first time ever, broke three major international agreements:
1. The UN Charter, among whose purposes are: "to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes" (Ch.1, Art. 1, No. 1) and that "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..."(Ch.1, Art. 2, No.4)
2. NATO's founding document of 4 April 1949 which very clearly subordinates itself to the UN Charter.
3. NATO's Founding Act of, 27 May 1997, on Mutual Relations Cooperation & Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, which also very clearly subordinates itself to the UN Charter.

But was there even some extreme emergency justification for breaking these fundamental agreements of international law? Apparently not.

The two main reasons given by NATO for the bombing of Yugoslavia were, first, the rejection by Serbia of the Rambouillet Accords, and second, Serbia's "genocidal ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. We now know that these reasons were very misleading, if not false. Yet Ottawa accepted these two reasons with its eyes wide open.

First, the so-called Rambouillet "Accords" which required that, not only Kosovo, but Serbia itself be occupied by NATO forces - a condition no sovereign state could accept. A more exact name, then, for these "Accords" would have been the "Rambouillet Surrender Ultimatum to Serbia." Ottawa had access to the full text of this document well before the bombing began.

Second, the NATO figure of 10,000 Kosovars killed in "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs in Kosovo was exaggerated about ten times. This figures was unsupported by the best source of information available: The 1380 Kosovo Verification Monitors on the ground in Kosovo to monitor the cease-fire compliance of the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement of 16 Oct. 1998.

These monitors came from 38 countries, including sixty-four from Canada. One of them, Rollie Keith, stated: " I did not witness, nor did I have knowledge of any incidents of so-called "ethnic cleansing" and there certainly were no occurrences of "genocidal policies" while I was with the KVM in Kosovo." (Democrat, May '99)

Thus, The bombing of Yugoslavia marked a fateful turning point for Canada. Ottawa knowingly broke the UN Charter and International Law when it ordered Canadian pilots to bomb Yugoslavia on 24 March 1999.

Do Canadians really want to see Ottawa defy international law in future?

Apparently our Defence Minister has no problems with this:
"If the cause is 'just' and allies are willing, Canada is ready to go to war again
for humanitarian reasons, even if the action defies international law and the United Nations Charter." (Defence Minister Eggleton, at Harvard University,G&M 2 Oct'99,A14)

I've sourced the Canadian bombing of Serbia on multiple threads so far. I can't be blamed if you don't read them. Without UN permission.

You're talking about the US led peace keeping mission? The one that tried to stop active genocide? Do look up the international laws on such things hun before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

You're talking about the US led peace keeping mission? The one that tried to stop active genocide? Do look up the international laws on such things hun before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

You're the one who has posted many, many times that no nation should be able to make war without UN permission. Do remember what you posted.

You're the one who has posted many, many times that no nation should be able to make war without UN permission. Do remember what you posted.

You really need a lesson in the difference between war and peace-keeping?

You really need a lesson in the difference between war and peace-keeping?

Bombing is not "peacekeeping". Unless you want me to buy into some wacky UN definition.

Like their definition of "genocide". Funny how you think that it was "genocide" in Kosovo (since Canadian forces were bombing the main television station in Serbia), and it's not "genocide" in Darfur according to the UN.

I know. We'll let Canada bomb Sudan, and then the UN can call the Sudanese action a genocide to cover their asses.

Chimpanzees have mastered the Westminster system, Labor Party politicians have even worked it out.

Could you produce some rebuttal that actually addresses the Westminster system, instead of resorting to facetious remarks.

I'll explain it to you.

The Queen is the head of the executive, and Commander-in-Chief. As she can't hang out in Ottawa all the time.....Chimpanzees... :D :D

Fine...Lets assume for a second that the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canada+Australia armed forces (... I feel weird just typing that..)

So...the only reason she wont use her war Powers is because she cant "Hang out" in Ottawa all the time...(or in Australia):rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But...she can "hang out" in London...
Are you going tell me she has the real Commander-in-chief Powers over there...(just like Bush has in the US) :confused:

We're not arguing about who is Queen. We're arguing about ....Actually...We are supposed to be debating about this...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450008

At one point i was pointing out to this ridicule statement: (It was too much to ignore)
Canada and Australia have identical systems in terms of where the power to make war is vested: namely in the head-of-state (Queen Elizabeth II), but is by custom only exercised by Her Majesty's Representative (the Governor-General) with the approval of Parliament.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9810555&postcount=87

Bombing is not "peacekeeping". Unless you want me to buy into some wacky UN definition.

Ok, apparently you do need a lesson in peace-keeping..

PRINCIPAL ASSERTIONS

The future of peacekeeping missions will be focused on activities and objectives not anticipated by the framers and developers of traditional Laws of War.

1)Most situations for which modern peacekeeping missions are proposed do not fit the mold of "conflict" for which the laws of war and associated protocols were developed. Because these situations result primarily from ethnic and cultural differences, rather than from economic or territorial ambitions, the concepts of sovereignty and legitimacy on which distinctions among participants are based under traditional formalities are not applicable.

2)The demand for peacekeepers is outstripping the supply; the definition, therefore, of when the international peace has been breached will be modified by "ground truth", if not by diplomatic exigencies. This will lead to new interpretations of when Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Actions with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression") of the U.N. Charter, and the 1994 Brussels Summit extensions of NATO, can be used as the basis for intervention.

To develop both pre-planned "standard" packages for either type 1 or type 2 responses to peacekeeping situations, one must shave a clear idea of what tasks are involved.

They list tasks that are:

1)Not common in traditional combat operations
*Negotiate tactical Status of Forces Agreements with local leaders.
*Mediate or act As an intermediary in disputes between factions.
*Arbitrate local disputes or fights.
*Administer local justice codes.
*Prevent refugee flows.
*Conduct resettlement.
*Administer humanitarian relief operations.

