|
Post by Chips on Jun 4, 2008 11:11:34 GMT 9.5
Iraq war: Liberals wave a mighty tattered flag Nothing John Howard, Alexander Downer or Brendan Nelson say changes the facts ("War was based on a lie: Rudd", June 3). Iraq was not involved in September 11, was not capable of fighting a war, had no connection with al-Qaeda, did not promote terrorist attacks against the West and had destroyed its chemical weapons in 1991. Howard and Tony Blair knew Bush was going to attack Iraq from early in 2002 because they were told it was going ahead, regardless. They ignored reasoned pleas from Germany and France, from former ambassadors, diplomats, defence personnel and analysts from around the world. Howard even accused Australians against the war of supporting terrorists. Downer, now with his hand out hoping for a UN ambassadorial appointment, joined his leader in saying the UN was irrelevant. And what has this unnecessary conflict given us? Global terrorism has increased, a country and its people have been decimated, the Middle East is a festering sore, al-Qaeda has a higher profile and recruitment base than ever and we have become accessories to clandestine renditions, indefinite detention and legalised torture. This is the moral high ground from which these Liberals wave the flag. John Francis Noraville
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Jun 4, 2008 11:48:29 GMT 9.5
Charge them with WAR CRIMES.
Messrs Howard, Downer, and Ruddoch should be charged with the War Crime of Aggressive Warfare, as there was no legal reason for Australia to attack Iraq.
Even the stated reasons at the time were illegal. The UN at the time told the Countries that attacked Iraq they had no permission from the either the UN general council or the UN security council and as such they were committing aggressive War.
hey should also charge the same with War Crimes for allowing a Co-beligerent to commit grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and willfully handing over Prisoners to a country that is known to be treating Prisoners in unlawful means.
|
|
|
Post by clifftimmons on Jun 4, 2008 12:03:44 GMT 9.5
STEP AWAY FROM THE BONG!
Lets get real. That will never happen and we know it. Why? Because that is all based on lies from the left.
Look, America had a black eye after September 11th. Sadam all be asked us to kick him butt. We complied.
Like we say here in Missouri, "He needed killin'."
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Jun 4, 2008 17:07:24 GMT 9.5
Cliff at the time of the invasion Saddaam was in total compliance with ALL UN resolutions it isnt the left that has clouded the issue it was George W Bush and Co that did it.
Saddaam had NOTHING to do with 911 had NO WMDs and Was not in bed with AL Qaeda. So why was Iraq attacked because it was the plan all along from BEFORE Bush was elected. 9/11 was the excuse. The UN whose sanctions were the ones that Bush said were being broken told told Bush that the US had no permission to attack. The excuse that Saddaam was killing his countrymen is a crock because there are literally dozens of countries that the US hasnt attacked on the grounds they are killing thier countrymen.
While Saddaam was a nasty piece of work the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation by the US has actually killed many many more people than Saddaam ever did.
Finally Bushs Invasion of Iraq took the heat off the actual perpetrator of 9/11 Osama Bin Ladin that alone should see the President tried for treasonous activities. While he alledgedly is a History Major he didnt study to well even Blind Freddy knows that Hitlers Downfall was to fight on to many fronts and therefore split his Forces.
|
|
|
Post by clifftimmons on Jun 5, 2008 8:58:14 GMT 9.5
Cliff at the time of the invasion Saddaam was in total compliance with ALL UN resolutions it isnt the left that has clouded the issue it was George W Bush and Co that did it. Lion, you really hurt your case when you type that crap that even you know to be false. Total Compliance? Were you living in a yurt at that time?
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Jun 5, 2008 10:09:25 GMT 9.5
Ok he was supposed to be allowing unfettered access at the time, Hans Blix and his teams were able to go anywhere what we all remeber is what happenned in previous years when there was non compliance however he was in total compliance at the time and had been for almost a year before the invasion.
Note that Even the CIA and MI6 said later he was in total compliance and there was significant evidence at the time that they told both Bush and Blair those facts.
Recent admissions from "Australias Office of National assessments"have also said he was in Compliance and the United Nations also said he was in compliance with the sanctions. In fact at the time and I remember this very clearly the only Person in Breach of United Nations protocols was in fact the United States for threatening to invade Iraq which was of no real threat to the United States at all. With Koffee Annan telling the United States so.
Cliff I have had this discussion at length with people over the years and what I have found is that there was great differences in the reporting of the facts to US citizens because the media in the States was towing the post 9/11 terrorist line and believing the Governments retoric whereas in Australia there was independent media reports that were widely diseminated. In fact at the time on another board I posted lots of media reports and got comments like "we are not hearing that at all". Even today there are op ed reports that US media hyped the Government reports over any other reports and that the Journalists were in affect being lazy in not checking out the veracity of other reports that they had heard.
Cliff, George Bush lied to the World then and he is still lying to the world today.
Finally irrespective of what you believe as to what happenned. George Bush did not ever have the permission of the body of who's sanctions they were to attack Iraq on their behalf. So the attack was actually illegal regardless. Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force.
While Saddaam had played silly buggers with the world for a decade after Gulf War 1 he effectively did what the US would have done itself and still actually continues to do to this day in relation to WMDs Stall. Does not the United States stall in its requirements to destroy its WMD's? Remember this the US has said it will destroy its Biological weapons and also ITS chemical weapons and it hasnt done so.
