Conservatives not sure what to do about good news on Iran

[GaryC 7]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

It's not about hating Bush. It's about keeping the facts straight. The fact is that he didn't fool the world. He didn't and doesn't have what it takes - I agree on that. Had he been able to fool the world like he intended to, there would have been an actual legal basis for the invasion. A mandate. There wasn't one. He never had a mandate but chose to illegally attack that country anyways. No, he didn't fool the world. He just ignored it.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

It's not about hating Bush. It's about keeping the facts straight. The fact is that he didn't fool the world. He didn't and doesn't have what it takes - I agree on that. Had he been able to fool the world like he intended to, there would have been an actual legal basis for the invasion. A mandate. There wasn't one. He never had a mandate but chose to illegally attack that country anyways. No, he didn't fool the world. He just ignored it.

He had a mandate, one from the UN. Did you forget that? Saddam was in violation of that mandate right up to the day the invasion began. It's just the corrupt governments in France and Germany were getting rich from the oil for food scam and blocked the vote that should have been taken. Saddam and europe were in bed together. That is what Bush ignored.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

It's not about hating Bush. It's about keeping the facts straight. The fact is that he didn't fool the world. He didn't and doesn't have what it takes - I agree on that. Had he been able to fool the world like he intended to, there would have been an actual legal basis for the invasion. A mandate. There wasn't one. He never had a mandate but chose to illegally attack that country anyways. No, he didn't fool the world. He just ignored it.

He had a mandate, one from the UN. Did you forget that? Saddam was in violation of that mandate right up to the day the invasion began. It's just the corrupt governments in France and Germany were getting rich from the oil for food scam and blocked the vote that should have been taken. Saddam and europe were in bed together. That is what Bush ignored.

He did not have a UN mandate. He and Blair tried to get one but they failed. If you know something I and the rest of the world don't, feel free to post the link to this supposed mandate. Just so we're clear, this mandate would have to be an authorization of military force by the UN Security council. There is no other provision in the Charter to lawfully pursue military action against another nation - unless it is in self-defense which obviously doesn't cover the attack on Iraq. Good Luck finding the authorization of military force against Iraq!

[GaryC 7]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

It's not about hating Bush. It's about keeping the facts straight. The fact is that he didn't fool the world. He didn't and doesn't have what it takes - I agree on that. Had he been able to fool the world like he intended to, there would have been an actual legal basis for the invasion. A mandate. There wasn't one. He never had a mandate but chose to illegally attack that country anyways. No, he didn't fool the world. He just ignored it.

He had a mandate, one from the UN. Did you forget that? Saddam was in violation of that mandate right up to the day the invasion began. It's just the corrupt governments in France and Germany were getting rich from the oil for food scam and blocked the vote that should have been taken. Saddam and europe were in bed together. That is what Bush ignored.

He did not have a UN mandate. He and Blair tried to get one but they failed. If you know something I and the rest of the world don't, feel free to post the link to this supposed mandate. Just so we're clear, this mandate would have to be an authorization of military force by the UN Security council. There is no other provision in the Charter to lawfully pursue military action against another nation - unless it is in self-defense which obviously doesn't cover the attack on Iraq. Good Luck finding the authorization of military force against Iraq!

There were a whole raft of resolutions by the UN that all authorized force if they were not followed. Because of the corruption in the UN and europe the final vote was never taken so in that regard the final brick wasn't put in the wall. But Saddam was in violation of many UN mandates. Bush only did what the rest of the UN didn't have the balls to do because of their pocket books. But back to my original point. The world had intel (including the UN) that Saddam had WMD's. So if you think this was all a Bush trick then give credit where credit is due. Bush is a genius for his ability to fool the world. The world is a better place without Saddam. Good riddence to Saddam and three cheers for Bush!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

It's not about hating Bush. It's about keeping the facts straight. The fact is that he didn't fool the world. He didn't and doesn't have what it takes - I agree on that. Had he been able to fool the world like he intended to, there would have been an actual legal basis for the invasion. A mandate. There wasn't one. He never had a mandate but chose to illegally attack that country anyways. No, he didn't fool the world. He just ignored it.

He had a mandate, one from the UN. Did you forget that? Saddam was in violation of that mandate right up to the day the invasion began. It's just the corrupt governments in France and Germany were getting rich from the oil for food scam and blocked the vote that should have been taken. Saddam and europe were in bed together. That is what Bush ignored.

He did not have a UN mandate. He and Blair tried to get one but they failed. If you know something I and the rest of the world don't, feel free to post the link to this supposed mandate. Just so we're clear, this mandate would have to be an authorization of military force by the UN Security council. There is no other provision in the Charter to lawfully pursue military action against another nation - unless it is in self-defense which obviously doesn't cover the attack on Iraq. Good Luck finding the authorization of military force against Iraq!

