Is France starting to get it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Blatant, flat-out lies of the administration. There was never any substance to it.

What about people against going to Iraq? Back then it was apparently about oil. Now it seems to be about George lying about WMD and not staying the course.. People with similar views change their attacks on a yearly basis..

Come to think of it. Haven't people with similar views been saying we should get OUT as we should not have been there in the first place? Now that he is not staying the course, you guys are still bagging him..

I don't know what other people have to say. I always opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq because it was (and remains), well, illegal. I have also never said anything other than that it is my belief that the Bush administration lied this nation into this needless, illegitimate and illegal adventure and then fcuked it up beyond recognition to boot. I've been very consistent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Blatant, flat-out lies of the administration. There was never any substance to it.

What about people against going to Iraq? Back then it was apparently about oil. Now it seems to be about George lying about WMD and not staying the course.. People with similar views change their attacks on a yearly basis..

Come to think of it. Haven't people with similar views been saying we should get OUT as we should not have been there in the first place? Now that he is not staying the course, you guys are still bagging him..

That's rich considering that the initial justifications for Iraq changed on an almost monthly basis. Bush chose to take a stand on Iraq that amounts to little more than a series of slogans. Being "off message" is rather embarrassing, no?

BTW - I always thought that Bush was lying about WMD, as did... say... the million people who were involved in the anti-war protest in London.

[mawilson 2,133]

Um... what's your point? The US DID oust the government of Iran, starting a chain of events that has lead to the country being taken over by an Islamic Theocracy.

And now the same thing is going to happen to Iraq......ah, the irony.

[Joel Halfwassen 0]

Blatant, flat-out lies of the administration. There was never any substance to it.

What about people against going to Iraq? Back then it was apparently about oil. Now it seems to be about George lying about WMD and not staying the course.. People with similar views change their attacks on a yearly basis..

Come to think of it. Haven't people with similar views been saying we should get OUT as we should not have been there in the first place? Now that he is not staying the course, you guys are still bagging him..

I don't know what other people have to say. I always opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq because it was (and remains), well, illegal. I have also never said anything other than that it is my belief that the Bush administration lied this nation into this needless, illegitimate and illegal adventure and then fcuked it up beyond recognition to boot. I've been very consistent.

That is just silly. Who can make WAR...well...LEGAL? It is a horrible business no matter how it goes about. But sometime it just needs to be one. Iraq is on of those times. I'd love to see Iran go too.

Joel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Blatant, flat-out lies of the administration. There was never any substance to it.

What about people against going to Iraq? Back then it was apparently about oil. Now it seems to be about George lying about WMD and not staying the course.. People with similar views change their attacks on a yearly basis..

Come to think of it. Haven't people with similar views been saying we should get OUT as we should not have been there in the first place? Now that he is not staying the course, you guys are still bagging him..

I don't know what other people have to say. I always opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq because it was (and remains), well, illegal. I have also never said anything other than that it is my belief that the Bush administration lied this nation into this needless, illegitimate and illegal adventure and then fcuked it up beyond recognition to boot. I've been very consistent.

That is just silly. Who can make WAR...well...LEGAL? It is a horrible business no matter how it goes about. But sometime it just needs to be one. Iraq is on of those times. I'd love to see Iran go too.

Joel

There's a framwork that exists that regulates this sort of thing. The US is a signatory to this framework. This administration just didn't feel that the US needs to honor it's commitments. There's nothing silly about it.

[Heracles 417]

There's a framwork that exists that regulates this sort of thing. The US is a signatory to this framework. This administration just didn't feel that the US needs to honor it's commitments. There's nothing silly about it.

What's the framework to war? Lets think of this example.

NK has been making threats to bomb the US. So what would it take, within the framework, for the US to be justified in declaring war with NK?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's a framwork that exists that regulates this sort of thing. The US is a signatory to this framework. This administration just didn't feel that the US needs to honor it's commitments. There's nothing silly about it.

What's the framework to war? Lets think of this example.

NK has been making threats to bomb the US. So what would it take, within the framework, for the US to be justified in declaring war with NK?

Read the UN Charter. It spells out the path.

[Heracles 417]

There's a framwork that exists that regulates this sort of thing. The US is a signatory to this framework. This administration just didn't feel that the US needs to honor it's commitments. There's nothing silly about it.

What's the framework to war? Lets think of this example.

NK has been making threats to bomb the US. So what would it take, within the framework, for the US to be justified in declaring war with NK?

Read the UN Charter. It spells out the path.

Nice avoidance of the question..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's a framwork that exists that regulates this sort of thing. The US is a signatory to this framework. This administration just didn't feel that the US needs to honor it's commitments. There's nothing silly about it.