The difference was that Saddaam actually did destroy his weapons its just that the United States refused to acknowledge the fact publicly so that it could invade Iraq not because it was not in compliance but because they wanted Regime change no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by clifftimmons on Jun 5, 2008 10:17:41 GMT 9.5
And this is thinking like that that is why no other nation will ever follow Australia anywhere. If your Fathers had thought that way, you'd be speaking Japaneese today. Ok he was supposed to be allowing unfettered access at the time, Hans Blix and his teams were able to go anywhere what we all remeber is what happenned in previous years when there was non compliance however he was in total compliance at the time and had been for almost a year before the invasion. Note that Even the CIA and MI6 said later he was in total compliance and there was significant evidence at the time that they told both Bush and Blair those facts. Recent admissions from "Australias Office of National assessments"have also said he was in Compliance and the United Nations also said he was in compliance with the sanctions. In fact at the time and I remember this very clearly the only Person in Breach of United Nations protocols was in fact the United States for threatening to invade Iraq which was of no real threat to the United States at all. With Koffee Annan telling the United States so. Cliff I have had this discussion at length with people over the years and what I have found is that there was great differences in the reporting of the facts to US citizens because the media in the States was towing the post 9/11 terrorist line and believing the Governments retoric whereas in Australia there was independent media reports that were widely diseminated. In fact at the time on another board I posted lots of media reports and got comments like "we are not hearing that at all". Even today there are op ed reports that US media hyped the Government reports over any other reports and that the Journalists were in affect being lazy in not checking out the veracity of other reports that they had heard. Cliff, George Bush lied to the World then and he is still lying to the world today. Finally irrespective of what you believe as to what happenned. George Bush did not ever have the permission of the body of who's sanctions they were to attack Iraq on their behalf. So the attack was actually illegal regardless. Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. While Saddaam had played silly buggers with the world for a decade after Gulf War 1 he effectively did what the US would have done itself and still actually continues to do to this day in relation to WMDs Stall. Does not the United States stall in its requirements to destroy its WMD's? Remember this the US has said it will destroy its Biological weapons and also ITS chemical weapons and it hasnt done so. The difference was that Saddaam actually did destroy his weapons its just that the United States refused to acknowledge the fact publicly so that it could invade Iraq not because it was not in compliance but because they wanted Regime change no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Jun 5, 2008 10:18:08 GMT 9.5
I remember this very clearly George W Bush sent the United Nations a communique to get its "weapons inspectors" out of Iraq immediately unless the United Nations wanted them to be caught up in a war zone.
The arguement at the time was that the Weapons inspectors had nearly completed their survey and were about to give Iraq a clean bill of health, something that Bush had to stop at all costs. Lest he would never have an excuse to attack Iraq EVER.
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Jun 5, 2008 10:32:22 GMT 9.5
And this is thinking like that that is why no other nation will ever follow Australia anywhere. If your Fathers had thought that way, you'd be speaking Japaneese today. Remember the difference here the Japanese attacked the United States and Australia physically they Bombed Pearl Harbour and Darwin (where I live). Iraq never attacked the United States at any time and it is argued that they actually sought and had the permission of the United States to attack Kuwait, it was the Saudis that were worried that Iraq would attack them next that caused the US to change its mind to protect Kuwait. The other fact is that the Japanese Declared war on the United States and were going to do it before Pearl Harbour, there still hasnt been a declaration of war against Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by wvpeach1963 on Jun 5, 2008 11:07:41 GMT 9.5
And this is thinking like that that is why no other nation will ever follow Australia anywhere. If your Fathers had thought that way, you'd be speaking Japaneese today. Remember the difference here the Japanese attacked the United States and Australia physically they Bombed Pearl Harbour and Darwin (where I live). Iraq never attacked the United States at any time and it is argued that they actually sought and had the permission of the United States to attack Kuwait, it was the Saudis that were worried that Iraq would attack them next that caused the US to change its mind to protect Kuwait. The other fact is that the Japanese Declared war on the United States and were going to do it before Pearl Harbour, there still hasnt been a declaration of war against Iraq. Well said Lion
|
|
|
Post by Chips on Jun 5, 2008 12:01:38 GMT 9.5
And this is thinking like that that is why no other nation will ever follow Australia anywhere. If your Fathers had thought that way, you'd be speaking Japaneese today. You appear to be using selective history Cliff. It was Australia that stopped the Japanese advance at Kokoda and the Australian SAS that led the invasion into Iraq. By the time the coalition troops crossed the boarders, the SAS were some 200 miles into enemy territory. Lion is correct when he says your media was selective in what it published... you were being told what your government wanted you to hear. The important thing with this discussion is not to diminish what all the troops achieved, they were given a difficult task which they carried out admirably. No one is questioning their bravery of dedication to that task. What we are questioning is the motives of the governments involved. Not just those of the USA and UK but of our own government in Australia as well. Essentially what Lion presented is the truth. The United Nations was set up to prevent wars and the charter of the UN was set up by the member nations. In the instance of Iraq, the USA, UK and Australia ignored the UN and thus broke international law. We can't have it both ways, we're either a member of the UN or we're not... we abide by the charter or we don't.
|
|