Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[jreeves]

The UN certainly didn't support it.

No, because a resolution for the war would have been vetoed by the permanant security members in Russia and China. So what your telling me is that you want China and Russia dictating U.S. foriegn policy?

 

[mattskramer]

The UN certainly didn't support it.

Thank you. Those are my sentiments exactly. I could not have explained it better myself.

 

[jreeves]

Well until the Congress does do some oversight and investigate, it's just a bunch of opinions, either way.

There was intelligence oversight hearings before the war.

 

[Teri B.]

There was intelligence oversight hearings before the war.

I supoose you could call it that.

 

[mattskramer]

No, because a resolution for the war would have been vetoed by the permanant security members in Russia and China. So what your telling me is that you want China and Russia dictating U.S. foriegn policy?

If that is what it comes down to, yes. The UN stands for United Nations - not US Dictatorship. If the structure and bylaws of the UN results in China and Russia having too much influence over foreign policy than we like, then the US should work within the UN to change the rules or perhaps the US should leave. We should stay and play by the rules or quit the game.

This reminds me of a club that I and some friends tried to form. We decided to play tic-tac-toe to determine who would be the leader of the club. I won. One of my friends decided that she did not want me to be the leader. She resigned from the club. Oh. Are you going to call this a faulty premise too?

 

[Teri B.]

No, because a resolution for the war would have been vetoed by the permanant security members in Russia and China. So what your telling me is that you want China and Russia dictating U.S. foriegn policy?

That's exactly what the purpose of the resolution was, so that the UN wouldn't be able to dictate. How it was used is another matter. But you're the one who keeps bringing up the UN, as if it was on board with this "coalition," which aside from Great Brittan, was pretty thin. The UN most emphatically wasn't.

 

[jreeves]

That's exactly what the purpose of the resolution was, so that the UN wouldn't be able to dictate. How it was used is another matter. But you're the one who keeps bringing up the UN, as if it was on board with this "coalition," which aside from Great Brittan, was pretty thin. The UN most emphatically wasn't.

I don't think I have ever in this thread brought up the UN resolutions without defending my position. I may be wrong, if I have please bring it to my attention. Cause I don't believe other nations should be dictating U.S. policies, hence I don't believe in our membership in the U.N. As I have stated over and over, the reason we were justified to go to war against Saddam is because we were under the belief he had both chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear weapons and Saddam's past history. My position hasn't changed. I believe Bush made mistakes with the execution of the war, not with the justification.

 

[jreeves]

Do you have links to claims that since anti-apartheid has ended, whites are being slaughtered in accordance with the new laws of Zimbabwe and South Africa?

If that is what it comes down to, yes. The UN stands for United Nations - not US Dictatorship. If the structure and bylaws of the UN results in China and Russia having too much influence over foreign policy than we like, then the US should work within the UN to change the rules or perhaps the US should leave. We should stay and play by the rules or quit the game.

This reminds me of a club that I and some friends tried to form. We decided to play tic-tac-toe to determine who would be the leader of the club. I won. One of my friends decided that she did not want me to be the leader. She resigned from the club. Oh. Are you going to call this a faulty premise too?

Here you go again comparing your tic-tac-toe club with a league of nations.....false premise Stick to the facts.

 

[jreeves]

I don't think I have ever in this thread brought up the UN resolutions without defending my position. I may be wrong, if I have please bring it to my attention. Cause I don't believe other nations should be dictating U.S. policies, hence I don't believe in our membership in the U.N. As I have stated over and over, the reason we were justified to go to war against Saddam is because we were under the belief he had both chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear weapons and Saddam's past history. My position hasn't changed. I believe Bush made mistakes with the execution of the war, not with the justification.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Source: US State Department

 

[maineman]

I think you forgot Micronesia....they were a part of the coalition of the "billing" as well. I think they sent six messcooks and a microwave.

 

[jreeves]

Here you go again comparing your tic-tac-toe club with a league of nations.....false premise Stick to the facts.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Just so you know what it is....wow

 

[jreeves]

I think you forgot Micronesia....they were a part of the coalition of the "billing" as well. I think they sent six messcooks and a microwave.

According to you, the CIA operates in the Executive branch....LOL

 

[jreeves]

I think you forgot Micronesia....they were a part of the coalition of the "billing" as well. I think they sent six messcooks and a microwave.

As you can tell from this board not everyone agrees, Imagine that would hold true for all the nations in the world. But that is a substainal amount of countries.....guess we should support our set our foriegn policy on how many nations sign off on it, is that what you are saying? Lets set the benchmark at what? According to Maineman....