2)Common combats tasks which need modification for peacekeeping operations.
*Coordinate military activities with international agencies, private *organizations, and local factions.
*Establish static defenses.
*Collect intelligence.
*Disarm local factions.
*Cordon and search.
*Seize buildings. And
Uniquely mixed tasks required for peacekeeping operations, which make force structure and utilization different from that found in combat missions.
*Guarding facilities.
*Self-protection in static positions.
*Escorting and guarding convoys.
*Negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and diffusion of tension.
*Civic action.
*Providing humanitarian assistance.
*Psychological and informational operations.
*Police duties.
*Providing logistics support to nonmilitary organizations.
*Civil affairs interaction in local political processes.
*Area and route reconnaissance.


Since it was our Canadian PM who invented Peacekeeping and I might add won the Nobel Peace Prize for it, because we stopped what would of become a global conflict and probably would of resulted in WWIII, I think that most Canadians have a pretty good idea about the differences. Given we created peacekeeping, I also believe that the way it is taught in our schools in far and above that of ANY other nation. It's part of OUR history.

Actually...We are supposed to be debating about this...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450008


I believe that it has already been pointed out that it's not illegal. Not unethical. And certainly something that governments do.

Oh, instead of telling people what we plan to do, let's just do it and when they see it on CNN, they can be completely surprised.

Perish forbid!

Ok, apparently you do need a lesson in peace-keeping..

PRINCIPAL ASSERTIONS

The future of peacekeeping missions will be focused on activities and objectives not anticipated by the framers and developers of traditional Laws of War.

1)Most situations for which modern peacekeeping missions are proposed do not fit the mold of "conflict" for which the laws of war and associated protocols were developed. Because these situations result primarily from ethnic and cultural differences, rather than from economic or territorial ambitions, the concepts of sovereignty and legitimacy on which distinctions among participants are based under traditional formalities are not applicable.

2)The demand for peacekeepers is outstripping the supply; the definition, therefore, of when the international peace has been breached will be modified by "ground truth", if not by diplomatic exigencies. This will lead to new interpretations of when Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Actions with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression") of the U.N. Charter, and the 1994 Brussels Summit extensions of NATO, can be used as the basis for intervention.

To develop both pre-planned "standard" packages for either type 1 or type 2 responses to peacekeeping situations, one must shave a clear idea of what tasks are involved.

They list tasks that are:

1)Not common in traditional combat operations
*Negotiate tactical Status of Forces Agreements with local leaders.
*Mediate or act As an intermediary in disputes between factions.
*Arbitrate local disputes or fights.
*Administer local justice codes.
*Prevent refugee flows.
*Conduct resettlement.
*Administer humanitarian relief operations.

2)Common combats tasks which need modification for peacekeeping operations.
*Coordinate military activities with international agencies, private *organizations, and local factions.
*Establish static defenses.
*Collect intelligence.
*Disarm local factions.
*Cordon and search.
*Seize buildings. And
Uniquely mixed tasks required for peacekeeping operations, which make force structure and utilization different from that found in combat missions.
*Guarding facilities.
*Self-protection in static positions.
*Escorting and guarding convoys.
*Negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and diffusion of tension.
*Civic action.
*Providing humanitarian assistance.
*Psychological and informational operations.
*Police duties.
*Providing logistics support to nonmilitary organizations.
*Civil affairs interaction in local political processes.
*Area and route reconnaissance.


Since it was our Canadian PM who invented Peacekeeping and I might add won the Nobel Peace Prize for it, because we stopped what would of become a global conflict and probably would of resulted in WWIII, I think that most Canadians have a pretty good idea about the differences. Given we created peacekeeping, I also believe that the way it is taught in our schools in far and above that of ANY other nation. It's part of OUR history.


I don't see anything in there that would justify what was written in the ultimatum - that is, if the peacekeeping was in Kosovo, and the genocide was in Kosovo, then why did the ultimatum demand that Serbia (yes, it's not Kosovo) be subject to occupation?

Eh? I don't see the justification in there.

I put it to you again - international law is a complete joke. It is selectively applied, and selectively enforced - even when Canada is doing its best to implement it.

Once again, international law is a complete joke.

NS forum rule number 1.

Never argue with Stephistan. You will always lose. :cool:

NS forum rule number 1.

Never argue with Stephistan. You will always lose. :cool:

Believing that doesn't make the language in the ultimatum to Serbia fit the language of the stuff she quoted.

I don't see anything in there that would justify what was written in the ultimatum - that is, if the peacekeeping was in Kosovo, and the genocide was in Kosovo, then why did the ultimatum demand that Serbia (yes, it's not Kosovo) be subject to occupation?

Eh? I don't see the justification in there.

I put it to you again - international law is a complete joke. It is selectively applied, and selectively enforced - even when Canada is doing its best to implement it.

Once again, international law is a complete joke.

Just because you don't know what the laws are and apparently have no idea of the history of these conflicts, does not negate that some of us do. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. What happened in Kosovo and by extension Serbia is apples and oranges compared to what the USA did unilaterally against Iraq. Not to mention the USA were wrong and developed the Intel around the policy, not the other way around. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. To me? End of story.

Just because you don't know what the laws are and apparently have no idea of the history of these conflicts, does not negate that some of us do. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. What happened in Kosovo and by extension Serbia is apples and oranges compared to what the USA did unilaterally against Iraq. Not to mention the USA were wrong and developed the Intel around the policy, not the other way around. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. To me? End of story.
Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about is an ad hominem, and not a very good one, considering the following facts:

First, the so-called Rambouillet "Accords" which required that, not only Kosovo, but Serbia itself be occupied by NATO forces - a condition no sovereign state could accept. A more exact name, then, for these "Accords" would have been the "Rambouillet Surrender Ultimatum to Serbia." Ottawa had access to the full text of this document well before the bombing began.