Agreed. Bush was the one who issued the "final ultimatum". The UN security council did not agree to a resolution authorising the use of military force. Resolution 1441 wasn't specific on that score - but Bush was prepared to go ahead anyway, regardless of the opposition. From what I understand Blair was the one who tried to persuade Bush that the invasion could not be legitimised, more specifically that it couldnt' be sold to the UK electorate without a new resolution.

As far as that goes - I don't believe public support for the war was ever that high in the UK, certainly not at the level that it appears to have been in the US.

According to Britain, a majority of the U.N. Security Council members supported its proposed 18th resolution which gave Iraq a deadline to comply with previous resolutions, until France announced that they would veto any new resolution that gave Iraq a deadline. However, for a resolution to pass a supermajority of 9 out of 15 votes are needed. Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war.

In the mid 1990s, France, Russia and other members of the U.N. Security Council asked for sanctions on Iraq to be lifted. The sanctions were criticized for making the people suffer and being the cause of a humanitarian catastrophe [6].

Many people also felt that many of the governments that had aligned themselves with the US, despite strong opposition among their constituencies, did so because of their own economic ties to the United States. The United States used strong pressure and threats against other nations to attempt to coerce nations on the Security Council to support them. For example, Mexican diplomats complained that talks with American officials had been "hostile in tone", and had shown little concern for the Mexican government's need to accommodate the overwhelmingly antiwar sentiment of its people. One Mexican diplomat reported that the US told them that "any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price." [7]

The Institute for Policy Studies published a report [8] analyzing what it called the "arm-twisting offensive" by the United States government to get nations to support it. Although President Bush described nations supporting him as the "coalition of the willing", the report concluded that it was more accurately described as a "coalition of the coerced." According to the report, most nations supporting Bush "were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery." The techniques used to pressure nations to support the United States included a variety of incentives including:

Promises of aid and loan guarantees to nations who support the U.S.

Promises of military assistance to nations who support the U.S.

Threats to veto NATO membership applications for countries who don't do what the U.S. asks

Leveraging the size of the U.S. export market and the U.S. influence over financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Deciding which countries receive trade benefits under such laws as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which, as one of its conditions for eligibility for such benefits, requires that a country does "not engage in activities that undermine United States national security interests".

Deciding what countries it should buy oil from in stocking its strategic reserves. The U.S. has exerted such pressure on several oil-exporting nations, such as Mexico.

At a press conference, the White House press corps broke out in laughter when Ari Fleischer denied that "the leaders of other nations are buyable".

In addition to the above tactics, the British newspaper The Observer published an investigative report revealing that the National Security Agency of the United States was conducting a secret surveillance operation directed at intercepting the telephone and email communications of several Security Council diplomats, both in their offices and in their homes. This campaign, the result of a directive by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, was aimed primarily at the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan. The investigative report cited an NSA memo which advised senior agency officials that it was "'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'."

The authenticity of this memo has been called into question by many in the US and it is still unclear whether it is legitimate. [9] The story was carried by the European and Australian press, and served as a further embarrassment to the Bush Administration's efforts to rally support for his war. Wayne Madsen, who was a communications security analyst with the NSA in the 1980s, believes that the memo is authentic, and believes that this memo was aimed at other nations who are part of the ECHELON intelligence network, namely Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. Additionally, a member or Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Katharine Gun was charged under the Official Secrets Act in connection with the leaking of the memo. She stated her intention to plead not guilty on the grounds that her actions were justified to prevent an illegal war. The prosecution declined to present any evidence at her trial.

Clare Short, a UK cabinet minister who resigned in May 2003 over the war, stated in media interviews that British intelligence regularly spied on UN officials. She stated that she had read transcripts of Kofi Annans conversations.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Nevermind. Arguing with pacifists gets no where. Think what you like but Bush had the right to do what he did and I would fully support it all over again if need be.

Edited December 5, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I think most of the world had enough of a doubt to request inspections to ascertain what is going on exactly. It was a very small number of countries that rather pulled the trigger without warrant. Let's remember that.

I think that you just want to hate Bush. The vast majority of people in the western world thought he had WMD's. At the very least Saddam was in violation of UN treaties that carried with it the penalty of war. The main reason France and Germany didn't sign onto the war is because they were getting rich with the oil for food scandal. Face it man, Saddam brought it all on himself. The world thought he was hiding WMD's and Bush did the right thing by taking him out. I like Bush on the subject of terrorism and I don't think he had the ability to fool the world. It looks like you give him more credit than I do.

