• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Takes Responsibility for Iraq Claim !

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You're also wrong. US law doesn't stop at the US. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a great example. There a tons of others.
Click to expand...
Faulty example, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act applies to US citizens only. US citizens belong to US. Since you've got tons of examples, give me a couple of more.

The use of military force almsot always would be outside the USA. The US laws that govern when it can be used are the US law on this.
Click to expand...
almsot? huh?

US is a member of UN, since 1945 it helped to define the international law, there is a reason why they did it. Unless a country is being directly attacked, it has to get UN approval for any aggression towards other UN members.
Whether you care for it or not, that's how it is.
 
US soldiers "belong" to the US. So if their C-in-C gives them an order, US law applies (using your logic).

The FCPA does not just apply to US citizens, btw.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Michael
US soldiers "belong" to the US. So if their C-in-C gives them an order, US law applies (using your logic).

The FCPA does not just apply to US citizens, btw.

Michael
Click to expand...

So by your logic the only nations who vote to abide by international treaties are nations other than the USA.

Funny how the USA uses the UN as an excuse to do whatever they like when the UN approves. But when the UN doesn't the USA ignores treaties. Great for our credibility worldwide.

PS Does C-in-C stand for Cowboy-in-Chief?
 
BOBDN - And how is the US any different than the other countries that are members of the UN? Take the 5 permanent members of the Security Council - I'm sure with just a little work you can find lots of examples where they "violated" UN rules.

Yes, the UN is used when it is convenient. By just about every member country.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Michael
US soldiers "belong" to the US. So if their C-in-C gives them an order, US law applies (using your logic).

The FCPA does not just apply to US citizens, btw.

Michael
Click to expand...

This is hopeless. Do you really believe that world is governed by US Law? You've made ridiculous claims before but this is just sad.
Who else does FCPA apply to?
 
siwy - I never said the world is governed by US law. I said the President and the US Armed Forces are and the war followed US law. Although many areas of the world would be far better off with the rule of law in place.

The FCPA applies to US companies and companies that do business in the US (to degrees depending on their presence).

Michael
 
Don't be foolish. The quotes I posted are from Bush. They aren't "throwing a litle (sic) FUD around" they are Bush's own words. And they are outright lies. Anyone, even a complete partisan sellout such as yourself, must recognize that.
Click to expand...

LOL, not a single "quote" has been proven to be a lie. You merely assume they are lies because that is what you want to believe.

For example: "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

For this to be a "lie" it would have to be shown that: The "intelligence" was fabricated and that President Bush knew it was fabricated. The same goes for any of the so-called "lies" in your quote. You believe they are lies and that's fine, but it is merely an accusation without evidence, rooted in prejdudice, and parrotted by partisanship. The fact of the matter is that several Congressional Democrats were privy to the same intelligence reports that the President used in various speeches. If this intelligence were as pathetically weak, as is the claim being made by [understatement alert] one or two of them (such as Carl Levin, who serves on the Armed Services Committee), where was their conscience and their skepticism when they voted to give Bush authorization to use military force to effect regime change in Iraq?

I'll tell you where it was; it was in their recent memories of how other intelligence wasn't acted upon with the same degree of seriousness and consideration that allowed 9/11 to happen. The intelligence was "good enough" for them at the time, but hindsight and political opportunity now makes it "dubious". And people like BOBDN, PhillyTIM, and Moonbeam, swallow it hook, line, and sinker, simply because it's what you want to hear.

What's even worse is that some of you keep parrotting proven lies in thread after thread, proving that they are, indeed, no better than their accusations against Bush. What's the difference? They are proven liars, Bush is not.
 
Originally posted by: Michael
siwy - I never said the world is governed by US law. I said the President and the US Armed Forces are and the war followed US law. Although many areas of the world would be far better off with the rule of law in place.

The FCPA applies to US companies and companies that do business in the US (to degrees depending on their presence).

Michael
Click to expand...

But this is exactly what you're saying. If US can attack, destroy or liberate any country in the world in accordance with the US Law, then in fact the world is governed by US Law. And that is not the case.
If what you said was true, where does International Law fit in all of this? What's the purpose of International Law?

FCPA applies to US persons, US companies and companies doing business in the US. Does it apply to me or my company located in Canada? No...because FCPA jurisdiction ends in US.
 
siwy - The only reason why the US could do that is because it is stronger than all the other countries.

So, yes, the US could legally (under US law - if approved by Congress and ordered by the President) go and conquer or attack any country it wanted to. I doubt carte blanche would be given to do so, but it would be legal.

International Law needs to be enforced. The USA has been enforcing UN policy for years and funding UN policy as well (although many other countries at least Fund the UN). It is an issue right now that there are little to no countries that could oppose the USA (except under the terms of MAD).