Second, the NATO figure of 10,000 Kosovars killed in "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs in Kosovo was exaggerated about ten times. This figures was unsupported by the best source of information available: The 1380 Kosovo Verification Monitors on the ground in Kosovo to monitor the cease-fire compliance of the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement of 16 Oct. 1998.

These monitors came from 38 countries, including sixty-four from Canada. One of them, Rollie Keith, stated: " I did not witness, nor did I have knowledge of any incidents of so-called "ethnic cleansing" and there certainly were no occurrences of "genocidal policies" while I was with the KVM in Kosovo." (Democrat, May '99)

Thus, The bombing of Yugoslavia marked a fateful turning point for Canada. Ottawa knowingly broke the UN Charter and International Law when it ordered Canadian pilots to bomb Yugoslavia on 24 March 1999.

I'm so glad that you couldn't bring up anything to contravene the language of the Rambouillet accords, and their complete inapplicability to the "peacekeeping" language of the UN Charter - your only argument is "you don't know what you're talking about".

Not a valid argument. Sorry. Try again.

Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about is an ad hominem, and not a very good one, considering the following facts:

First, the so-called Rambouillet "Accords" which required that, not only Kosovo, but Serbia itself be occupied by NATO forces - a condition no sovereign state could accept. A more exact name, then, for these "Accords" would have been the "Rambouillet Surrender Ultimatum to Serbia." Ottawa had access to the full text of this document well before the bombing began.

Second, the NATO figure of 10,000 Kosovars killed in "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs in Kosovo was exaggerated about ten times. This figures was unsupported by the best source of information available: The 1380 Kosovo Verification Monitors on the ground in Kosovo to monitor the cease-fire compliance of the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement of 16 Oct. 1998.

These monitors came from 38 countries, including sixty-four from Canada. One of them, Rollie Keith, stated: " I did not witness, nor did I have knowledge of any incidents of so-called "ethnic cleansing" and there certainly were no occurrences of "genocidal policies" while I was with the KVM in Kosovo." (Democrat, May '99)

Thus, The bombing of Yugoslavia marked a fateful turning point for Canada. Ottawa knowingly broke the UN Charter and International Law when it ordered Canadian pilots to bomb Yugoslavia on 24 March 1999.

I'm so glad that you couldn't bring up anything to contravene the language of the Rambouillet accords, and their complete inapplicability to the "peacekeeping" language of the UN Charter - your only argument is "you don't know what you're talking about".

Not a valid argument. Sorry. Try again.

You don't understand the law and the difference between war and peacekeeping, kind of hard to peace keep if you don't occupy.. gee, do get some library time in will ya. Your baseless assertions and lack of willingness to back up anything you say with a valid source is getting some what tiresome to the point that it's starting to border trolling.

You don't understand the law and the difference between war and peacekeeping, kind of hard to peace keep if you don't occupy.. gee, do get some library time in will ya. Your baseless assertions and lack of willingness to back up anything you say with a valid source is getting some what tiresome to the point that it's starting to border trolling.

The "peace" was to be kept in Kosovo.

All operations, therefore, should have taken place in Kosovo.

I'm just pointing out that people bend the UN rules and international law, and ignore parts when they feel like making ultimatums and doing whatever they please.

I'm not trying to justify what Bush did either - I'm just saying that international law is a complete asinine joke.

The "peace" was to be kept in Kosovo.

All operations, therefore, should have taken place in Kosovo.

I'm just pointing out that people bend the UN rules and international law, and ignore parts when they feel like making ultimatums and doing whatever they please.

I'm not trying to justify what Bush did either - I'm just saying that international law is a complete asinine joke.

At this point, lets just agree to disagree, as it is quite obvious we are not going to be changing anyone's mind here today. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

If I recall correctly which I know I do, Canada's involvement in that was of peace-keeper. Canada did not go to war with anyone. You better check your facts. There also if you recall was an active genocide being committed, you might also want to look up that as well and what the rules of war say about it. :rolleyes:

And the Genocide Convention too which is a treaty I might add. :D

Calling Canadian PM's War criminals... again... Freud called that projection.

You're talking about the US led peace keeping mission? The one that tried to stop active genocide? Do look up the international laws on such things hun before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

Learn alittle history Stephistan.

NS forum rule number 1.

Never argue with Stephistan. You will always lose. :cool:

Considering she is on thin Ice in this arguement, *cracks up laughing*

Please, she doesn't have a clue as to what she's saying in regards to international law and it has come quite obvious.

Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about is an ad hominem, and not a very good one, considering the following facts:

First, the so-called Rambouillet "Accords" which required that, not only Kosovo, but Serbia itself be occupied by NATO forces - a condition no sovereign state could accept. A more exact name, then, for these "Accords" would have been the "Rambouillet Surrender Ultimatum to Serbia." Ottawa had access to the full text of this document well before the bombing began.

Second, the NATO figure of 10,000 Kosovars killed in "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs in Kosovo was exaggerated about ten times. This figures was unsupported by the best source of information available: The 1380 Kosovo Verification Monitors on the ground in Kosovo to monitor the cease-fire compliance of the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement of 16 Oct. 1998.

These monitors came from 38 countries, including sixty-four from Canada. One of them, Rollie Keith, stated: " I did not witness, nor did I have knowledge of any incidents of so-called "ethnic cleansing" and there certainly were no occurrences of "genocidal policies" while I was with the KVM in Kosovo." (Democrat, May '99)

Thus, The bombing of Yugoslavia marked a fateful turning point for Canada. Ottawa knowingly broke the UN Charter and International Law when it ordered Canadian pilots to bomb Yugoslavia on 24 March 1999.

I'm so glad that you couldn't bring up anything to contravene the language of the Rambouillet accords, and their complete inapplicability to the "peacekeeping" language of the UN Charter - your only argument is "you don't know what you're talking about".

Not a valid argument. Sorry. Try again.

