|
Post by gillianren on Sept 19, 2006 18:40:47 GMT -4
How does your boyfriend feel about it? I'm genuinely curious. What, about torture? He's against it. Heck, he's against the war. The only thing he has any interest in, as far as going over there, is that his pay's increased--though I don't know if it increases enough to pay for what he's losing from missing his day job--and even that isn't enough for him anymore. Frankly, he's fairly apolitical, but the only way I got him to register to vote two years ago was so he could vote against the current administration. Sure. But that's different than torturing. Killing in battle and killing as an execution after a fair trial is one thing. Torturing, for whatever reason, is another--and again, all the evidence shows that torture is worse than useless as an information-gathering tool. No. But they already happened in Abu Ghraib.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 19, 2006 19:46:51 GMT -4
but the only way I got him to register to vote two years ago was so he could vote against the current administration.
Americans have a wierd system, here everyone over 18 has to be erolled to vote, even if you don't vote. In Australia, it's illegal NOT to Vote!!!!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 19, 2006 20:51:54 GMT -4
It goes back to the Founding Fathers, who didn't want a majority of the population to have the vote, I suppose.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 19, 2006 23:38:46 GMT -4
The report concerns Al Qaeda's relationships with Iraq, and concludes Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I believe it is correct there. Iraq was sheltering other terrorists within its borders, however, Citation please . True but so were countries
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 20, 2006 2:55:31 GMT -4
In Australia, it's illegal NOT to Vote!!!! When I first heard about this, it got me to wondering... does this lead to voters making an informed choice, or just playing eeny-meeny-miny-moe to avoid the penalty?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 20, 2006 11:15:35 GMT -4
I'm not saying that the US and UK should have gone in, personally I think they should have waited and applied more pressure while they focused their resources on finding and bringing OBL to trial, but I also believe that Bush has a hatred for Saddam after the attempted assassination of GHB in Kuwait. I believe that he was just wanting an excuse to go after him and finish what his dad wasn't allowed too. 9/11 just gave him the excuse to do it there and then. If it hadn't happened, he have found another excuse just as easily, it was only a matter of time. I disagree. I think President Bush was genuinely concerned that there was a good chance Iraq would give a weapon of mass destruction, like anthrax or even a nuke to terrorists. He knew that the 9/11 attacks had generated new support for taking decisive action against terrorist-supporting states. He realized that ten years of sanctions had not replaced Saddam and were unlikely to do so in the future, and that the UN would eventually turn it's attention elsewhere and allow Saddam to go about his business unmolested (indeed, that appears to be what Saddam was planning - lay low until the world turned elsewhere and then resume his WMD programs). The opportunity to remove Saddam as a threat forever was at hand, and the President took it. After all, it had been the policy of the US since the early Clinton Administration to work for Saddam's removal from power. Personal feelings probably played into the President's decision to invade, but I think the other reasons for doing so were also sufficient. As for whether the war has acheived anything positive, I think it has done several good things for the world. Libya gave up it's WMD programs precisely because Quadaffi feared being next. Al Qaeda has been seriously damaged by the war. Most importantly, it has opened a new front for the war far from America itself. I think the reason we have not suffered another terrorist attack in America is because the terrorists are focusing their efforts on Iraq. Fighting a war on someone else's ground is always ideal, although it's admitedly hard on the Iraqis. But of course if Iraq succeeds in becoming a democratic republic the Iraqi people will be much better off in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Sept 20, 2006 11:34:10 GMT -4
In Austalia all u have to do is turn up to vote, theres nothing to stop u 'spoiling' your paper. There is some talk of introducing a similar law in the UK.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 20, 2006 11:50:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 21, 2006 2:44:51 GMT -4
I'm curious about your position on the legality of the Iraq war. First you argued that it was legal...