This is actually why I support a vigorous debate inside the USA on the use of force and why I hope those who are anti-war (even if I may not agree with them on whatever potential conflict is being discussed) continue their struggle. If Americans do not constrain the USA, there are very few others who can. Those that are able must be willing to destroy themselves and the USA to do so.

Michael

edit - ps - I vastly prefer this type of discussion than pointless mudslinging. We obviously do not agree, but we're stating our points and defining our points of view
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Last word since apparently I am both paranoid and a coward. We had an overwhelming body of evidence that said Saddam had WMD. He refused to play ball. It is easy to say "well he was contained". Who was doing the containing? The two countries who decided it was time for him to go that's who. Why should we listen to countries and people who aren't willing to do anything to keep him in check? Saddam would still be in power today if he had decided to fully cooperate. He did not. He's gone. If left to his own devices he would have become more of a threat to the region and the world. Past performance being the best indicator of future action. We cannot allow someone to destabilize a region of the world that is vital to our, and many other countries, economic and national security. We did the right thing.
Click to expand...
It is cowardly to kill a threat because you think it is one. If that applies to you, so be it. It just means that you are too self important to live with emotional stress. It's how the ends justify the means and what every religious and civil law are designed to prevent, the substitution of your personal judgment for an actual crime. Tell me if you can't see any of this. If you can't then of course we have nothing really we can discuss. We aren't in the same universe.

We do not have bias without some underlying motivation. I know this may sound like psychobabble to you, but this seems obvious to me. When you say we did the right thing, do you need that to be so. Could you admit you're wrong. Is there something that motivates you not to see, something like pride and a revulsion in being put down for being wrong. You may take coward to be a putdown implying your some kind of chicken sh!t, or you could maybe take it as a prod to examine your own motivation. A man can fight as a hero terrified of ants. A lot more people than you might ever imagine are afraid to look in.

Past performance being the best indicator of future action. That's one of the principles of the Moonbeam duck test. His past performance, of course, included the previous 12 years. He had ceased to be a threat and would have continued not to be. Sorry if I poked you in the macho. I consider you to be very much a man. If I considered you to be a weakling, I wouldn't be direct.

And as far as that region being vital, who is at fault there. The region is vital all right, vital to the Bushes and the oil industry. It's vital to a lot of powerful people's bank accounts. It's important for oil. We would let them rot in hell if it weren't for that, just as we have with Africa. Those same powerful interests have blocked every effort at energy independence for 50 years. We fought a killing war for oil in Iraq, when we could have fought one here against oil. What kind of energy resources could we create with what we spend on war? We are being led not by people who care about the common good, but about their own bread. And our past performance is the best indicator of our future action.


 
Originally posted by: Michael
siwy - The only reason why the US could do that is because it is stronger than all the other countries.

So, yes, the US could legally (under US law - if approved by Congress and ordered by the President) go and conquer or attack any country it wanted to. I doubt carte blanche would be given to do so, but it would be legal.

International Law needs to be enforced. The USA has been enforcing UN policy for years and funding UN policy as well (although many other countries at least Fund the UN). It is an issue right now that there are little to no countries that could oppose the USA (except under the terms of MAD).

This is actually why I support a vigorous debate inside the USA on the use of force and why I hope those who are anti-war (even if I may not agree with them on whatever potential conflict is being discussed) continue their struggle. If Americans do not constrain the USA, there are very few others who can. Those that are able must be willing to destroy themselves and the USA to do so.

Michael

edit - ps - I vastly prefer this type of discussion than pointless mudslinging. We obviously do not agree, but we're stating our points and defining our points of view
Click to expand...

I think I finally understand your point. According to you International Law needs to be enforced, but only until US Law takes over because US is mighty capable. Great.

Unfortunately that is not what your leaders have signed, according to the international charter.
 
They are proven liars, Bush is not.
--------------------------
Probably just bad Intel, Corn. Can you prove they were lying?


By the way the military does not have to obey the Comander in Chief. If fact they have to disobey in certain cases.

And what country do you think it was that got the idea that you can't attack another country unless it's an immediate threat into the UN charter?
 
siwy - I'm actually saying that International Law is worthless unless enforced. Any law is not worth the paper it is printed on without enforcement.

Under the UN Charter, nations have the right to self defense. "Self Defense" is the easiest to prove.

Michael
 
it's no use in fighting with Michael...he's a psycho trying to bring you down below his level and twisting things around....calling you liar and stuff. bringing yourself down to that level isn't fair to yourself, because Michael has more experience playing below the belt and will always be better about it. lol
 
Probably just bad Intel, Corn. Can you prove they were lying?
Click to expand...

Proof PhillyTIM is a liar, he even tried to weasel out by editing his post and when caught, edited it back the way it was. Just one of many lies, you're free to use the search function for more.



