If you were Commander in Chief.

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How would I have have handled Iraq?

I would have sent in commandos to take out Saddam and his boys...

then let the chips fall where they may.

So as president you'd violate our and the international law... as an overt invasion into a sovereign nation without the 'blessing' of the UN would be. (excepting under article 51 of the UN Charter which as we all know was not applicable).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How would I have have handled Iraq?

I would have sent in commandos to take out Saddam and his boys...

then let the chips fall where they may.

So as president you'd violate our and the international law... as an overt invasion into a sovereign nation without the 'blessing' of the UN would be. (excepting under article 51 of the UN Charter which as we all know was not applicable).

Assassination, not invasion... I assume that's what you meant.

I still don't think the UN would have ever approved war with Iraq. They were getting too much $$$ out of the deal.

 

[Maximilian Kolbe]

President Bush is a courageous man. It takes a lot of courage to send young people to their deaths and kill thousands of innocent civilians while you avoided going to Vietnam yourself preferring to snort cocaine and get drunk.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
President Bush is a courageous man. It takes a lot of courage to send young people to their deaths and kill thousands of innocent civilians while you avoided going to Vietnam yourself preferring to snort cocaine and get drunk.

A new troll is born.

 

[Ozoned]

How would I have have handled Iraq?


I would have Hired Kerry to give them speech's and confused them into our way of thinking....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
How would I have have handled Iraq?

I would have sent in commandos to take out Saddam and his boys...

then let the chips fall where they may.

So as president you'd violate our and the international law... as an overt invasion into a sovereign nation without the 'blessing' of the UN would be. (excepting under article 51 of the UN Charter which as we all know was not applicable).

Assassination, not invasion... I assume that's what you meant.

I still don't think the UN would have ever approved war with Iraq. They were getting too much $$$ out of the deal.

I think Assassination of the leadership of another nation was and is illegal. It was made so by Ford in an Executive Order, I believe.
We are obligated by treaty law to uphold the Charter of the UN. If we want to seek remedy against another sovereign nation it is via the rules of diplomacy under the umbrella of the UN that such is sought. We must follow the law. Especially our own even if to do so does not produce the results we'd like.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think Assassination of the leadership of another nation was and is illegal. It was made so by Ford in an Executive Order, I believe.
We are obligated by treaty law to uphold the Charter of the UN. If we want to seek remedy against another sovereign nation it is via the rules of diplomacy under the umbrella of the UN that such is sought. We must follow the law. Especially our own even if to do so does not produce the results we'd like.

Right, you just said 'invasion' before when he was talking about an assassination, or at least that was my take on it.

As for waiting for UN approval for military action, I wonder if the UN will ever again try to enforce one of its treaties. It seems to me that related corruption mitigates at least some of the 'illicit-ness' of the action, as it provides clear motivation for the UN to never approve use of force in Iraq. Not saying for sure which was right, just that that certainly needs to be considered.

 

[LunarRay]

Cyclo Wizard,
If we, the US, don't want to abide by the treaty then the US should 'break' away from it. My point is the facts and the laws. I think the UN is a good vehicle to bring together a world against a rogue nation and its leadership. It is effective to the extent the member nations abide by its resolutions and etc..


As I said earlier regarding the premise of me being CinC... I'd not have the same Agenda so what I'd have done vis a vis Iraq might be totaly different... And, failing a defensive need using arms to invade anywhere with out the UN's 'blessing' would be out of the question.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cyclo Wizard,
If we, the US, don't want to abide by the treaty then the US should 'break' away from it. My point is the facts and the laws. I think the UN is a good vehicle to bring together a world against a rogue nation and its leadership. It is effective to the extent the member nations abide by its resolutions and etc..


As I said earlier regarding the premise of me being CinC... I'd not have the same Agenda so what I'd have done vis a vis Iraq might be totaly different... And, failing a defensive need using arms to invade anywhere with out the UN's 'blessing' would be out of the question.