Actually no, under the UN resolutions the US and UK had the right to use force to enforce the weapons inspections. Iraq was in violation of the resolutions after kicking the inspectors out. I suspect that this is the very reason why they went with the WMD line, because they were fully entitled to use force under that line. Had they simply walked in to topple Saddam and used that as their reason, then that would have been a violation of the UN.
Then you replied to this part of my post...
It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002
Try going back a few Resolutions. You'll find that the 1991 Gulf War was never concuded with anything other than a ceasefire, based on Iraq's willingness to abide by the bound by the conditions set up in Resolution 687. Those including the destruction of it's weapons under UN Inspection, the removal of any Terrorist groups in the country and that it didn't present itself as a threat to global security. It failed, repeatedly in at least two of those. Note the reasons that the US and UK went in. They used the same arguments that Iraq had failed to keep its part in the ceasefire. As such it can be argued (I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to try) that Gulf War 2 is an extention of the 1991 war. As far as I understand it, that is what the Bush Administration argued at the time. Personally I do think it's a load of, but nothing in Law is black and white, that's why lawyers spend several years arguing over one line of text.
Here you say "..it's a load of.." as to the validity of the Iraq war as an "extension" of Gulf War 1.So are you really saying - in your first post above - that "under the UN resolutions the US and UK had the right to use force to enforce the weapons inspections"?
Or, do you actually mean to say that "under the UN resolutions the US and UK argued that they had the right to use force to enforce the weapons inspections"? And that you "personally..do think it's a load of."?
If I am correct in that assumption, then of course we agree on this point.
I do concur that interpretations on matters of law are often convoluted and manipulated for various purposes. But having read through the entire argument for each side I find it to be quite conclusively an illegal war.
Resolution 1441 specifically addressed Iraq's violations of Resolution 687 (among others) and put forth "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply. Note - it did not specify what those consequences would be, nor how much time would be allowed before these unspecified consequences would be put into action. I also think that the US argued for war on the basis of Resolution 678 (moreso than Res. 687) which was also addressed in Res. 1441.
It is also clear that the US Government knew that they did not have legal justification for attacking Iraq because they went back to the Security Council for a follow-up to Resolution 1441, that would authorize going to war against Iraq, But the Security Council refused to comply with the US demand for such authorization because they wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.
Furthermore, breaching a UN Resolution does not include some sort of "unstated" or inherent approval to initiate an attack on the nation that is in breach of it. There must be a specific Resolution that authorizes it.
In a nutshell, Bush tried to obtain legal justification for war, and when that failed, he did it illegally. Their "interpretation" of UN Resolutions clearly falls into the realm of non-existent "loophole fantasies".
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 21, 2006 6:20:04 GMT -4
Or, do you actually mean to say that "under the UN resolutions the US and UK argued that they had the right to use force to enforce the weapons inspections"? And that you "personally..do think it's a load of."?
Sorry I should have made it clearer that it is the line they themselves have taken in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 24, 2006 19:33:06 GMT -4
I notice that after Elvis died there were all sorts of rumors and sightings that he was alive. Osama is alive and there are all sorts of rumors that he is dead.
Osama bin Laden is the anti-Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 24, 2006 22:57:19 GMT -4
And all this time I thought Michael J. Fox was the anti-Elvis! Long live Mojo Nixon! Edited to ad a link to the music video. www.mojonixon.com/elvis.ramSorry about the real player format.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 24, 2006 23:14:08 GMT -4
Osama is alive and there are all sorts of rumors that he is dead.
Latest is a French Paper reporting he died in Pakistan in August from Typhiod.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 26, 2006 20:52:13 GMT -4
I was speaking to a muslim co-worker today.
My conclusion is that Osama bin Laden is what happens when inherited wealth meets stupidity. How is that for a theory?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 26, 2006 21:39:20 GMT -4
My conclusion is that Osama bin Laden is what happens when inherited wealth meets stupidity. How is that for a theory?
I don't think he's stupid. From everything I have heard he is highly intelligent. Very driven, a Zelot for Islam, and has a hatred of the US, but still highly intelligent.
|
|