Archaeologica.org

Ish - those people were going around killing each other in their own streets - and they still do. Waging a war on that (to win, that is) is merely putting a stopper on them extending it around the globe - or would you rather wait for it to end up at your front door? Like I said - no war is really legal. But some wars make sense.

Ishtar - Russia and China are permanent members of the council. Either one of them could have vetoed. They didn't, and they are not our friends. The world wanted Saddam gone, and now they want to wash their hands of it after the fact.

That's pretty normal.

We do need to come home now, and I'm sick of other countries looking to us to be the world's policemen.

I'll be back later today, but nobody will change their mind on this subject. It's like religion.

It's true they're going around killing each other - it's rather like Yugoslavia after Tito died. Sometimes evil dictators can keep an uneasy coalition together, so they're useful for that.

The other reason for going in was a part of the 'war on terror'. So have we won that war? There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, as the heavy handed dictator who ran the place wouldn't tolerate them - but there 's plenty there now.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. But I also wouldn't kid myself that the motive for the war was to remove him because he was a threat to the Iraqi people, even less to us.

That's just the line they spun. ...and even though these WMD that were supposed to be 'threatening our security' have never been found, some people still insist in believing in the lie, that the world is now a safer place.

Beagle wrote:Ishtar - Russia and China are permanent members of the council. Either one of them could have vetoed.

Beags, if you read the piece I just put up about what happened at the Security Council, you'll see that no-one got the chance to veto it as, sensing which way the wind was blowing, the UK and US quickly withdrew the motion before they could.

That's why Kofi Annan said it was an illegal war.

In the end, the UK and the US had to just go with what they called a 'coalition of the willing' - the UK, the US, Bulgaria and Spain. No sign of China or Russia, or anyone else, there.

This was all so well documented in our press, I'm beginning to wonder about what your papers tell you in the US, or are allowed to tell you. Maybe our press is not so tame?

Ish - you always hear only what they want you to hear - regardless of the country. But still, I have no qualms about war - I just think if we go in - fight to win, and then get out. Be bad enough for everyone to stay away from you or get eaten alive. No one really has a good reason to go to war - but if you do it - finish it at least. And the fact that we're still there is what makes it apparent that it's for no good reasons - on either side.
Crom - ahah!

Please read the Wiki article, because I don't think your media has been really that truthful with you:

There are five permanent members of the Security Council: the UK, the US, Russia, China and France. At the time, Germany, as a non-permanent member, was presiding over the council:

Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac [France] said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war...

Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time.

China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France. [in other words, against the war]

In February 24, 2003, the U.S., the UK and Spain presented a draft resolution to the Security Council which declared that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it resolution 1441. [6] The resolution split the UN and led to serious diplomatic rifts, with the U.S. and the UK coming under sustained criticism from France, Russia and Germany. The resolution was eventually withdrawn, with the sponsors contending that it had been sabotaged by France's threat to veto the new resolution "whatever the circumstances", while critics (and France itself) argued that the French position had been intentionally misrepresented and that the majority of the Security Council had opposed the proposed resolution.......

You misunderstand me Ish - I said you only hear what they want you to hear - any of us. I just don't have a need for someone to justify to me why they are going to war. In my viewpoint - if you are going to go to war - do it - finish it - and get out. I'm not squeemish at all. I just never liked staying there afterwards - unless you are going to take over full control - then staying is justified. But if you are staying for any other reason - that is when I disagree with it.

I understand you, Rich. I hear what you say.

My reply was to Beags on the legality of the war. He seems to have been told that Russia and China were given the opportunity to veto it.

However, I disagree that someone doesn't have to justify why they go to war. I think they do need to justify it - otherwise, there will be chaos.

I can't wait to read Scott McClellan's book which explains just how totally invalid all those fucking reasons were.

Of course, Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke already told us this but the WAR Is GREAT crowd never seems to listen.

