• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraq war triggered by deceit

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This report today proves that, just as they triggered the Vietnam war in the Tonkin Gulf, the USA triggered also the Iraq war by deceit.

"The White House memo

Published: 2 Feb 2006
By: Gary Gibbon

Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war.

Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force.

Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.



President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

But Mr Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs." "

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
 
Last edited:

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
This report today proves that, just as they triggered the Vietnam war in the Tonkin Gulf, the USA triggered also the Iraq war by deceit.

"The White House memo

Published: 2 Feb 2006
By: Gary Gibbon

Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war.

Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force.

Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.



President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

But Mr Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs." "

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

So they did what was needed to get rid of a murdering dictator that sympathised with terrorist and terrorist organizations. And they did this as opposed to wasting another useless soon to be ignored resolution put forth by the powerless UN....It was just a matter of time, everybody knew that. The resolutions were not working and saddam was doing buisness as normal.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Calm2Chaos said:
So they did what was needed to get rid of a murdering dictator that sympathised with terrorist and terrorist organizations. And they did this as opposed to wasting another useless soon to be ignored resolution put forth by the powerless UN....It was just a matter of time, everybody knew that. The resolutions were not working and saddam was doing buisness as normal.
Glad you like being decieved. Do you also like being burgled or having your other half be unfaithfull or having money taken by fraud.. only you appear to be a masocistic sucker to me. Why bother with democracy & constitutions if you are so happy to be decieved ?
2million died in the Nam war for absolutely nothing & you think it's right for politicians to trick their own people into going to war !
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
Glad you like being decieved. Do you also like being burgled or having your other half be unfaithfull or having money taken by fraud.. only you appear to be a masocistic sucker to me. Why bother with democracy & constitutions if you are so happy to be decieved ?
2million died in the Nam war for absolutely nothing & you think it's right for politicians to trick their own people into going to war !

I think you hurt my feelings..................NA!!!!

You do what you gotta do for the greater good. Burglary, theft ect ect in general are not for the greater good. Never actually thought of myself as a masocistic type person. I do however think you can give people only so much rope. Soner or later if they don't hang themselves you sometimes have to put the noose around there neck. Resolutions were not going to work, they hadn't up until that point. At what point in time do you stop with the patty cake and start doing what needs to be done
 

icky

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There are only 4 LEGAL reasons to go to war (and WE wrote the law! - see Nuremberg Trials):

1) UN Sanctioned
2) Civil War
3) Your ally is attacked and asks for your help... you may, or may not, agree
and....
4) You have a RIGHT to DEFEND yourself.

NOTICE: Getting rid of an evil dictator bastard is NOT considered LEGAL. This is NOT a LEGAL justification for war.

Bushco presented the idea that IRAQ posed an immediate threat to the United States (i.e. We must defend ourselves). This is legal.

An example: The Steamship Caroline

The discussion of pre-emptive war always begins with one actual event: the burning of the Caroline in 1837. The peculiarity is the aggrieved party – the country that was attacked – that came up with the formulation to justify it.

A small-time insurrection was taking place in Canada. The rebels were recruiting foreign fighters from the States and they were smuggling arms across the Niagara River in an American boat, the Caroline. One night, when she was docked on the New York side, the British crossed over, burnt her and sent her over the Falls. They killed one American in the process.

This could have sparked the third war between Britain and America. Neither government wanted that. The American Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, who came up with the statement that is always cited. A state can resort to arms provided that, “the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and moment for deliberation.”

Furthermore, “the act, justified by the necessity of self defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.” Yes, it was legal to sink the Caroline. But it would not have been legal to sack and burn Buffalo while they were at it.

----

So... When the US went to the UN 'one last time' and "we AGREED" that 'War should be the last resort' and we were willing to let inspectors go back to Iraq on ONE CONDITION: That the inspectors have UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to ANWYHERE in Iraq...

The US was rather certain that Iraq would NOT AGREE to this... BUT!!! We were shocked! Saddam said, "OK." Not only that, but the inspectors themselves said that Saddam cooperated with their every request.

At this point there was no more threat! Why?
1) IF the inspectors found WMD's, they (the weapons) would be destroyed. NO MORE THREAT.
2) IF the inspectors found NO WMD's... there would be NO THREAT.

IF THERE IS NO THREAT, THEN THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR.

At this point the "reason" changed to: Well... um.... Saddam is a really really bad man and we have to get rid of him.

Sorry, but this isn't a LEGAL justification for war.

The moment we attacked we were guilty of starting a War of Aggression. The same crimes of which Nazi Germany was found guilty.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wait, stop the presses. You mean we were going to take Saddam out regardless of whether the UN supported us? :shock: Move along folks, nothing to see here. :roll:

Hey robin, how's that impeachment coming?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What deceit is being alleged here. I read the intro, but I remember seeing Bush on the campaign trail in 2000 talking about taking out Saddam.

Even beyond that, it has been common knowledge since the beginning that Bush wanted to reverse Clinton's policies of appeasing our enemies (like N. Korea), letting Al Queda walk all over us, and doing nothing about genocidal terror-sponsors who routinely launch scuds at civilians in a nearby nuclear ally of ours.

I see no deceit here, only common sense in defending ourselves and our allies-which IS legal. ;)
 

icky

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That Channel 4 link is dead....

Anybody have a working Link to offer?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
icky said:
That Channel 4 link is dead....

Anybody have a working Link to offer?
The entire thread was dead before it even got started.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
robin said:
Glad you like being decieved. Do you also like being burgled or having your other half be unfaithfull or having money taken by fraud.. only you appear to be a masocistic sucker to me. Why bother with democracy & constitutions if you are so happy to be decieved ?
2million died in the Nam war for absolutely nothing & you think it's right for politicians to trick their own people into going to war !
There was no deception. We already had a UN resolution authorizing force and a congressional one to go along with it along with the fact it was the official policy of the United States, passed into law at they urging of and signed by Bill Clinton, that Saddam's regime be removed. Going back the UN was a courtesy to them but not necessary. Bush and Blair were perfectly clear and open that we would go anyway.

Your post is fallacious.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
1. It was.
2. Nope, he summarily executed anyone who threaten too
3. They did
4. We were

But those are not the only things that can trigger Casus Belli.
 
Top Bottom