Well said Sierra. You know more about what's going on than does Stephistan and Stephistan is supposed to have a doctorate in Political Science. I guess she needs to get a refund :D

If I recall correctly which I know I do, Canada's involvement in that was of peace-keeper. Canada did not go to war with anyone. You better check your facts. There also if you recall was an active genocide being committed, you might also want to look up that as well and what the rules of war say about it. :rolleyes:

I am sorry but there was no active genocide. The ICJ, which you are bound by treaty to abide by (under the UN charter) ruled as such. And Canada continued bombing. Also, given that Canada acted without, and against, the mandate of the UN security council, I don't see how you can reasonably classify this as "peacekeeping" other than through wishfull thinking.

In short:

Canada's national security was not threatened by serbia.

No UN authorization for Canada's bombing was given - never mind the civilian deaths.

The ICJ ruled that there was no genocide in Sebia.

Therefore Canada, under the UN charter conducted an agressive war.

Therefore Paul Martin and Chretien are Warcriminals.

Considering she is on thin Ice in this arguement, *cracks up laughing*

Please, she doesn't have a clue as to what she's saying in regards to international law and it has come quite obvious.From my pov she's been owning your keisters since this conversation began.

From my pov she's been owning your keisters since this conversation began.

There is one thing that can be said for a pig-headedness refusal to face the facts: It certainly helps your self-esteem.

She has owned precisely nothing. International law regulates the necessary relations between nations, its not a criminal code. Cretin and Martin acted in accordance with Canadian law, and they had the courage not to prostitute their foreign policy to France, Russia and China.

Whether or not the Russians approved was irrelevant to whether it was right to hold Serbia to account, and the Russians are historically unlikely to approve holding any Serbian regime to account (even the Soviets gave Tito a free pass when he turned away from the USSR, while they rode roughshod over Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, and Hungary), and when you're talking about the UN SC approving measures to hold Serbia to account, you are talking about what the Russians want.

I haven't seen any erroneus facts on Stephistan's part. Would you care to point them out for me?

NOTE TO ALL: Serbia was bombed by NATO. Not Canada alone. :rolleyes:

Cretin and Martin acted in accordance with Canadian law, and they had the courage not to prostitute their foreign policy to France, Russia and China.Monsieur Cretin is a Moron...and The best Canadian Prime Minister was Jean Poutine.

Actually Jean Chretien was a solid PM. The acomplishments with the federal budget are staggering. I feel that Paul Martin has alot more potential though.

Jean Poutine is a nicely tied joke. A joke within a joke.

Actually Jean Chretien was a solid PM. The acomplishments with the federal budget are staggering

I hope you mean it was slashed considerably.

Monsieur Cretin is a Moron

Bully for Cretin, the fact remains that he did not break the law, and was at least intelligent enough to work out that the Russians would block an effort in the UN to hold Serbia to account.

I hope you mean it was slashed considerably.Not sure what you mean by that, but he turned record deficits into huge surplusses, year after year. It had to be done.

From my pov she's been owning your keisters since this conversation began.

Sorry but I do have the force of International Law with me over her statements!

NOTE TO ALL: Serbia was bombed by NATO. Not Canada alone. :rolleyes:

Yup and WITH NO UN APPROVAL! Why? China threatened VETO!!

Sorry but I do have the force of International Law with me over her statements!

Care to source where in international law it says that peacekeeping is an act of aggression? I hear so many comment on what I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I back up what I say with facts, easily verifiable, yet all I get from you and whispering legs is baseless assertions with no sources to back them up. So for once Mr. I have international law on my side, source it or don't expect us to see you doing anything more than babbling about things you either don't know or can't admit you're wrong about.

Care to source where in international law it says that peacekeeping is an act of aggression? I hear so many comment on what I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I back up what I say with facts, easily verifiable, yet all I get from you and whispering legs is baseless assertions with no sources to back them up. So for once Mr. I have international law on my side, source it or don't expect us to see you doing anything more than babbling about things you either don't know or can't admit you're wrong about.

The peacekeeping mission was in Kosovo, not Serbia.

Bombing Serbia, or even demanding that Serbia surrender to peacekeepers in Kosovo, is not in keeping with the peacekeeping mandate.

But, I'll let Lacadaemon argue this one with you.

Care to source where in international law it says that peacekeeping is an act of aggression?

Care to tell me if the UN approved the bombing of Serbia? Care to tell me that a presidential/Prime Minister authorized attack is a violation of International Law.

You like to split hairs Stephistan only this time, your split hairs are wrong. What Canada did was a complete act of aggression wether you want to believe it or not. You may call it peacekeeping but those of us who actually study military matters knows that it was an act of aggression and not a peacekeeping operation.

The peacekeeping mission was in Kosovo, not Serbia.

Bombing Serbia, or even demanding that Serbia surrender to peacekeepers in Kosovo, is not in keeping with the peacekeeping mandate.It was according to NATO.

You like to split hairs Stephistan

So, no sources huh?

Yes, I split hairs because law is like that, laws are written in a way that are very exact. The only law I'm aware of that is up for interpretation seems to be constitutional law (Where applicable). Now I know you're in your first year of learning about politics at your local college, give it some more time, you'll learn these things.

It was according to NATO.

And now you agree with me again.

Since when is NATO the UN? If you're a believer in international law, are you now picking and choosing when you'll ignore which laws, just like Bush?

Oh, I see. Today, because it's convenient and quick, and NATO says OK, we'll go with NATO even though the UN Charter and the UN says no. And we'll stretch the area covered by the peacekeeping without going to have changes made officially.

Later, when some other country tries to pull this trick, we'll give them a rash of crap about "international law".

So, no sources huh?

Steph, it is a known fact that the UN is NOT, repeat NOT, a world body. They do not make laws. Any action they authorize still has to go through the appropriate legislatures to approve a war.

