How Do You Spell That?

Rationalize "ignoring the impending veto" all you want, but the warmongers seem to still fail to accept the fact that "without the approval by the UN Security Council, in accordance with the Security Council's rules, which include the veto of certain states, any attack by the US on Iraq is an illegal war, making Bush a war-criminal"

If you don't like the fact that economic interests can sway member-states' use of their veto power, seek to abolish the veto, but when you do so, remember that the US has vetoed stuff in the past as well, simply because it went contrary to OUR interests.

Those are the rules we agreed to by signing the UN Charter -- hell we helped WRITE the UN Charter, so the US can't point its finger at anyone for blame.

Iraq's military poses ZERO threat to the US. If it is a threat, the standard practice under international law is to demonstrate HOW it represents a threat. This is usually simple, as it amounts to pointing at troops amassing on your border, etc. etc. Even Bush refuses to come out on the record saying he can tie Iraq to Al-Qaida, so you can't hide behind the "oooo, they support terrorists!" ghost. Without them massing an army on our borders, and without being able to tie them to terrorists, what does the US have left to defend its massing of troops on? Bush and Powell saying "trust us"? Riiiiiiiight.

I'm not doubting the US has voted when in ways that were economically beneficial to us. But to call France a country that is "act(ing) within their conscience" is just stupid.

I would like to know where you are getting the proof that Iraq isn't a threat to the US or to its interests worldwide? Show me the proof that they AREN'T a threat. Maybe you missed the past 40 years of weapons development, but it doesn't take 100,000 men amassed at your border to make a threat. All it takes is two guys and a truck to really ruin the day for a city.

"Bush and Powell saying "trust us"? Riiiiiiiight."

This is obviously the crux of your argument. If someone you trusted said the exact same things, I bet your views would be different. If you notice, the people who voted for Gore/Buchanan/Nader are the ones up in arms over this war.

Think about that....

What's about germany. How many barrels do we import? I believe that nearly everyody gets oil from iraq, but do you really believe that we all are oil-driven?
But isn't it frightening that the us administration has engeged a propaganda expert in order to sell their war? IMHO propaganda is necessary when the product normally doesn't sell. Bush's war-product is broken, nobody want's it. It's embarrassing how other countries are set under presure in order to follow their opinion.

Ah yes, Germany. The country that I look at for my heritage. ;-)

Even before this whole mess started, Germany's views towards America were already strained.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020921-23883740.htmv

All countries hire public relations firms to help with their visible position in the world. Kuwait used it in Gulf War I, Iraq used it, everyone does. Just like any sensible company would. Or any politician.

Let me ask this question, who do you think is funding these "worldwide protests"? It isn't donations in a can...

http://www.exponent.montana.edu/News/news.html

" Show me the proof that they AREN'T a threat."

To use that logic, show me the proof that Botswanaland isn't a threat, otherwise, let's invade. Prove to me that Argentina isn't a threat, otherwise, it's OK to invade.

That logic doesn't hold up, Brian. Come on, you're smarter than that.

" If someone you trusted said the exact same things, I bet your views would be different. If you notice, the people who voted for Gore/Buchanan/Nader are the ones up in arms over this war. "

Eerrrr, go to opensecrets.org, plug in my name for the 2000 election cycle. Notice who I paid good money to help elect?

It doesn't matter WHO says "trust me"... "Trust Me" is New Yorker for "Fuck You". If you want to commit a war of aggression, you show the proof, not just ask people to trust you.

Easy. Bothswana has diplomatic relations with us. So does Argentina. Neither of these countries have invaded anything over the past 20 years.

I think you being the Clancy nut would know that you can't corrupt people in the field or means for getting information just for a PR fix.

Well, if "having diplomatic relations" is the key to survival, then Iraq is safe. Their embassy is at 1801 P Street NW, in DC. That's the definition of diplomatic relations.

And invading a country 12 years ago is NOT grounds for beating up on that country TODAY.

So again, you (and the warmonger crowd) has yet to really demonstrate in practical terms how this is NOT illegal under international law...

If a judge was bought on a trial, or had interests which caused him to decide a certain way in a trial without balancing the evidence, they would be thrown in the slammer.

Now, France can't be kicked off the security council for this, and I wouldn't want them to be. But it's pretty obvious what their true intentions are. They've done this for years, and it's getting old.

Oh, right, and the "economic package" we're offering Mexico in exchange for THEIR vote is just fine.

WAKE UP BRIAN! France is doing what is in France's best interest, just as any country should. The difference is what THEY are doing is in accordance with international law, and what the US is getting ready to do ISN'T.

It's REALLY quite cut and dried, and I'm amazed you're in such a bloodlust for war that you're not seeing that, clear as day.

I also should point out that in comparing "US's donation to Mexico" and "France's self-interest", ONE of those two situations very closely parallels your "judge being bought off" analogy, and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader which one it is.

"WAKE UP BRIAN! France is doing what is in France's best interest, just as any country should. The difference is what THEY are doing is in accordance with international law, and what the US is getting ready to do ISN'T."

