More Time Needed in Iraq

[eldermike]

You are right, it's not going anywhere. You should consider your words or be prepared to defend them.

I am finished here, I just wanted to make a point.

Go back to typing whatever hit's your fancy.

 

[datan]

Won't all the anti-war people look silly when he's proven right after this is over though.

ok how long do you need until "this is over"
3 months? 6 months? I can give you as long as you want to dig up your proof.

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 02:05 PM datan said this in Post #9

hm...is this the way the courts work in your country? Does the prosecuting attorney start by questioning the accused:

"where is your proof that you did not murder her?"
"where is your proof that you did not conspire to rob the bank?"
"where is your proof that you did not sexually abuse your 6 year old daughter?"

gee...if this is how Americans understand justice, presumption of innocece, burden of proof, and due process, I sure hope that I never get arrested in America.

Please don't judge all Americans by some of the comments that you see on this board.

Some of us do understand the burden of proof and do understand the principles in our constitution.  Unfortunately, those who do not are also often those who yell the loudest and who are, unfortunately, in power at the moment.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well--show me the proof. Right now Bush is trying to draw a connection when he has absolutely no evidence that Iraq was involved. I believe that before you make an accusation you need proof?

sept 11 2001 + 1.5 years = Mar 11 2003
today is Mar 18 2003.

1991 + 2003 = 12 years

No I think what eldermike was saying is correct. You need to show the evidence, your prof. The evidence has always been there that Iraq has WMD but there is no evidence to show that they got rid of it.

my point was that Bush was never interested in inspections, and tried to use it all as a charade to get the UNSC to rubberstamp his war. I'm not saying inspections work or not; I just don't like the way Bush manipulated the entire process to suit his will. IF he had just been forth-right and said that he wasn't going to bother with inspections because he didn't think they would work he should have said so, instead of going through the whole game.

Bottomline: I respect and trust</B> an honest and frank person. Not someone who lies and manipulates.

Wrong! Bush wanted a UN resolution saying he could go into Iraq right away but france and Germany made their own resolution for more inspections, AS IF 12 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH, Bush then agreed but made it quite clear he wasn't going to wait forever. The charade game was played by France who first told the US that they would be willing to agree with the use of force if Iraq didn't comply with 1441 but now they have showed themselves to be liers and back stabbers by saying they never agreed to force.

just a small matter of international law and UN charter I guess that we are now sweeping under the carpet?

Did france have the UN backing to invade that African country? Did Russia have the UN backing to invade Afghanistan? Did the UK have the UN backing the war with Argentina? Did Iraq have the UN backing to war with Iran?

so you decide to make the decision for them. That's like the DA saying, " the jury gave the wrong verdict. They are incompetent so I'm going to hang this person anyway".

No, the US constitution says my government is responsible for my safety and well being. I am not supposed to look toward the UN for this but my country.

And exactly what threat does Iraq pose to your country?
Oh right let me guess. Iraq was involved in Sept 11, and is going to sell WMD to terrorists so that they can have a huge party in the United States???

Here's the reason I have up till now been strugling with. I see the threat as being Iraq selling WMD to terrorists but I see no prof of this. Therefore I have taken a stance against the war. However I am a US Army veteren and now that this war is imenent I will take the stance of being totally behind my brothers in arms.

 

[datan]

Today at 07:54 PM crazyfingers said this in Post #23




Please don't judge all Americans by some of the comments that you see on this board.

Some of us do understand the burden of proof and do understand the principles in our constitution.&nbsp; Unfortunately, those who do not are also often those who yell the loudest and who are, unfortunately, in power at the moment.

my apologies. I was trying to get someone to understand a point, and the fallacies involved in his position.

My apologies once again.

 

[nephilimiyr]

eldermike

In fact, how could the writer of this article have any knowledge beyond the full capability of the US intelligence people. How stupid of them to assume that misspeak is the equivalent of lies when State Department people are trying to make a case without giving up people in harms way. How stupid of them. Surely you are not that easily led?

I totally agree, that article is useless!

 

[datan]

would you like to rebut the points raised in the article, instead of dismissing it out of hand?

 

[nephilimiyr]

I think eldermikes question of the writters possible knowledge says it all. The article is built on asumption!

 

[datan]

he is quoting public officals--UN, IAEA, as well as Bush's own administrations.
Rebut that.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Did you ever hear of the spin doctor datan?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I am afraid you may not understand the way the US constitution, the US legal system, and US foreign policy works.

The rights outlined by the US Constitution do not apply to anyone outside of the US, and in some cases not even to foreign nationals within the US.
Saddam has zero rights under the US constitution.

The US legal system applies to criminal and civil law and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the accused is guilty. This standard does not apply to foreign nations, prisoners of war, or even members of the US military. The US does not have to prove Saddam has WMD. The mandate by the UN says he has to destroy and prove he destroyed the WMD. He has not done this. In fact non-aligned parties have proven this again and again. By US law, UN mandate, and international law, the US (and any other nation for that matter) has the right to attack Iraq for purposes of self defense.