Yes, I split hairs because law is like that, laws are written in a way that are very exact. The only law I'm aware of that is up for interpretation seems to be constitutional law (Where applicable). Now I know you're in your first year of learning about politics at your local college, give it some more time, you'll learn these things.

First year about learning about Politics? DOn't make me laugh Stephistan. I'm a senior in College this year. I have one more year of school left before I graduate with my bachelors. I have a pretty solid foundation in politics with my professors. My professors have even given me compliments on my knowledge of politics.

And now you agree with me again.

Since when is NATO the UN? If you're a believer in international law, are you now picking and choosing when you'll ignore which laws, just like Bush?

Oh, I see. Today, because it's convenient and quick, and NATO says OK, we'll go with NATO even though the UN Charter and the UN says no. And we'll stretch the area covered by the peacekeeping without going to have changes made officially.

Later, when some other country tries to pull this trick, we'll give them a rash of crap about "international law".It was a controversial decision no doubts there. Canada does not easily go against the UN and international law, if in fact they did. The situation in question needed immediate intervention. A decision was made.

What the US had done so many times is go against the UN when no immediate intervention is necessary.

It was a controversial decision no doubts there. Canada does not easily go against the UN and international law. The situation in question needed immediate intervention. A decision was made.

What the US had done so many times is go against the UN when no immediate intervention is necessary.

I see. If Canada says intervention is necessary, then it's necessary. If France says intervention (like Ivory Coast) is necessary, then it's necessary. Necessary to bomb a civilian TV station, a passenger train and other civilian targets with Canadian planes. Necessary for French troops to machinegun unarmed civilians in the street when they are NOT taking fire.

But by your logic, the US is not allowed to decide for itself when intervention is necessary.

Not a good argument, I'm afraid.

First year about learning about Politics? DOn't make me laugh Stephistan. I'm a senior in College this year. I have one more year of school left before I graduate with my bachelors. I have a pretty solid foundation in politics with my professors. My professors have even given me compliments on my knowledge of politics.

Well, it was just last year that you said you started, a bachelor in one year impressive and impossible. I just caught you lying. Tisk, tisk. Now I think I have nothing more to say to you. I don't like being lied to.

Well, it was just last year that you said you started, a bachelor in one year impressive and impossible. I just caught you lying. Tisk, tisk. Now I think I have nothing more to say to you. I don't like being lied to.

Apparently you can't put two and two and come up with 4. I already had my Gen eds out of the way (well most of them) so I can concentrate on my majors. I only need 5 more political science classes to finish out that major but need a few more to finish out my history major. If it wasn't for that history major. I'd be done next semester.

Goes to show what happens when you switch majors midstream :(

I see. If Canada says intervention is necessary, then it's necessary.

Not a good argument, I'm afraid.

No on it's own it wouldn't be. I agree. However that was not the case. It was a NATO operation, led by the USA, and in case you forgot this little bit of international law, let me remind you of it again today.

PRINCIPAL ASSERTIONS

The future of peacekeeping missions will be focused on activities and objectives not anticipated by the framers and developers of traditional Laws of War.

1)Most situations for which modern peacekeeping missions are proposed do not fit the mold of "conflict" for which the laws of war and associated protocols were developed. Because these situations result primarily from ethnic and cultural differences, rather than from economic or territorial ambitions, the concepts of sovereignty and legitimacy on which distinctions among participants are based under traditional formalities are not applicable.

2)The demand for peacekeepers is outstripping the supply; the definition, therefore, of when the international peace has been breached will be modified by "ground truth", if not by diplomatic exigencies. This will lead to new interpretations of when Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Actions with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression") of the U.N. Charter, and the 1994 Brussels Summit extensions of NATO, can be used as the basis for intervention.

I see. If Canada says intervention is necessary, then it's necessary. -snip- The United Nations had recognized the need for peacekeeping. So I don't see what your all uptight about.

The US in the Iraq War was not responding to an immediate humanitarian crisis.

The United Nations had recognized the need for peacekeeping. So I don't see what your all uptight about.

The US in the Iraq War was not responding to an immediate humanitarian crisis.

Peacekeeping in Kosovo. Not in Serbia. The ultimatum from NATO demanded that Serbia surrender to occupation.

No language I can see to support that.

No, the US was enforcing a ceasefire.

Peacekeeping in Kosovo. Not in Serbia. The ultimatum from NATO demanded that Serbia surrender to occupation.

No language I can see to support that.
The operations in Serbia had everything to do with the peacekeeping process in the region.

No, the US was enforcing a ceasefire.
Unfortunately for America, and for the GOP, that was not the reason invoked to wage war.

Unfortunately for America, and for the GOP, that was not the reason invoked to wage war.

You obviously didn't read the Congressional Resolution authorising war.

No, the US was enforcing a ceasefire.

Yep we were.

You obviously didn't read the Congressional Resolution authorising war.

Did you expect anything different?

Yep we were.

That in fact you broke first under Clinton.

You obviously didn't read the Congressional Resolution authorising war.You obviously didn't watch Colin Powell's presentation of assorted baloney at the UN. He did the decent thing and resigned after the term was over though. Kudos for Colin.

That in fact you broke first under Clinton.

Rubbish. One of the clauses was that Saddam Hussein stop the repression of his people. He broke that one immediately.

Anyway, where did the ceasefire agreement place conditions on the US?

Did you expect anything different?

No.

You obviously didn't watch Colin Powell's presentation of assorted baloney at the UN. He did the decent thing and resigned after the term was over though. Kudos for Colin.

Yup he's even publicly said it was the lowest point of his career. He knew it was a lie when he was being forced to do it by the hawks. He has said as much.

That in fact you broke first under Clinton.

Nice job Steph. Apparently you don't realize the fact that Iraq broke it first when they didn't comply to hand over the info regarding their WMD program within 15 days of approving the cease-fire.