 

[maineman]

As you can tell from this board not everyone agrees, Imagine that would hold true for all the nations in the world. But that is a substainal amount of countries.....guess we should support our set our foriegn policy on how many nations sign off on it, is that what you are saying? Lets set the benchmark at what? According to Maineman....

I personally think that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq has been counterproductive to the overarching goal of fighting and defeating Islamic extremism. You differ in that opinion. So be it.

 

[jreeves]

I personally think that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq has been counterproductive to the overarching goal of fighting and defeating Islamic extremism. You differ in that opinion. So be it.

I'm sorry I don't agree, just cause you have one enemy in Islamic etremism, doesn't mean that is the only enemy in the world. For example, a man that has attacked their neighbors, coveted nuclear weapons, developed chemical and biological weapons, showed disregard with proving they are WMD free. But if your fine with that then fine.

 

[DeadCanDance]

According to you, the CIA operates in the Executive branch....LOL

Federal Executive Branch

source: http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml

Executive Office of the President

* The President
* The Vice President
* The White House Home Page
* Offices within the Executive Office of the President
* The President's Cabinet

Executive Departments

* Department of Agriculture (USDA)
* Department of Commerce (DOC)
* Department of Defense (DOD)
* Department of Education (ED)
* Department of Energy (DOE)
* Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
* Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
* Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
* Department of Justice (DOJ)
* Department of Labor (DOL)
* Department of State (DOS)
* Department of the Interior (DOI)
* Department of the Treasury
* Department of Transportation (DOT)
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)


Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Commission on Civil Rights
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
etc
etc.

CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, SEC are "independent" agencies, because they don't fall under one of the traditional Executive Branche DEPARTMENTS like Defense, Treasury, or Commerce. Because they were formed with a specifiic purpose in mind, which doesn't fall under on of the traditional branches.

CIA is still under the Executive Branch, and Bush appoints and chooses all the leadership positions for CIA. Just as he does with the Environmental Protection Agency.

If CIA was "Independent" in your understanding of the word, why is Bush picking their leadership? Why isn't their leadership chosen by an independent, non-partisan body???

 

[maineman]

I'm sorry I don't agree, just cause you have one enemy in Islamic etremism, doesn't mean that is the only enemy in the world. For example, a man that has attacked their neighbors, coveted nuclear weapons, developed chemical and biological weapons, showed disregard with proving they are WMD free. But if your fine with that then fine.

Again...an analogy: MY wife has set my kithen on fire cooking bacon, my son has cut his fingers off on the table saw in the garage, my daughter is getting gang raped by a motorcycle gang in the front yard, and I have termites.

Bush's response, were he in my shoes: Call Terminex!!!! The fact that you side with Bush in this prioritization is all we really need to know.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The UN certainly didn't support it.

Other than a comment by Annan be so kind as to provide us with the UN sanctions, the UN declaration of illegal activity, the UN paper work declaring the US and ALL her allies acted against the UN charter. I know you can not, because none of those things occured.

Now if your going to claim because the Senior person in the UN made a comment that makes it official, then I guess we get to remind you of all the things Bush has said and claim thats all it takes to make it official.

Annan called for NO action because he knew he was talking out of his ass.

 

[steeliniraq]

Should an American soldier be sent to a war that he thinks is against America’s best interest? If he signed up for the military, then the answer is yes. When you sign your name to something, you take your chances. If you are afraid of what the club might do in the future, then don’t join the club. It is as simple as that. That is the right thing to do.

Is there a way by which the USA can secede from the UN? If so, then perhaps it should do so. Then it does not have to answer to the UN. I don’t think that it is right for us to on the one hand, be members and on the other hand, make practically unilateral decisions without the UN’s express condonation.

Ummmm I agree 100%. I dont really know how my quote meant that american soldiers should run if they are afraid of what the next club might do in the future. My point was I think countries should be able to do what is in their best interest without having to ask anyone for permission.

 

[mattskramer]

Here you go again comparing your tic-tac-toe club with a league of nations.....false premise Stick to the facts.

LOL. I know what a false premise is. I’ve learned college level logic courses for years. The examples that I give are not false premises. They are reasonable comparisons. Care to refute them.

The facts are that the UN Security Council consists of 5 nations. The Republic of China, French Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland along with the United States of America. Like it or not, Russia and China are members of the Security Council. As I see it, you have three choices:

Stay a member and try to change it. (If the UN does not change, then it is just too bad.)

Stay a member and accept it.

Leave.