US foreign policy is under the purview of the Executive branch (the president and his cabinet). The courts have nothing to do with foreign policy. The Congress only participates insomuch as they approve certain treaties and tariffs etc... They can impeach if they really do not like what he does. This has only been attempted once (if memory serves) in the 230 year history of the US.

The president has the authority to prosecute a war when there is a clear and present danger to the national security. All he has to do is show there is such a danger. Most Americans(and the congress) think he has done this. That is the only burden he has to carry. He actually does not have to go to the UN, or even the congress to get approval. He only has to go to congress if he wants to have them declare a war. At this point, they have already granted him authority to use force against Iraq if needed.
There is nothing in any legal or political realm that prevents him from doing what he is about to do. He is doing it legally, and by the book.

And how long will it take to prove beyond a doubt that Saddam is guilty?
He is guilty already by a period of 12 years. But I would say it will be proven to all the nay-sayers by the end of this week: when he uses some sort of gas or other WMD on the troops.

Even France admits that the situation will change when that happens.

But I will not be surprised if many horrible atrocities come to light after the fall of Baghdad. Mass graves. Torture rooms. WMD etc...

Won't there be a lot of red faces then!:o

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Bush clings to dubious accusations
Some U.S. claims about Saddam’s arsenal are hotly disputed

datan,

Saddam is very much like a prisoner on parole. He is already guilty, and the crimes have already been proven. He is guilty of invading his neighbors. I do not know how old you are, but most of us remember the gulf war when he invaded Kuwiat and had to be driven out by the US and others.

Fact- He has invaded his neighbors to the south. Thousands killed, women raped. Kuwait looted. This is not accusation. This is history.

Fact- He used gas on his own people. This is on film, mass graves are located, thousands of witnesses, many suffering still from the injuries. Again... not accusations. History!

Fact- He invaded Iran and used poison gas on the Iranians. Again, this is not an accusation. This is history!

Fact- After the gulf war, he carried out a program of death and destruction against his political and religious foes in Iraq. Thousands killed, tortured, raped, and just disappear. This too is not an accusation. This is fact!

Anyone who refuses to see that this man is a despot is simply being naive.

He is and has been guilty for twelve years. He has been on "parole" since then with the provision that he behave. He has not behaved. HE has been a very bad boy, violating the terms of his parole many times. The US was well within it's rights to invade in 98 when he threw out the inspectors. If anything, the president has been patient. More than patient. Patient to a fault.

 

[datan]

Today at 08:10 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #30

Did you ever hear of the spin doctor datan?

is that the best you can do? You refuse to rebut statements contrary to what the Bush administration claims, and you throw some vague reference to spin doctors?

 

[datan]

Today at 08:48 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #31

I am afraid you may not understand the way the US constitution, the US legal system, and US foreign policy works.

I'm very well aware that we are not talking about a court here.

I'm talking about Bush being dishonest in his portrayal of Saddam being involved in Sept 11 attacks, and using that as one of his reasons for war.

 

[datan]

Today at 09:11 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #32



datan,

Saddam is very much like a prisoner on parole. He is already guilty, and the crimes have already been proven. He is guilty of invading his neighbors. I do not know how old you are, but most of us remember the gulf war when he invaded Kuwiat and had to be driven out by the US and others.

again--I'm specifically addressing the point that Bush is being dishonest in his public posturing on the invasion of Iraq. Prove the Iraq is involved with Sept 11 attacks. Prove that Iraq will aid terrorists in getting WMD. Prove that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Btw, how many neighbours has the US invaded? Panama, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Grenanda...gee look like it's not too healthy being a small and weak neighbour of the United States either.

 

[nephilimiyr]

is that the best you can do? You refuse to rebut statements contrary to what the Bush administration claims, and you throw some vague reference to spin doctors?

Maybe all of what I've said has gone over your head so let me put it this way to you datan. I have no time or interest in picking apart an article that has been written by a guy that has no interest in printing the truth. Anybody can write a story useing quotes and make it into anything he wishes it to be. It's called spinning a story. As of right now I'm about to get ready to go to work and I'm still waiting for your answer to my last post #24. Even if I was planning to rebute this article I wouldn't do so untill you answered me.

 

[datan]

that's strange. My article was post #14. It comes before yours. So you should rebut mine first before I extend you the same courtesy.

"no interest in printing the truth" -- that's awfully close to libel. How do you know he has no interest in printing the truth? Simply because you refuse to acknowledge the points brought up in the article?

The way I read the article, the person has done some investigative research. He has pieced together various contradictions to what Bush says. Where's the 'spinning the story'? Do you call everything you disagree with 'spinning the story'?

 

[nephilimiyr]

datan............you posted that article for eldermike to read not me. At the same time you and I were already exchangeing posts. When I did get to read the article eldermike had already passed it off as something other than credible in which I in return agreed with him, this I did after I did read it.

Because you want to fling the piece around as some kind of truthful peice of news doesn't mean we all have see it your way.

I really have to go now

See Yah tomorrow!!!!

 

[datan]

I'm asking any of the Bush apologists to rebut that article.
It brings up facts FACTS (so and so said this...) that appear to reveal a pattern of deliberate deception by the Bush administration.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Seems most people have forgotten about the SHREDDED HUMANS. M