Keep up with the misleading.

You obviously didn't watch Colin Powell's presentation of assorted baloney at the UN. He did the decent thing and resigned after the term was over though. Kudos for Colin.

Do you ever answer anything?

Nice job Steph. Apparently you don't realize the fact that Iraq broke it first when they didn't comply to hand over the info regarding their WMD program within 15 days of approving the cease-fire.

Keep up with the misleading.

Not to mention slaughtering the Kurds almost immediately. Nice violation of the ceasefire, that.

Rubbish. One of the clauses was that Saddam Hussein stop the repression of his people. He broke that one immediately.

Anyway, where did the ceasefire agreement place conditions on the US?

Okay, first of all when he slaughtered all those Shiites it was because they formed an insurgency to try to over throw the government. Now what would any government do in an attempted coup? What would Bush do if thousands of angry Americans tried to storm the White House and over throw it's government? Yep, basically the same thing, the ones that didn't get shot by the military and or secret police and police in general would stand trial for treason which in America can carry the death penalty. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The cease-fire was breached fairly early on in the Clinton administration. Part of the agreement was that Saddam let the UN inspectors in to dispose of any WMD (which they did) then Sec. of State Albright said VERY publicly that sanctions would never be lifted on Iraq as long as Saddam held power. That wasn't the deal, the deal was sanctions would be lifted via Sadaam cooperating with the UN inspectors, well of course after she said that, Saddam became more difficult and played games with the inspectors and why wouldn't he? It had been made very clear to him that no matter what he did short of giving up power would lift the sanctions. At which time the UN inspectors pulled out. Saddam never kicked out the UN inspectors ever as some would have you believe. That's just a myth, or misinformation.

Same with this time around, it was Bush Jr. who told the inspectors to leave because he could not promise they'd be safe because despite them not finishing their job, Bush was going to war.

Okay, first of all when he slaughtered all those Shiites it was because they formed an insurgency to try to over throw the government. Now what would any government do in an attempted coup?

Strawman. Saddam had general repressive policies over the whole population.

Anyway, he did not just target the rebels, he targetted the general population.

What would Bush do if thousands of angry Americans tried to storm the White House and over throw it's government? Yep, basically the same thing, the ones that didn't get shot by the military and or secret police and police in general would stand trial for treason which in America can carry the death penalty. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Is there a sale on strawmen?

The cease-fire was breached fairly early on in the Clinton administration.

That's an understatment, it was breached before the 1992 election.

Part of the agreement was that Saddam let the UN inspectors in to dispose of any WMD (which they did)

Which they didn't, the inspectors themselves said that there was over 9 tons of anthrax unaccounted for, as well as other materials.

Saddam obstructed insepctions throughout the process.

Sec. of State Albright said VERY publicly that sanctions would never be lifted on Iraq as long as Saddam held power. That wasn't the deal, the deal was sanctions would be lifted via Sadaam cooperating with the UN inspectors, well of course after she said that, Saddam became more difficult and played games with the inspectors and why wouldn't he? It had been made very clear to him that no matter what he did short of giving up power would lift the sanctions. At which time the UN inspectors pulled out. Saddam never kicked out the UN inspectors ever as some would have you believe. That's just a myth, or misinformation.

Which was a prefectly justifiable position, since Saddam had never complied before, with any part of the ceasefire.

Do you ever answer anything?
If you have a question for me I'll be glad to answer.

Strawman.

Obviously you've been fed some misinformation some where along the way. It's okay, many people do believe it happened the way you think, but it didn't. Saddam did cooperate until Albright's statement. Facts are not a strawman argument.

Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

None of which apply to what I said.

Saddam did cooperate until Albright's statement.

Really? He never attacked the Kurds in violation of the ceasefire (almost immediately after signing it)?

He never fostered a plot to kill the senior Bush? No?

Is that "cooperation"?

Is intermittently throwing UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq "cooperation"?

Obviously you've been fed some misinformation some where along the way. It's okay, many people do believe it happened the way you think, but it didn't. Saddam did cooperate until Albright's statement. Facts are not a strawman argument.

You set up a strawman of freedom fighters to excuse Saddam's repressive policies. I didn't refer to fighting the uprising, I referred to repression in general, which Saddam was required to stop, and didn't. No one has been able to prove that he did, and no one in their right mind thinks that he did.

Repression did violate the ceasefire agreement, as did his funding and sheltering of terrorists, which happened all through the 1990's.

He also attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States.

If you have a question for me I'll be glad to answer.

Did you read the Congressional Resolution authorising action against Saddam Hussein? Are you even capable of reading it?

Did you read the Congressional Resolution authorising action against Saddam Hussein? Are you even capable of reading it?

I posted the whole Resolution yesterday, and it's obvious that they don't want to read it.

He never fostered a plot to kill the senior Bush? No?

There was never any real tangible proof he was behind it, only speculation.


Is intermittently throwing UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq "cooperation"?

He never threw them out, never. in the 90's they left becasuse Saddam was playing games with them after Albrights statement and in 2003 they left because Bush told them to leave as he could not promise they'd be safe, despite them not finishing their job, he was going to war with Iraq anyway.

There was never any real tangible proof he was behind it, only speculation.

He never threw them out, never. in the 90's they left becasuse Saddam was playing games with them after Albrights statement and in 2003 they left because Bush told them to leave as he could not promise they'd be safe, despite them not finishing their job, he was going to war with Iraq anyway.

I noticed you didn't rebut the killing of the Kurds. Perhaps because that was an almost immediate ceasefire violation, no?

I noticed you didn't rebut the killing of the Kurds. Perhaps because that was an almost immediate ceasefire violation, no?

