Remembering Bush & His War

[Noitartst]

Howdy--I have thought long about Iraq, a war I supported, and wrote a blog about my feelings, thoughts, and memories:
Memories of Bush & His War - Noitartst

Folks now may just say Bush invaded out of the blue, but it wasn't quite like that; my post here can hopefully start a discussion, because I think myths are starting to seep in.

Tell me what you think of my post. Basically, I'm disgusted by how so many myths have seeped in, and would like to compare notes with others.

Blog: noitartst.com

 

[cnm]

What a [deluded] load.

 

[there4eyeM]

The illegal invasion counts certainly as one of the greatest catastrophes of American history. No enemy has ever done as much to diminish the military strength and international position of the U.S. as did the Bush League.

 

[Muhammed]

The illegal invasion counts certainly as one of the greatest catastrophes of American history. No enemy has ever done as much to diminish the military strength and international position of the U.S. as did the Bush League.

The invasion was not illegal in any way, shape or form. I don't know where the multitude of LWNJs came up with that crap. Probably brainwashing via repeated messaging on left-wing blogs and TV media. The weak-minded are very susceptible to that type of brainwashing.

 

[there4eyeM]

from 9/16/2004
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
It is not clear how the brainwashed, weak-minded keep themselves convinced of their righteousness.

 

[cnm]

The invasion was not illegal in any way, shape or form.

It breached the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory.

edit...Oh, done already I see. Not that invincible ignorance will not prove invincible.

 

[Muhammed]

from 9/16/2004
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
It is not clear how the brainwashed, weak-minded keep themselves convinced of their righteousness.

Annan was obviously lying.

 

[Muhammed]

The invasion was not illegal in any way, shape or form.

It breached the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory.

edit...Oh, done already I see. Not that invincible ignorance will not prove invincible.

No it did not breach the UN Charter. See Chapter 7.

 

[cnm]

No it did not breach the UN Charter. See Chapter 7.

Ah, the invincibility of ignorance did not disappoint.

 

[Muhammed]

No it did not breach the UN Charter. See Chapter 7.

Ah, the invincibility of ignorance did not disappoint.

You are the one who is ignorant of the FACT that the UNSC approved the use of force in Iraq by the coalition of UN member states.

You are totally ignorant of history.

 

[there4eyeM]

from 9/16/2004
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
It is not clear how the brainwashed, weak-minded keep themselves convinced of their righteousness.

Annan was obviously lying.

...because what he said disagrees with your opinion.
To an objective observer, whom would they believe; a thread poster or the Secretary General of the U.N.?

 

[cnm]

You are the one who is ignorant of the FACT that the UNSC approved the use of force in Iraq by the coalition of UN member states.

The UNSC reserved action to itself in regard to Saddam's behaviour with regard to UN inspectors. The US breached the UN Charter by ignoring UNSC resolution 1441.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Security Council vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.


While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”


The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”


The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5] ” ​

 

[cnm]

...because what he said disagrees with your opinion.
To an objective observer, whom would they believe; a thread poster or the Secretary General of the U.N.?

Or even the US and UK representatives at the time?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are the one who is ignorant of the FACT that the UNSC approved the use of force in Iraq by the coalition of UN member states.

The UNSC reserved action to itself in regard to Saddam's behaviour with regard to UN inspectors. The US breached the UN Charter by ignoring UNSC resolution 1441.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Security Council vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.


While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”


The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”


The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5] ” ​

Have another link beside the one you edited on Wikipedia?


.

 

[PredFan]

Howdy--I have thought long about Iraq, a war I supported, and wrote a blog about my feelings, thoughts, and memories:
Memories of Bush & His War - Noitartst

Folks now may just say Bush invaded out of the blue, but it wasn't quite like that; my post here can hopefully start a discussion, because I think myths are starting to seep in.

Tell me what you think of my post. Basically, I'm disgusted by how so many myths have seeped in, and would like to compare notes with others.

Blog: noitartst.com

Cheap ass attempt to bring people to a blog that probably no one goes to.

If you want a discussion, say it here.

 

[boedicca]

And President Mom Jeans has been at war longer than any of them.

If presiding over the greatest transfer of wealth in history from the middle class to the 1 percent wasn’t enough of a trophy for Obama, another dismal achievement will mark his presidency. Obama has been at war longer than any president in U.S. history....

WAR IS PEACE — Nobel Prize-Winning Obama Becomes Longest War-Time President In US History

 

[Camp]

Both of those wars fell apart because instead of completing the initial missions, the wars were transitioned into occupation missions and nation building missions. In other words, the wars were started as military missions and transitioned into political wars with the tools for completing the new political mission being the military. That transition should have never taken place in Afghanistan or Iraq. They should have been ended with formal surrenders with agreed upon terms and the countries left to handle their own internal affairs. Afghanistan would have had problems because the Taliban was so entrenched and commingled with al Qaeda, but once the Taliban was convinced to break away from its allegiance to al Qaeda and the al Qaeda forces defeated and chased out of the country, that should have been the end of it.

 

[cnm]

Have another link beside the one you edited on Wikipedia?

The wiki quotes are referenced, you invincibly ignorant arse.

Here's wiki's note to Negroponte's comments: [3] which goes to this:

United Nations Official Document

which contains this:

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed [...]​

 

[Muhammed]

You are the one who is ignorant of the FACT that the UNSC approved the use of force in Iraq by the coalition of UN member states.

The UNSC reserved action to itself in regard to Saddam's behaviour with regard to UN inspectors. The US breached the UN Charter by ignoring UNSC resolution 1441.

First of all, the US was not found to be in breach of anything.

Furthermore, your uninformed babbling about UNSCR 1441 is nothing but a strawman. The Coalition of UN member states was already at war in Iraq at the time 1441 passed.

Nobody is claiming that 1441 authorized the use of force. It was UNSCR 678 that authorized the use of military force.

 

[cnm]

Furthermore, your uninformed babbling about UNSCR 1441 is nothing but a strawman. The Coalition of UN member states was already at war in Iraq at the time 1441 passed.

Both the representatives of the US and the UK to the UN disagree with you, as is apparent from their comments.

But it is agreed your invincible ignorance is invincible.

"If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."​