Then why did you say France was so damn noble in it's vote? ;-)

Dude, the last thing I want to do is go to war. Two guys in my neighborhood were called off to duty. Their families have no clue where they are. That sucks.

I woke up a long time ago, and letting this putz screw around for the next 12 years so he CAN develop a nuke and wipe out Tel Aviv is stupid. It's been six months since 1441 was passed and new shit STILL keeps coming out even after they swear up and down they didn't have this or that.

Bottom line, Saddam is fucking with you. The entire world isn't against this, far from it.

"Then why did you say France was so damn noble in it's vote?"

I said they were voting according to their conscience, and their conscience means what's in France's best interests, just like when we vote according to OUR conscience that means "what's in OUR best interests".

"Dude, the last thing I want to do is go to war."

You coulda fooled me for as loud as you beat the wardrums. You still haven't answered the "it violates international law" angle. You've dodged it, waved your hand and attempted to pull the rabbit from some rectal cavity, but the magic act you're pulling off is worse than the one we saw in Vegas.

Simple question: How do you overcome the fact that if the US acts as the aggressor, in the absence of the UN Security Council passing a measure approving it, it violates international law.

"The entire world isn't against this, far from it."

Ummmm, the figures I've seen thrown around seem to dispute that statement. The Arab League condemned it ... aside from countries we've been bribing (and we haven't been secretive about it for god's sake, we've practically started shopping on eBay for yes votes), most of the countries in the UN of any importance seem to be against us. Christ, we offered Turkey $26,000,000,000 to let us use their country and they STILL said no. $26B couldn't buy their vote, and they're going to desperately need that money when we attack because of all the refugees that head their way. Despite that, they are so dead-set against the war that they won't take our blood money.

You say the majority of the world backs us. I say prove it, because even the gung-ho-for-war press doesn't seem to be painting that story. Please don't quote your grandma in the UK as representative of "popular sentiment" because Tony's pulling about a 2% approval rating so she's obviously not representative of the UK population on that point (hyperbole, but you get the point).

Well Derek, I say prove the world isn't behind the US. The UK, Austrialia, Japan, most of NATO, have all come out in support of this move along with Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabiia (who isn't publically calling for it, but they definitely wouldn't let us use the airbases if they didn't want it).

This war is obviously going to happen, and I really don't think the people of Iraq are going to think of it as a war of aggression, but a war of freedom. Freedom from this asshole. And while you might think of it as a war of aggression, I don't see the Russians running into Iraq calling an attack on Saddam equal to an attack on Russia (a'la Kennedy in 1962).

Call Bush a war criminal, sign the call for impeachment, do what you want to do. At least in this country you CAN do that. Show me a country that has more freedoms built into it's system than the US.

You keep dodging the question, so I'll leave it all by itself in the hopes that it gets answered:

Simple question: How do you overcome the fact that if the US acts as the aggressor, in the absence of the UN Security Council passing a measure approving it, it violates international law.

Easy. Wars of aggression (in your terms) means the US would invade a country and make it a part of it's own.

This isn't the fact. The UN has proven itself inept (as any global body will), so the US/UK/Spain/Austrailia/NATO has decided to take action.

As you keep saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

No, a war of aggression doesn't require conquering. In international terms, it's simply unprovoked, and the UN hasn't provoked US,.... it may have provoked the UN, but we don't get to go off the reservation when the UN specifically does NOT permit military action.

But, I give up. If you want to labor under the mistaken belief that the UN is "inept" simply because it disagrees with you, there's very little I can do to make you see the reality of the situation.

Baaaaaaaaaa

Oh yes, when I agree with someone else other than you, clueless yip I become.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You and I have disagreed on many things in the past (e.g., guns, before you came around on the topic), and never did I refer to you as "clueless yip" in any of our discussions about that, in the days of old.

On THIS topic, though, you seem to be spouting verbatim the party-line, which is the same party-line being spoon-fed to the people by the media. You're yammering for war, despite the fact that the world opinion seems decidedly against it, and the questions of whether it is even LEGAL, internationally, remain in serious doubt. Despite all of that, you appear to be surrounded in the "bloodlust for revenge", talking about what a "potential threat" Saddam is, even though he hasn't so much as looked-crosseyed at another country in twelve years, but... at the same time, there's a country in southeast asia building nuclear weapons, actually threatening neighbors with attack, and nobody wants to do anything about that.

The difference between us, on this topic, is that I *could* be convinced of a need for war (but as yet have not been), whereas you cannot possibly be convinced that it's wrong, despite mountains of evidence as to the ways it is wrong.

I could be convinced this war is wrong, if there was conclusive proof that Iraq was 100% complying with the inspectors (or even 80%). But Blix and alBaradei have turned this from confirming that Iraq has disarmed to "well, maybe he's hid them here" was NOT was 1441 was about.

North Korea is a threat, but all they wants is the oil shipments to restart. Something that would have continued if they didn't develop a nuclear weapon.

I'd respond to more, but I'm heading out the door for the weekend.