I agree that the UN should be the primary vehicle, ideally. But I'm saying that the UN is tainted with respect to Iraq. Even had Iraq been less forthcoming with their WMD to inspectors, or even if we had found large stockpiles unreported during inspections (which we actually did), I don't see that the UN would have used force to disarm Iraq. This is certainly a special case where I think everyone involved (the US, the UN, and everyone involved with OFFP) had their hands dirty and acted improperly. Thus, in this case, the UN is an unreliable mediator between sides. I'm not claiming to know what the proper response is, just that everyone here screwed up, not just us. I don't know what I'm really arguing anymore, I suppose.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought Bush reOKed assasination.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought Bush reOKed assasination.

Perhaps he did.. not sure what that fellow may have done nor for what purpose.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought Bush reOKed assasination.

There was a movement in Congress prior to the invasion for it, but I don't think it ever got through. Of course, not assassinating him with a bullet doesn't mean we didn't try to do it with bombs as part of the first attack.

 

[LunarRay]

CycloWizard

I agree that the UN should be the primary vehicle, ideally. But I'm saying that the UN is tainted with respect to Iraq. Even had Iraq been less forthcoming with their WMD to inspectors, or even if we had found large stockpiles unreported during inspections (which we actually did), I don't see that the UN would have used force to disarm Iraq. This is certainly a special case where I think everyone involved (the US, the UN, and everyone involved with OFFP) had their hands dirty and acted improperly. Thus, in this case, the UN is an unreliable mediator between sides. I'm not claiming to know what the proper response is, just that everyone here screwed up, not just us. I don't know what I'm really arguing anymore, I suppose

I follow your thinking and don't disagree that lots of violations by lots of members enabled Iraq's leadership to sustain its arrogant attitude. And, some of them were members of the Security Counsel and at least on or two had the out right veto power over any draft we may have submitted to invade and they probably would have used it..

My issue it the invasion and the premise under which we took that action... Article 51 of the UN Charter... self defense.. but, we can't even provide a photo of a WMD or the needed Delivery System nor any credible evidence that Iraq was about to use the WMD against us..
Remember, we didn't invade to oust Saddam... but, to protect America...
Lies and more lies... and a major violation of our law as well as international law.. The fact that there were others involved with us just includes conspiracy as a charge..

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I follow your thinking and don't disagree that lots of violations by lots of members enabled Iraq's leadership to sustain its arrogant attitude. And, some of them were members of the Security Counsel and at least on or two had the out right veto power over any draft we may have submitted to invade and they probably would have used it..

My issue it the invasion and the premise under which we took that action... Article 51 of the UN Charter... self defense.. but, we can't even provide a photo of a WMD or the needed Delivery System nor any credible evidence that Iraq was about to use the WMD against us..
Remember, we didn't invade to oust Saddam... but, to protect America...
Lies and more lies... and a major violation of our law as well as international law.. The fact that there were others involved with us just includes conspiracy as a charge..

Agreed. I'm very torn on Iraq right now, though not for the reasons we're discussing here. Just trying to decide if the ends, whatever they may be and even if they weren't described beforehand by the administration, are sufficient to justify the means. It won't change my vote either way, as we're there now, but I wonder what if we hadn't invaded, what if sanctions had been lifted?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I follow your thinking and don't disagree that lots of violations by lots of members enabled Iraq's leadership to sustain its arrogant attitude. And, some of them were members of the Security Counsel and at least on or two had the out right veto power over any draft we may have submitted to invade and they probably would have used it..

My issue it the invasion and the premise under which we took that action... Article 51 of the UN Charter... self defense.. but, we can't even provide a photo of a WMD or the needed Delivery System nor any credible evidence that Iraq was about to use the WMD against us..
Remember, we didn't invade to oust Saddam... but, to protect America...
Lies and more lies... and a major violation of our law as well as international law.. The fact that there were others involved with us just includes conspiracy as a charge..