What's the framework to war? Lets think of this example.

NK has been making threats to bomb the US. So what would it take, within the framework, for the US to be justified in declaring war with NK?

Read the UN Charter. It spells out the path.

Nice avoidance of the question..

I'll sum it up for you since reading the actually document seems to be too much of a challenge:

There are generally two ways in which the US (or any other member country) could be legally going to war with NK (or any other country). Absent of an actual attack by NK (or any other country) or the imminent threat thereof, the key to get a mandate to attack and/or invade NK (or any other country) is to have the UN Security Council find and resolve that this is the appropriate action to restore and/or maintain the world peace. Such resolution would usually be the last step in a long string of diplomatic and other efforts unless an actual act of aggression has occured.

Iraq/Kuwait back in 1990/91 would be a prime example of how it's properly and legally done. Don't I wish daddy Bush would have tought his son a thing or two.

[Heracles 417]

I'll sum it up for you since reading the actually document seems to be too much of a challenge:

There are generally two ways in which the US (or any other member country) could be legally going to war with NK (or any other country). Absent of an actual attack by NK (or any other country) or the imminent threat thereof, the key to get a mandate to attack and/or invade NK (or any other country) is to have the UN Security Council find and resolve that this is the appropriate action to restore and/or maintain the world peace. Such resolution would usually be the last step in a long string of diplomatic and other efforts unless an actual act of aggression has occured.

Iraq/Kuwait back in 1990/91 would be a prime example of how it's properly and legally done. Don't I wish daddy Bush would have tought his son a thing or two.

Times have changed, as do alliances.. What if members of the security council decided to back NK and say there is no imminent threat. Yet, a few days later the NKeans launch 5 nuclear war heard towards the US, South Korea and Japan?

Then What.. It's too late to start a legal war considering the hundreds of thousand if not millions of deaths. But what you are suggesting is that, if NO UN resolution is reached, a nation must then cop a blow before they can pro-actively defend themselves. Didn't we learn anything from WWII?? was 50 million deaths not enough..

[Carol&Marc 0]

There's a framwork that exists that regulates this sort of thing. The US is a signatory to this framework. This administration just didn't feel that the US needs to honor it's commitments. There's nothing silly about it.

What's the framework to war? Lets think of this example.

NK has been making threats to bomb the US. So what would it take, within the framework, for the US to be justified in declaring war with NK?

Read the UN Charter. It spells out the path.

I dont recall Saddam getting a u.n. charter to kill and mame the Kuwaiti people! or a charter from the U.N. to kill 180,000 Kurds! or am I missing something!

Maybe the truth has been told by your comments? you are OBSESSED with BUSH! and its clouding your own reality! through all the talk of Iran,syria,North Korea you have never once CONDEMNED them, only sympathize with all of them! this my freind is a fact which you can't deny! So go on and on about Bush having wet dreams and all your other hate speak all the while be in denial of what is truly evil!

[sarah and hicham 3]

I used to live in France and I really, really liked the bread.

[Carol&Marc 0]

I finally get it! Iran launches a nuke, kills untold amount of people we then go to U.N to get permission to retaliate?better hope a nuke does'nt hit your neighborhood! we would have to spend six months getting france and germany to okay it!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Read up on what happened in 1953 and you might get an idea of why things are so ###### up in Iran.

Bingo, I was waiting for a comment like that. What you are basically implying with that statement is that the US is to blame. Then when someone catches you out, you turn around and accuse others of using the anti-american excuse..

What the ###### was that statement then, Pro- American?? There is no middle ground.

PS Like any other nation has never made any mistakes in their past..

Um... what's your point? The US DID oust the government of Iran, staring a chain of events that has lead to the country being taken over by an Islamic Theocracy. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

I have my own perspective on this coming from a country with a well-known imperialist past in the 18th century. You won't find anyone in Britain these days (perhaps outside of the national front) who would argue that what we did to India and China is something to be proud of, not to mention our own adventures in Africa and the Middle East. A lot of the worlds problems can be traced back to the intervention of various powers in the affairs of other countries.

For Infidel...

The Boxer Rebellion

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/fists.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I finally get it! Iran launches a nuke, kills untold amount of people we then go to U.N to get permission to retaliate?better hope a nuke does'nt hit your neighborhood! we would have to spend six months getting france and germany to okay it!

You only read what you want to read don't you?

Absent of an actual attack by NK (or any other country) or the imminent threat thereof, the key to get a mandate to attack and/or invade NK (or any other country) is to have the UN Security Council find and resolve that this is the appropriate action to restore and/or maintain the world peace. Such resolution would usually be the last step in a long string of diplomatic and other efforts unless an actual act of aggression has occured.