Oh, I already addressed that a few posts up, it was mostly Shiites, although there were some Kurds, yes, but they had formed an insurgency to over-throw the government, any government would of done the same thing. He was justified in that action, yeah, some innocent civilians got killed, but no one knows better than the USA how collateral damage goes. I mean if while targeting the insurgency if you kill some innocent civilians too, does that make the USA guilty of war crimes? Crimes against humanity perhaps? No, it's called collateral damage and the USA has tons of innocent blood on their hands too for the very same reason.

Oh, I already addressed that a few posts up, it was mostly Shiites, although there were some Kurds, yes, but they had formed an insurgency to over-throw the government, any government would of done the same thing. He was justified in that action, yeah, some innocent civilians got killed

You addressed precisely nothing.

The draining of the marshes is not a justifiable act in terms of suppressing a revolt.

In any case tou failed to rebut the general point which was that Saddam continued to repress his people after he signed a ceasefire promising not to. He didn't close the torture chambers, or rape rooms.

You also haven't shown that the ceasefire placed any conditions upon the US.

Oh, I already addressed that a few posts up, it was mostly Shiites, although there were some Kurds, yes, but they had formed an insurgency to over-throw the government, any government would of done the same thing. He was justified in that action, yeah, some innocent civilians got killed, but no one knows better than the USA how collateral damage goes. I mean if while targeting the insurgency if you kill some innocent civilians too, does that make the USA guilty of war crimes? Crimes against humanity perhaps? No, it's called collateral damage and the USA has tons of innocent blood on their hands too for the very same reason.

It's still a ceasefire violation. Look, I'm the one who thinks that international law is tripe, and you're supposed to defend international law, because you think it's great.

Now all I hear is that international law only applies when it gets the US in trouble - it never applies to Canada, who can do as they please, and you believe it should never have applied to Saddam.

Lolololololololololololoolol

and you believe it should never have applied to Saddam.

I never said that. Nor do I believe that. Saddam was a bad dude, no question about it. Not the worse of course, I think N. Korea beats Iraq, actually a lot of countries do. I have in my limited time on this planet learned two things about who America goes to war with in the last 20 years. Countries that can't defend themselves and only if it's in the USA's national interest. Since the Sudan doesn't have much oil, I don't suspect the US will be helping them anytime soon.

Also, if and when you can source to a credible site that Canada has broken any international laws, I have already said I will concede to it. I have yet to see anyone source it, just blather on about it without any fact, law or source to back up their assertion.

Also, if and when you can source to a credible site that Canada has broken any international laws, I have already said I will concede to it. I have yet to see anyone source it, just blather on about it without any fact, law or source to back up their assertion.

Every time I've posted a link to a source that says it's a violation of international law, you've refused to even answer. You usually then blather on about how my post is trolling.

Every time I've posted a link to a source that says it's a violation of international law, you've refused to even answer. You usually then blather on about how my post is trolling.

It is normally what she does. Anytime any proof is offered that contradicts her way of thinking, that is precisely what she does.

Stephistan,

Get off your high horse. It is obvious you don't know that much about what Canada did. Do you believe that a nation exercises its soveriegn right to intervene without UN approval a violation of International Law?

Every time I've posted a link to a source that says it's a violation of international law, you've refused to even answer. You usually then blather on about how my post is trolling.


Give me the link then, I must of missed it. Keeping in mind that NATO and the UN charter are not at odds under international law. NATO approval for peacekeeping is just as good as getting UN approval. Don't forget who's in NATO.. anyway, if you can show me that Canada broke international law by "going alone" then please do.

Do you believe that a nation exercises its soveriegn right to intervene without UN approval a violation of International Law?

Actually NATO has as much authority in peacekeeping missions as the UN, as stated above, they are not at odds. I even posted the international law about it twice in this thread in the last two days. I have yet to see you or whispering legs post any law or source.

Actually NATO has as much authority in peacekeeping missions as the UN, as stated above, they are not at odds. I even posted the international law about it twice in this thread in the last two days. I have yet to see you or whispering legs post any law or source.

Let me ask you the question again and I want an answer. You dodged it and I hate it when people dodge my questions.

Do you believe that a nation exercises its soveriegn right to intervene without UN approval a violation of International Law?

Okay, here is some more info you may of not been aware of. Why the average American doesn't know all this is some what puzzling, I suppose they just don't care. For Corneliu I'll give a pass because he was too young to be expected to remember all of this.

Pre-2003 invasion.

Problems with Current U.S. Policy

Key Problems

U.S.-led sanctions have resulted in massive human suffering among the civilian population.

The U.S. bombing campaign and the enforcement of no-fly zones are implemented without authorization from the United Nations.
U.S. policy does not contribute to the security of the region nor weaken Hussein’s grip on power.

Iraq still has not recovered from the 1991 war, during which it was on the receiving end of the heaviest bombing in world history. The U.S. has insisted on maintaining strict sanctions against Iraq to force compliance with demands to dismantle any capability of producing weapons of mass destruction and to address other outstanding issues from the cease-fire agreement. It is largely U.S. opposition that has prevented the UN from lifting the sanctions.

The sanctions have brought great hardships on the Iraqi people, as food prices are now 12,000 times what they were in 1990. It is Iraq’s poor, particularly the children, who have suffered the most. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi deaths from malnutrition and preventable diseases as a result of the sanctions have ranged from a quarter million to over one million, the majority being children. UNICEF estimates that at least 4,500 Iraqi children are dying every month as a result of the sanctions. Indeed, perhaps there has been no other occasion during peacetime when so many people have been condemned to starvation and death from preventable diseases due to political decisions made overseas. The unseen impact of these sanctions on the social fabric of Iraq is perhaps even more severe.