It's not about hating Bush. It's about keeping the facts straight. The fact is that he didn't fool the world. He didn't and doesn't have what it takes - I agree on that. Had he been able to fool the world like he intended to, there would have been an actual legal basis for the invasion. A mandate. There wasn't one. He never had a mandate but chose to illegally attack that country anyways. No, he didn't fool the world. He just ignored it.

He had a mandate, one from the UN. Did you forget that? Saddam was in violation of that mandate right up to the day the invasion began. It's just the corrupt governments in France and Germany were getting rich from the oil for food scam and blocked the vote that should have been taken. Saddam and europe were in bed together. That is what Bush ignored.

He did not have a UN mandate. He and Blair tried to get one but they failed. If you know something I and the rest of the world don't, feel free to post the link to this supposed mandate. Just so we're clear, this mandate would have to be an authorization of military force by the UN Security council. There is no other provision in the Charter to lawfully pursue military action against another nation - unless it is in self-defense which obviously doesn't cover the attack on Iraq. Good Luck finding the authorization of military force against Iraq!

There were a whole raft of resolutions by the UN that all authorized force if they were not followed. Because of the corruption in the UN and europe the final vote was never taken so in that regard the final brick wasn't put in the wall. But Saddam was in violation of many UN mandates. Bush only did what the rest of the UN didn't have the balls to do because of their pocket books. But back to my original point. The world had intel (including the UN) that Saddam had WMD's. So if you think this was all a Bush trick then give credit where credit is due. Bush is a genius for his ability to fool the world. The world is a better place without Saddam. Good riddence to Saddam and three cheers for Bush!!

So, you now agree that there was no actual mandate for the invasion?

[Dan J 277]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

Right by what justification? Can i bomb your house because i think its right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it that the UN and Europe get the "corrupt" label, while the US gets off apparently lily-white?

Nevermind. Arguing with pacifists gets no where. Think what you like but Bush had the right to do what he did and I would fully support it all over again if need be.

By what criteria do you rationalise that?

More than that - calling us pacifists is not unlike calling you a war-monger. Is that a fair label do you think?

Edited December 5, 2007 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

He wasn't. He violated international law and got tens of thousands of innocent people killed - including more Americans than were killed on 9/11. He's got their blood on his hands and he will be judged for that. As for Iran, I don't think so. You can't be serious about that statement of yours. If you think that Iran would be remotely as "easy" a target as Iraq, you're gravely mistaken. The world and along with it this country would go to shite in a second if Bush's and the Bushies' insanity and blood thirst gets the upper hand on this one.

[GaryC 7]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

Right by what justification? Can i bomb your house because i think its right?

Right because Saddam was a menace to the world. Right because he was thumbing his nose at the mandate to disarm. And if you think I am about to attack you then yes you have the right to bomb me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

Right by what justification? Can i bomb your house because i think its right?

Right because Saddam was a menace to the world. Right because he was thumbing his nose at the mandate to disarm. And if you think I am about to attack you then yes you have the right to bomb me.

By your definition, Bush's a menace to the world (thumbing his nose not merely at a resolution but the very Charter that regulates how nations nowadays interact with one another) and Iran should get busy to bomb the ####### out of the US. They sure have reason to fear an attack. More so than we should fear them attacking us. After all, we just attacked willy-nilly their neighbor four and a half years ago...

[GaryC 7]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

He wasn't. He violated international law and got tens of thousands of innocent people killed - including more Americans than were killed on 9/11. He's got their blood on his hands and he will be judged for that. As for Iran, I don't think so. You can't be serious about that statement of yours. If you think that Iran would be remotely as "easy" a target as Iraq, you're gravely mistaken. The world and along with it this country would go to shite in a second if Bush's and the Bushies' insanity and blood thirst gets the upper hand on this one.

He was right. The thousands of people that got killed were because of Iran and the weapons they were giving to the terrorists. If it were not for Iran we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. I truly hope that we bomb the hell out of Iran's military sooner rather than later. It is right and I want to see it happen.

[GaryC 7]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

Right by what justification? Can i bomb your house because i think its right?

Right because Saddam was a menace to the world. Right because he was thumbing his nose at the mandate to disarm. And if you think I am about to attack you then yes you have the right to bomb me.

By your definition, Bush's a menace to the world (thumbing his nose not merely at a resolution but the very Charter that regulates how nations nowadays interact with one another) and Iran should get busy to bomb the ####### out of the US. They sure have reason to fear an attack. More so than we should fear them attacking us. After all, we just attacked willy-nilly their neighbor four and a half years ago...

What we did was justified and right. Nothing else needs saying. I am so glad Bush was there when the country needed him. I shudder to think what would have happend if Gore would have been president. He would have bent over and let the country take it in the azz.