Agreed. I'm very torn on Iraq right now, though not for the reasons we're discussing here. Just trying to decide if the ends, whatever they may be and even if they weren't described beforehand by the administration, are sufficient to justify the means. It won't change my vote either way, as we're there now, but I wonder what if we hadn't invaded, what if sanctions had been lifted?

I have a hard time with hypotheticals cuz they are opinions and not facts..
Regarding the ends and means notion.... it is a mitagating factor but, does not justify any crime that may have been committed. Sorta like breaking into a bank and stealing the money and on the way out finding a parole violator and having him arrested too... IMO..

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I have a hard time with hypotheticals cuz they are opinions and not facts..
Regarding the ends and means notion.... it is a mitagating factor but, does not justify any crime that may have been committed. Sorta like breaking into a bank and stealing the money and on the way out finding a parole violator and having him arrested too... IMO..

Agreed. I'm hypothesizing more of a 'well, we broke this piggy bank already - was it worth it?' where the first 'it' is all the good things that will result from Saddam being removed and the second 'it' the jail time we'll serve with troops in Iraq.

 

[LunarRay]

Well... The Troops are tasked with the job of effecting the objective.. right, wrong or indifferent as the Agenda may be they are the means... I look to the politics of the Agenda. I assume the troops are motivated and equipped to do the job in the best and safest manner possible. They don't get to vote the issue and neither should they be used as so much fodder one way or another.. if anyone died as the result of a criminal act.... and I believe it to be a criminal act, this invasion... then the full force of law should descend upon the perpetrators. That is not to say that the folks in the Service are not important, they are very important to me and to their families but the Military will always sustain loss of life in the prosecution of their tasks. My point is that even if none had died or even if we only bombed or shot missiles that adds up to invasion of a sovereign nation with out the authority to do so.. and that is the Criminality as far as I'm concerned. The President must always live and make decisions by the spirit and letter of the law. There can be no right occurring out of a wrong or illegal act. (Only some mitigation.. maybe), again IMO.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well... The Troops are tasked with the job of effecting the objective.. right, wrong or indifferent as the Agenda may be they are the means... I look to the politics of the Agenda. I assume the troops are motivated and equipped to do the job in the best and safest manner possible. They don't get to vote the issue and neither should they be used as so much fodder one way or another.. if anyone died as the result of a criminal act.... and I believe it to be a criminal act, this invasion... then the full force of law should descend upon the perpetrators. That is not to say that the folks in the Service are not important, they are very important to me and to their families but the Military will always sustain loss of life in the prosecution of their tasks. My point is that even if none had died or even if we only bombed or shot missiles that adds up to invasion of a sovereign nation with out the authority to do so.. and that is the Criminality as far as I'm concerned. The President must always live and make decisions by the spirit and letter of the law. There can be no right occurring out of a wrong or illegal act. (Only some mitigation.. maybe), again IMO.

When you have the power you can do anything you want without fear of prosecution. Bush has no fear of the law. Might makes right.

 

[LunarRay]

MB,

When you have the power you can do anything you want without fear of prosecution. Bush has no fear of the law. Might makes right.

He only has what we have provided him on loan... there is at least one method to retrieve what we have loaned (November election time is the other). The process is start by putting it before the peoples house... who won't budge on it at all... there is where the fault exists. Mr Bush may very well believe that he acted within the law and in keeping with his oath and job responsibilities. I don't question what exists in his head and heart. I question the legality of the actions. I expect the 'peoples court'.... the H of R to at least put a bill of impeachment before the appropriate committee. Perhaps I'm sadly mistaken and Mr Bush is perfectly within the law regarding Iraq and the invasion.. I, however, just can't reconcile the facts with the law and argue he has done nothing illegal....
He ordered the military to effect the invasion and he is to blame if there exists violations... no one has the authority but him. I hold all others blameless in this... Unless it can be shown they did something illegal.