Re: SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

[me]

nobody > wrote in message >...
[snip]
> Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion of Iraq
> was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's invasion of the
> Falklands.
[snip]

Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct. Iraq
was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
signed immediately after the first war, which they started. 'Round
here we joking refer to this as Gulf War 1A (or Ver 1.1). It was
the conclusion of the previous based upon his failure to live up
to the "cease fire" agreements. Yes, there was alot of whoo ha spread
around about what he was doing, but they were in violation and
as such subject to the terms of the surrender they signed.

This makes it "different" than the two invasions of which you
refer. It still leaves alot of discussion room about the advisability
or usefulness of having done it. Just because you can do something,
doesn't mean you should. As the shrub is fond of pointing out, removing
a brutal dictator from power is hard to argue against. None the
less, despite the short term relief given to the people of Iraq,
it isn't clear that in the long run, they will necessarily be
much better off. The US, Britian, France, Italy, and other
countries have all mucked around in other parts of the world
with the so called interest in "improving" conditions for the
inhabitants. The results are neither universal nor generally
admirable.

[George Z. Bush]

"me" > wrote in message
om...
> nobody > wrote in message
>...
> [snip]
> > Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion of
Iraq
> > was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's invasion of
the
> > Falklands.
> [snip]
>
> Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct. Iraq
> was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
> signed immediately after the first war, which they started.

I think that the gist of the argument is that Bush and the US had no business
enforcing agreements made in behalf of the UN (resulting from action taken under
the auspices of a UN resolution) when the UN itself wasn't ready to either take
or sanction that kind of action in its behalf.

That means that we can't hide behind the UN's skirts and claim that the devil
made us do it.

George Z.

[mellstrr]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "me" > wrote in message
> om...
> > nobody > wrote in message
> >...
> > [snip]
> > > Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion
of
> Iraq
> > > was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's
invasion of
> the
> > > Falklands.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct.
Iraq
> > was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
> > signed immediately after the first war, which they started.
>
> I think that the gist of the argument is that Bush and the US had no
business
> enforcing agreements made in behalf of the UN (resulting from action taken
under
> the auspices of a UN resolution) when the UN itself wasn't ready to either
take
> or sanction that kind of action in its behalf.
>
> That means that we can't hide behind the UN's skirts and claim that the
devil
> made us do it.

We can't hide behind the UN's skirts at all, now, remember? We told her to
go **** herself when we invaded whether she liked it or not...

mellstrr--and how come nobody wants to talk about a certain OTHER country
who has violated many "agreements" over the years?

[Simon Robbins]

"mellstrr" > wrote in message
...
> We can't hide behind the UN's skirts at all, now, remember? We told her to
> go **** herself when we invaded whether she liked it or not...

More likely we said "we'll go **** ourselves" because that's what we've
done. And let's face it, "Old Europe" was right: There are no WMDs and
Saddam was no clear threat, which were the points we pushed to justify the
war that they voted against. Our leaders have been shown to be either
incompetents or liars, and are now trying to get anyone they can deflect
blame onto to fall on their swords in order to protect their own
self-serving careers.

Si