Archaeologica.org

Beagle wrote:
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.

I was not implying that the motive for war was to steal the oil. I meant that it was about the control of oil. I also agree that a stable Persian Gulf is in everyone's interests - but imo Bush and Blair did more to destabilise it than Saddam Hussein ever did, and now Iraq is less stable than ever.

On the permission to go war by the UK Government, Blair got that by lying to parliament that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that could be activated within 45 minutes. This was, and has been proven to be, a blatant lie. There is a short clip of him making this part of his speech on Youtube called Blair Lies About WMDs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSieUhqIR6k. All the reasons he gave in this speech for going to war have turned out not to be true, and he had to step down from his premiership earlier than intended because the British people lost faith in him over this.

On resolution 1441, the only reason that resolution got through was on the promise that it wouldn't be used as a mandate for war, as you have just given it.

Most member governments of the UN Security Council made clear that, after 1441, there still was no authorisation for the use of force. In fact at the time 1441 was passed, both the US and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted (from Wiki):

'There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution,’ [stated US ambassador Negroponte at the time] ‘Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.’

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock concurred,

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, as one of the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution.

And finally, I'm not a liberal. I just don't like being lied to.

rich wrote:Hmm - unjust maybe - but when is war "legal"? I think a war is classified as "legal" just to satisfy conscience (in other words to make ourselves feel better about it). I can be glad with it being a just war - (but then again - someone had to start it for some reason).

Hi Rich, rather than getting too far afield with your question, let me answer it again. In the US constitution, only Congress can declare war. The Iraq War was declared by Congress by a large, bipartisan, majority. So despite how we may feel about it now, to call it illegal is incorrect.

Now I'm going to watch the DNC rules committee.

Democratic Party officials agreed today to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes, ruling on a long-running dispute that has threatened the party's chances in November and maintaining Barack Obama's front-runner status as he moves closer to the nomination.

Harold Ickes (former deputy White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton), an acidic little man, angrily informed the party's Rules Committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats' credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party's convention in August. His position is that Hillary should receive all of Michigan.

To briefly summarize, the plan that was good enough for Florida and backed by both candidates, was not good enough for Michigan in the eyes of the Clinton candidacy.

Reason prevailed (as much as it can in politics) and the same penalty was handed out to each State, the delegates were faily allocated and fully seated.

Now I wait to hear from Beags and his take on today!

The US Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941, Beags.

Michelle,

It's so good (and rare!) to hear someone giving intelligent and well-thought out reasons for deciding on who they are going to vote for. I only wish that I knew more about your politicians, so that I could give an intelligent and well-thought out reply.

As it is, all I can say is: "Go girl!"

The US Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941, Beags.

It amounts to the same thing of course, and everyone knows it's a war and refers to it as such. That wording has been avoided for sound political reasons. Congress passed a resolution to use miltary force against Iraq. As I was telling Rich, only Congress can authorize that.

The President can act in an emergency but has 48 hours to seek approval from Congress.

Michelle, that's an excellent account of what happened. It's easy to see why they have you writing the script each week for the Archaeology News broadcast.

I learned some things I didn't know, and I can see how people are feeling very angry. Michigan intentionally flouted the rules to make a point about how the primaries are staged. They deserve to be penalized and they even expected to be. This decision was made before anyone realized what a tight primary race would develop.

However, in allocating the delegates, the committee, after a majority vote, awarde Obama all of the non-commited votes in Mighigan, despite the fact that some of them were surely intended for Edwards and others. The Clinton crowd is particularly angry about this.

The Florida situation seemed entirely different to me and I was struck by the good case that was made for the delegation to be fully seated. The decision to move their primary forward, against DNC rules, was made by the Florida state legislature. The legislature is controlled by the Republican party. The decision was part of a larger bill, and the Dems, on two occassions, offered amendments to keep the primary date the same. Those amendments failed. So the Florida Dem. party had no choice in the matter! That struck me as being very unfair, but that's not how Dean et al view it.

So, their vote only counts one half. Because of this, Clinton is out of it. However, counting Florida and Michigan, she has drawn nearly even in popular votes, with the Puerto Rico vote coming in today. If she does take her case to Denver, I think she has a strong one.

As it is, all I can say is: "Go girl!"

Thanks Ish!

Michelle, that's an excellent account of what happened. It's easy to see why they have you writing the script each week for the Archaeology News broadcast.

Thanks Beags!

I learned some things I didn't know, and I can see how people are feeling very angry. Michigan intentionally flouted the rules to make a point about how the primaries are staged. They deserve to be penalized and they even expected to be. This decision was made before anyone realized what a tight primary race would develop.

However, in allocating the delegates, the committee, after a majority vote, award Obama all of the non-commited votes in Mighigan, despite the fact that some of them were surely intended for Edwards and others. The Clinton crowd is particularly angry about this.

In the presentation of the proposal, it was noted that distribution of delegates was arrived at by exit polls and other outside research (I can't remember exactly what it was right now. ) In light of their actions, I think Michigan ought to be happy they got seated at all.

The Florida situation seemed entirely different to me and I was struck by the good case that was made for the delegation to be fully seated. The decision to move their primary forward, against DNC rules, was made by the Florida state legislature. The legislature is controlled by the Republican party. The decision was part of a larger bill, and the Dems, on two occassions, offered amendments to keep the primary date the same. Those amendments failed. So the Florida Dem. party had no choice in the matter! That struck me as being very unfair, but that's not how Dean et al view it.

Florida's Dem party could not get there act together and agree on an in State resolution. They knew this was a potential problem well before the primary.

So, their vote only counts one half. Because of this, Clinton is out of it. However, counting Florida and Michigan, she has drawn nearly even in popular votes, with the Puerto Rico vote coming in today. If she does take her case to Denver, I think she has a strong one.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I really do not care for this woman, just my opinion. In fact, I find her to be an insult to my intelligence and a disgrace to my gender. (I hate whiny women). The outcome of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting doesn't change the underlying dynamic of the Democratic race. In the end, McCain must lose.

Just a couple of fun facts for the hell of it:
Both candidates agreed earlier in the year that neither State should be seated
Thirteen of the 30 RBC members have publicly endorsed Clinton, while eight have openly backed Obama.

In a sidebar amusement, it's humorous the way the evangelicals are falling away, even from the Republicans; possibly a step in the right direction to regaining the separation between church and State? One can only hope!

The President can act in an emergency but has 48 hours to seek approval from Congress.

Especially if he invents the "emergency," eh?

Of course the creation of 'emergencies' has a pretty long history in our country, doesn't it?

Germany, too!

Especially if he invents the "emergency," eh?

The Gulf of Tonkin being the most recent. Of course, the conspiracy nuts think even 911 was faked.

WMD's were far more recent than Tonkin. Same with the Iranian patrol boats from a few months ago. They're all circuses to emotionally charge the masses.

[/list]