After copy and pasting a snopes article which says otherwise you again assert that the bin laden family stateside were not held for questioning. I'm assuming that since you had decided to copy and paste that entire article as some sort of defense of an earlier post of yours that you would have read it. Therefore you knew that the bin laden family members here in the US were, actually, interrogated by the intelligence community prior to allowing them exit--yet you repeated quite the opposite, why? Lie or stupidity?
 
phillyTIM - I haven't called siwy any names (and don't plan on it). In your case, liar is a accurate statement. I'm still waiting for the proof you owe on the Bush 45 minutes statement. Until you have it, or are willing to admit another lie, shoo.

Michael
 
Read my lips: Bush and Blair are co-horts. I didn't hear Bush telling Tony to not say that. Therefore it's pretty much what one says goes for the other.

Unless you are a forum moderator, you have no right to try to micromanage and pin people up against the wall so vehemently. I don't have to take that.

The topic is closed, now. It's been straightened out who said who. Move on.
 
phillyTIM - It'll be closed when you admit you're a liar again or prove your assertions. Are you a moderator to tell me what I can or can't post or what activity I can or can't engage in here? Do you have problems with the requirement to actually be able to support your position and statements? Shoo.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Probably just bad Intel, Corn. Can you prove they were lying?
Click to expand...

Proof PhillyTIM is a liar, he even tried to weasel out by editing his post and when caught, edited it back the way it was. Just one of many lies, you're free to use the search function for more.


PHILLYTIM 7/31/03: I didn't hide a damn thing, it's all there in my post, /EDIT and originally what I said. It's funny how much energy you waste on your unimportant point.


After copy and pasting a snopes article which says otherwise you again assert that the bin laden family stateside were not held for questioning. I'm assuming that since you had decided to copy and paste that entire article as some sort of defense of an earlier post of yours that you would have read it. Therefore you knew that the bin laden family members here in the US were, actually, interrogated by the intelligence community prior to allowing them exit--yet you repeated quite the opposite, why? Lie or stupidity?
Click to expand...

PHILLYTIM 7/31/03: I have no idea what you are talking about, you have lost me...and it's obviously not a priority to expend energy to figure out your twisted thinking.

You just go ahead and call me what ever you'd like; others can read the "liar" post and judge for themselves. It's no sweat off my back.

You guys are psychotic and thre's no way I can fight that, nor would I want to expend the energy for that.

 
Anyone who thinks Saddam was giving full cooperation to the UN is either an idiot, or just so caught up in their anti-Bush ideology that it's erased vast portions of their short term memory. Wish I could have taped the footage on TV showing a UN team being blockaded in a weapons lab by Saddam's people because they showed up unannounced and found documents that were incredibly damning to Iraq's claims of innocence. Yeah, Saddam's cooperation was so all-encompassing that he sent Tariq Aziz to personally bribe inspectors to look the other way. The vast majority of them balked at such an offer, but according to the State Dept. a few didn't (albeit, no names were mentioned).
Were talking about a man who maintained to his people that he won the first Gulf War! Kinda odd to give in to foreign demands for disarmament if your story the whole time is that you won, isn't it?

To say the inspections were going just fine and dandy, that Saddam was cooperating, and that the UN was doing it's job instead of being neutered by self-interest absorbed France, Germany, and Russia - is to show you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Some of you have some valid points, but the majority are coming off as simple, argumentative trolls.
 
phillyTIM:

"You guys are psychotic and thre's no way I can fight that, nor would I want to expend the energy for that."

Translation, "I've been caught in a lie yet again so I'll slink off with my tail between my legs and pretend nothing happened".

Michael
 
siwy - I'm actually saying that International Law is worthless unless enforced. Any law is not worth the paper it is printed on without enforcement.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.
Coming back to Iraq...UN had not decided that Iraq was breaking the law. Therefore, there was nothing yet to enforce. US simply decided by itself that the law was broken. And US has no right to do that, so you can't say that US was enforcing the International Law when in fact it was breaking it.

Under the UN Charter, nations have the right to self defense. "Self Defense" is the easiest to prove.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree.
That was the original point you disputed, though. You said that the threat does not have to be imminent for a country to attack.
My understanding of "Self Defense" is that it can take place only when someone is attacking or is about to attack, hence imminent threat. Right?
 
Originally posted by: Michael
phillyTIM - It'll be closed when you admit you're a liar again or prove your assertions. Are you a moderator to tell me what I can or can't post or what activity I can or can't engage in here? Do you have problems with the requirement to actually be able to support your position and statements? Shoo.

Michael
Click to expand...

Michael, are you going to admit you are a liar. Would you please link me to such requirements, or if you can't, fess up to your lie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top