This is from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Happened

What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception is the bestselling memoir of Scott McClellan, who served as White House Press Secretary from 2003 until 2006 under President George W. Bush. The book was scheduled to be released on June 2, 2008; however, excerpts were released to the press a week before publication. The book quickly became a media sensation for its criticism of the Bush administration and ran as a leading story on most top news outlets days after the content became public. Even before its official release, What Happened reached the number-one position on Amazon.com's sales chart.[1]

Content
In the book, McClellan unexpectedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration. He accused Bush of "self-deception"[2] and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather than making the best choices.[3] McClellan stopped short of saying Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that the administration was not "employing out-and-out deception" to make the case for war in 2002,[4] though he did assert the administration relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war.[5] The book was also critical of the press corps for being too accepting of the administration's perspective on the Iraq War[3] and of Condoleeza Rice for being "too accommodating" and overly careful about protecting her own reputation.[2]

On the Iraq War“ History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.[3] ”

On Transparency and Honesty“ I still like and admire President Bush. But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.[3]"

Indeed, I realize that there is and was a lot of dispute about UN Res. 1441.
At the time, the White House already had the authority of Congress by an overwhelming majority. So did the UK in Parliament I believe.

I watched the UN closely at that time, and it was said before and after the vote, that if a deadline for compliance was set by the UN the coalition had a green light. That was well understood, I believe, by any UN member that cared to listen.

1441 passed unanimously. and the military of coaltion countries began mobilizing for war. France, who had close economic ties to Iraq, took political cover and protested any military action. Many French products were boycotted by much of our public for a long time.

Many Americans did not think Bush should have gone to the UN in the first place, but that's another discussion.

In any event, it was over quickly, with a negligible loss of troop casualties, although the loss of any life cannot be considered neglible. It has all gone to hell because Bush remained to rebuild the country and create a democracy. His Presidency has been ruined as a result.

Earlier, Ishtar, you said the war was about oil. So did most liberals. Yesterday, a liberal commentator was railing against Bush because of high oil prices and asked why he hasn't given Americans any relief by pumping the Iraqi oil and sending it here. No - we're not stealing anybody's oil. However, a stable Persian Gulf is in the world's best interest of course.

That's my nutshell history as I don't elaborate much. But I want to add that I've obviously lost the thread from commenting on the primaries to just railing on Bush and the war. I'll be glad to see him go too. I'll leave the thread to those of you who need to beat that horse. I'll have a comment when the candidates pick their running mates.

Ishtar wrote: … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.[3]"

I'm guessing that is a direct reference to Rummy. Now that guy was a blunder, imo, and no one misses him now that he's gone.

My two cents (or 0.01286587328 Euro)

In the current Democratic Candidate race, tomorrow will be an interesting day. The Democratic National Committee will meet to determine how many delegates from Florida and Michigan to seat.

I will qualify here and now, before commentary, that I support Obama in a false positive sort of way. Meaning, McCain and Clinton are part of the dynasty that has lorded over this country for far too long. Obama might not be the knight in shining armor, but I’m willing to trying something new. I was once registered Republican ( I don't know why...), then Independent, now I’m just fed up on so many of the issues, it would take too long to list.

I think the rules that states being penalized for voting earlier than Big Brother says you can are silly, but that is another discussion.

That having been said, Clinton and her campaign's chief lawyer said the committee is compelled to seat both delegations fully and not award Sen. Barack Obama any delegates from Michigan.

Rather an odd assumption since he was not on the ballot, due to the State’s penalization, and by virtue of that a large number voted (40%)‘non-committed’.

Florida is another matter. 50% for Clinton and 33% for Obama. One of the ‘rules’ of the primary penalties is that neither candidate can campaign in a suspended State. Obama abided by this while Hillary did not call it ‘campaigning’, she called it ‘private fund raising’. Same shit different pile.

Current delegate count stands at Clinton 1,782 and with Obama 1,984.

In any event, it is an exciting time if you follow politics (and I do to a fault, ask my husband…) and a historic time. It will be fun to watch and study how our Nation deals with it.

As far as nations go, we are still in the infant stage in the grand scheme of things. Let’s hope it’s not the terrible twos…..

Okay, I’m off my soap box now….back to your regular programming.

MichelleH wrote:My two cents (or 0.01286587328 Euro)

...

You're scaring me Michelle. You know far too much about the process. I don't understand any of it.