The U.S. claims that such sanctions will lead to the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, Washington’s policy against Iraq has had the ironic effect of strengthening Saddam’s rule. Since the Iraqi people are now more dependent than ever on the government for their survival, they are even less likely to risk open defiance. U.S. policies simply have not harmed Iraq’s ruling elites or weakened its repressive internal apparatus. Unlike the reaction to sanctions imposed prior to the war, Iraqi popular resentment lays the blame for the protracted suffering squarely on the United States, not on the totalitarian regime, whose ill-fated conquest of Kuwait prompted the events that led to the economic collapse of this once-prosperous country. In addition, Iraq’s middle class, which would have most likely formed the political force capable of overthrowing Saddam’s regime, has been reduced to penury; many have emigrated. It is not surprising that virtually all of Iraq’s opposition movements oppose the U.S. policy of ongoing punitive sanctions and refuse to endorse the air strikes. Even after Saddam leaves, U.S. policies are creating a whole generation of Iraqis who will be stridently anti-American. Meanwhile, more and more countries are violating aspects of the sanctions regime, further undermining U.S. credibility.

U.S. officials have stated that sanctions would remain even if Iraq complied with United Nations inspectors, indicating a lack of genuine U.S. support for UN resolutions and giving the Iraqi regime virtually no incentive to comply. Moreover, the failure of both the United States and the United Nations to explicitly spell out what was needed in order for sanctions to be lifted contributed to Iraq’s decision to suspend its cooperation with UN inspectors in December 1998.

U.S. officials have stated that sanctions would remain even if Iraq complied with United Nations inspectors, indicating a lack of genuine U.S. support for UN resolutions and giving the Iraqi regime virtually no incentive to comply. Moreover, the failure of both the United States and the United Nations to explicitly spell out what was needed in order for sanctions to be lifted contributed to Iraq’s decision to suspend its cooperation with UN inspectors in December 1998.

You must be illiterate. The inspections relating to WMD weren't the only thing Saddam Hussein was under sanctions for, it was the whole agreement. Even full compliance with the inspectors would still leave him in violation because of his repressive policies and support for terrorism

U.S. officials have stated that sanctions would remain even if Iraq complied with United Nations inspectors, indicating a lack of genuine U.S. support for UN resolutions and giving the Iraqi regime virtually no incentive to comply. Moreover, the failure of both the United States and the United Nations to explicitly spell out what was needed in order for sanctions to be lifted contributed to Iraq’s decision to suspend its cooperation with UN inspectors in December 1998.

You must be illiterate. The inspections relating to WMD weren't the only thing Saddam Hussein was under sanctions for, it was the whole agreement. Even full compliance with the inspectors would still leave him in violation because of his repressive policies and support for terrorism.

You must be illiterate. The inspections relating to WMD weren't the only thing Saddam Hussein was under sanctions for, it was the whole agreement. Even full compliance with the inspectors would still leave him in violation because of his repressive policies and support for terrorism.

Stephistan doesn't understand that Disraeliland. She also hasn't answered my question yet either.


Stephistan? Please answer my question. Do you believe that a nation exercises its soveriegn right to intervene without UN approval a violation of International Law?

Stephistan doesn't understand that Disraeliland. She also hasn't answered my question yet either.


Stephistan? Please answer my question. Do you believe that a nation exercises its soveriegn right to intervene without UN approval a violation of International Law?

I actually had answered your question and when I hit submit NS went down and this is the first time I've been able to get back online since.

Disraeliland is the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. But I know what a yes-man you're Corneliu, any chance to insult my intelligence. You can't actually come up with valid arguments of your own, so you just jump on the first bandwagon that disagrees with me in order to show your complete and utter ignorance to any given political situation you don't understand. Zep and I became quite use to it some time back. If you actually have something of value to add other than "Yup that's what she does" when at least I have an argument and you have nothing, then sit back and try to learn something.

Now, to answer your question from yesterday..


Do you believe that a nation exercises its soveriegn right to intervene without UN approval a violation of International Law?

Well I would disapprove if that was in fact all there was to international law, yes. However, Canada taking part in a NATO peacekeeping mission was in compliance with international law. I do support international law, yes!

support for terrorism

It's a well known fact that the only thing Saddam did was give money to widows in Palestine. He never gave money to terrorists. In fact the 9/11 commission among other many, many others admit now that he had no connections to terrorism. Another lie!

I actually had answered your question and when I hit submit NS went down and this is the first time I've been able to get back online since.

Yea that really pissed me off.

Disraeliland is the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. But I know what a yes-man you're Corneliu, any chance to insult my intelligence.

I'll call your bullshit here. And that is you are in this case unless you forgot to add the letter a in between the words you're and Corneliu. And yes, Disraeliland does know what he is talking about. Anybody who actually follows international news knows what he is saying. Apparently, you j ust can't stomach the fact that this occured in S-E-R-B-I-A. It is a different LOCATION than KOSOVO. Do you even know your geography? I highly doubt it. Since when did we have a peacekeeping operation in Serbia?

You can't actually come up with valid arguments of your own, so you just jump on the first bandwagon that disagrees with me in order to show your complete and utter ignorance to any given political situation you don't understand.

Incorrect as usual.

Zep and I became quite use to it some time back. If you actually have something of value to add other than "Yup that's what she does" when at least I have an argument and you have nothing, then sit back and try to learn something.

I've stated my opinions before but you didn't agree because they conflicted with what you were brainwashed with. I at least know what is going on because I follow it closely. You apparently don't.

Now, to answer your question from yesterday..

It better be a good one.

Well I would disapprove if that was in fact all there was to international law, yes. However, Canada taking part in a NATO peacekeeping mission was in compliance with international law. I do support international law, yes!

So you would support unilateral action?

It's a well known fact that the only thing Saddam did was give money to widows in Palestine. He never gave money to terrorists. In fact the 9/11 commission among other many, many others admit now that he had no connections to terrorism.

Bollocks, Saddam operated training camps, harboured fugitive terrorists (including al Zarqawi, who went to Iraq for medical treatment after being wounded in Afghanistan), and also, Abu Nidal got out of Italian custody after the Achile Lauro hijacking with an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport.