I'm sorry about your grandfather.

Thank you. He wasn't a jew, but a resistence hero. Since I beleive it's a moral crime to forget those who died for us and the peace, I'll just take a minute to say who he was:

Halfdan Marius Jønsson, b. Petersen (in Levanger, Nord-Trøndelag, Norway), 5/15/1891 - 2/7/1945. Norwegian laber union man, co-founder of Norsk Kjemisk Industriarbeiderforbund, the Norwegian Chemical Labor Union, and its first leader. Leader of Faglig Utvalg, the national Union's resistence coordination during WWII. Member of the National Coordination Comittey from 1942-1944 (when he was arrested by Gestapo). Member of "Kretsen", the secret and illegal government of 12, which got their orders directly from our exiled government in London during WWII.

He was arrested January 7 1944, brought for questioning to Møllergt. 19 in Oslo, tortured for months until transferred to a local consentration camp outside Oslo; Grini. In August 1944 he was shipped together with other Nacht-und-Nebel (NN) prisoners to the continent (probably France). He was in Natzweiler, France, and walked from there to Dachau, germany, where he finally died at age 54 by Spot Typhoid an early February morning, just a month or so before the americans liberated the camp and freed the starved prisoners.

Thank you, bestefar, for what you did for us all.

Thank you, America, for trying to free him and for liberating Europe.

Disaster's disaster - Chertoff to blame, too, in Katrina response

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

February 6, 2006

Wouldn't it be great if Americans had one government agency that could take charge after a natural disaster or terrorist attack? What a wonderfully efficient idea that would be. We're surprised no one else has thought of it.

Wait. Someone did think of it. Congress even created a new Cabinet agency. The Department of Homeland Security opened its doors in March 2003, with 180,000 employees siphoned off from 22 federal agencies and a $40 billion annual budget.

And what did Americans get for all that trouble, manpower and money? Ask the people of New Orleans, many of whom are now scattered to the four winds thanks to a natural disaster and a bureaucratic disaster that followed.

Investigators with the Government Accountability Office said last week that – despite the attempts by Bush administration officials and Republican members of Congress – to place the blame on local and state officials in Louisiana (who admittedly fell down on the job) the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also failed by not providing decisive action and making clear who was in charge.

The GAO investigators placed most of the blame on President Bush for failing to set up a clear chain of command and designate one individual as the point person for Katrina, responsible for making decisions related to the storm. They also had strong words for Chertoff, who has managed to get through the political fallout of Katrina unscathed. Investigators noted that, while Chertoff did authorize federal assistance to state and local authorities a day after the storm hit, he failed to classify the storm as a “catastrophic disaster,” which could have ensured that help arrived more rapidly.

The federal strategy for dealing with Katrina seems to have been to sit back and wait for states and cities to ask for help.

That's not acceptable or practical in the post 9/11 world. Besides, there are still questions about whether Chertoff, as a result of post 9/11 reforms, had the authority to intervene and take charge without being invited in by local officials and whether he simply failed to use the power he had.

The Homeland Security Department is fuming. Its press secretary called the GAO's findings “premature and unprofessional.”

Here is what's unprofessional – that a government agency would move more quickly to cover its backside than it did to rescue and provide relief to hundreds of thousands of Americans in distress.

As we said, there's no question local officials blew the response to Katrina. But, as we now know, they weren't the only ones.

Would you care to provide links to credible sources for this information, please.

Certainly, .....and contrary to the information that the US simply didn't sign on to the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, .....the US was instrumental in spearheading and forming the ICC, .........signing the treaty in 2000.

No country had ever before 'unsigned' an international treaty.......... GW Bush 'removed' or 'unsigned' the signature......

Actions have been taken by Congress to prevent U.S. involvement with the ICC as well.

Part of that action was the American Servicemember’s Protection Act (ASPA), legislation to prohibit U.S. cooperation with the proposed ICC, which was attached to an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4775, which was signed into law by President Bush on August 2, 2002.

The bill contains provisions prohibiting any U.S. agency from cooperating with the court; restricting U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations; prohibiting the extradition of persons in the U.S. to the court; prohibiting U.S. military assistance to certain countries ratifying the Rome Statute; and authorizing the President to use all means necessary to free U.S. military personnel held by the court. .......(All-out War on the Hague?)


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.4169.IH:

The more recent Nethercutt Amendment goes even farther in it's pressure on other countries to grant immunity to the US by threatening further economic sanctions.....

http://www.amicc.org/docs/NethercuttAmendment_19Nov04.pdf

This isn't the only international treaty that the current US administration feels they should be exempt from....

GW Bush was the first ever to 'remove' a signature from an international treaty, as when he 'unsigned' the Rome Statute, ..... and he still actively leads a push to exempt the US from international compliance in any number of other treaties....

Mine Ban Treaty (MBT)- ........Rejected and not in compliance

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) - ........ Rejected and not in compliance

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) - ...... Rejected and not in compliance

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) - ........ Signed, and ratified, .......Rejected by Bush and not in compliance

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)- ..........Signed, and ratified, ........'withdrawn' by Bush and not in compliance

Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002 was the first time ever a major power has withdrawn from a nuclear treaty after it had become legally binding.

Blowback, or unintended consequence, ........North Korea opted out of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty in 2003, citing new U.S. aggression on nuclear weapons.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - .... Signed in 1996, but not in compliance in any way at all.

As a signatory to the CTBT, the United States was obliged under treaty law to refrain from acts that would defeat the CTBT's object and purpose. However in 1999 the Senate voted to reject ratification, and the Bush administration does not support ratification, which action again continues to invite other NationStates to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs, (as demonstrated by India, Pakistan, North Korea, and ...Iran).

Bush also has repeatedly rejected proposals from Russia and China to ban weapons in Outer Space and Space-based weapons


We only 'talk up' the rule of law..... what we really pursue under the Bush doctrine is merely the 'rule' of our own military force and economic power.....

*********************************

For those of you who unknowingly and 'selectively' refer to past UN resolutions in an attempt to 'justify' the new Bush doctrine of ‘preventive war’, or Bush's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, which was clearly in conflict with the Kellogg-Briand pact, the establishment of the Nuremberg Charter, and the conclusion of the United Nations Charter, ....you would do well to aquaint yourself with Security Council resolution 1483, which states that no protection is given to Member States or their officials from liability under the Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations or other provisions of international or national law including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

....more likely, ...that not unlike Bush, .....you would 'reject' or deny being bound by that resolution, ..........you would instead 'choose' only those parts of any resolution or internationally agreed upon rule of law only if it supports your own selective sense of reality.
.
.

---

?..... Question for people in other countries.....

The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act cuts off non-drug military aid, and as of 2004 some economic aid, to countries that fail to exempt U.S. personnel on their soil from the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction.

The new 'rule of law' that governs our actions in the world,..... exempt us from the law or else we will retaliate with sanctions.

If you want to remain in our favor, ....treat us as deserving of the supreme powers that we project, ........we demand that you recognize us as being above the law.

Your links barely support this statement, although the arguement given is that it was unconsitituional since congress didn't approve it. Which for my part I would rather have congressional approval, rather than some Presidential appointed rogue out signing treaties on my behalf.

Eleven Latin American countries have had aid frozen, with possibly Mexico and Chile to join the list soon.

Has your country bent to our will yet?

And you provided no links for sources for this information and then you proceded in your other messsage to make many more accusations without any credible sources listed. Its not that i don't believe you, but the internet is full of people who make grand statements, you have to be ready to show credible sources.

---

rush, ..to state unequivocally that ....."every intelligence agency on earth thought Iraq had WMD's" is repeating talking point myths....

Sadly, I considered not using that phrase, and I didn't bother to change it. My apologies if I was unclear. However the point still remains. I'll try to make it very simple and be more specific.

First, the German, French, English, and American intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had WMDs. Why? Because he USED them. He used them against the Iranians and the civilians at Halabja. Further, there is the Dutch guy that was convicted last December of selling Iraq thousands of tons of chemical precursors between '84 and '90 or thereabouts.

So, we know that 1) Saddam had WMDs in significant quantities and that he was willing to use them.

Second, when asked where they were, and how they were destroyed, he hemmed and hawed. As I noted earlier, even the site you mentioned talks about Hussein's BS, and it bears repeating: Iraq at first denied the production of VX. When confronted with the evidence of its past VX production by UNSCOM, to explain the lack of documentary proof of the destruction of this quantity of VX, it "provided UNSCOM with handwritten notes that recorded the issuance of oral instructions, inter alia, to destroy any evidence indicating the presence of VX and a key precursor of VX, 'Iraqi choline.'" Saddam had a very good reason not to destroy those weapons: Iran. Given the volatile nature and history of the region, it would have been foolish to admit that he really could no longer defend his country effectively.

So, we also know that 2) Saddam was unwilling to destroy those weapons in a confirmable way, unwilling to provide documentary proof, and had a significant motivation to keep them.

Finally, Saddam acted the same way about his other expensive weapons. When asked where they were, he said he didn't have any. Again, refusing to verify their destruction or provide details. And, again, as noted before, we find large, expensive MiGs buried in the sand.

So, we also know that 3) when Saddam speaks about his weapons and their locations, there is significant evidence that he is lying.

If we know that, 1) Saddam had WMDs in significant quantities and that he was willing to use them. 2) Saddam was unwilling to destroy those weapons in a confirmable way, unwilling to provide documentary proof, and had a significant motivation to keep them. And, 3) When Saddam speaks about his weapons and their locations, there is significant evidence that he is lying, then it is possible for reasonable people to conclude that Saddam had WMDs.

This is no stretch. You may not like it, but it isn't hard to fathom.

...sorry to argue the point but the distinction between the truth and lies goes to the heart of the discussion.

Sure. But none of the above is a lie. And what you had actually done was post the language of the law as if that provided prima facie evidence of wrongdoing or pretext. You so far have failed to demonstrate that the Iraq war was illegal and you have failed to demonstrate pretext.

The Bush administration has proven to attempt to rule by lies, .....repeating their lies is as unworthy as their own spawning of those lies.

I'm not repeating any lies. You simply disagree with the reasoning and are either unwilling or incapable of refuting it. If you can refute any of the above as a lie, more power to you. There are only three to choose from. And in fact, I used the source you used to demonstrate Saddam's dithering.

----------------------

As I said before, a pretext of an imminent threat as justification for invasion is recognized in international law as nothing less than a simple act of aggression.

To take the analogy further, ...were this type of behavior condoned in any way, ...any nation could then invade any other on the mere pretext of a fraudulently created imminent threat.

This is no longer an argument. You haven't demonstrated that possession of WMDs was just pretext. While one may be wrong about what Iraq did/did not have, an error based on sound reasoning is not pretext.

Universal condemnation of unjustified acts of aggression is a part of the somewhat tenuous thread of checks and balances that helps to maintain some semblance of peace and a balance of power in the world today.

Condemn away. Feel free. But if you can understand why you couldn't be convinced to support Dubya's choices, then you can understand why you will never convince those that disagree with you. You just may convince those that sit on the fence, but you will not do so with weak reasoning, ideological agenda, and partisan rhetoric. Certainly these cut-and-paste jobs condeming all of political reality ain't helpin'.

You personally may think the jury is still out, but as far as legal precedent is concerned an unfounded cry of 'imminent' threat is still not a recognized legal excuse for acts of aggression.

That you use the term "unfounded" when referring to imminent threat still doesn't help you. The reasoning I provided as to why the U.S. would consider Iraq to have maintained significant stockpiles of WMD and was therefore a threat is valid reasoning in any rational court. It removes your thoughts concerning pretext. Mistake is not the same as pretext. If you have legal precedent that demonstrates that mistake is the same as pretext, or that demonstrates that reasoning like I provided is unsound, I'd love to hear it.

You're free to wish otherwise, or believe that law should change for some reason or other but unless or until that happens, Bush's ""Iraq"" invasion is nothing more than an illegal act of aggression founded on wildly exaggerated pretext of imminent threat.

Heh heh. If you ever start actually arguing that point and making a legal case, then we'll address that. Until then, repeating "illegal" and "pretext" is nothing more than a mantra. Repeat it all you wish, that doesn't make it true.

That there isn't universal condemnation and action to remedy Bush's illegal invasion and imperialistic nation building only points to the general decline in honorable mores of a large number of the world's government leaders today.

People beg for leaders to use gov't force. Therefore they get leaders that do. This is EXACTLY what they wanted.

To their credit, some few have spoken out, condemned his actions and accepted risking the ire and bullying tactics of Bush's foreign policy procedures in response as the cost of maintaining some credibility and honor.

Just as what happened in England, when the Senate Intelligence Committee stopped their reporting, they effectively muzzled the investigation and publication into just how wide and how far reaching the pretext was promulgated.

....and far from being surprised by the Bush administration's actions or merely pointing out 'cronyism', the additional information on who's who and where they come from only points up the criminality of those behind the scenes who are pullings the strings on Bush's talking points.

The thoroughly inadequate investigations into illegal torture, illegal acts of rendition, and unconstitutional warrantless domestic spying will someday come to light and the crimes will be properly documented.

Thugs and hoodlums are at the helm of our ship of state and they enlist more thugs and hoodlums as a crew to work with them.... that they act illegally is in their very nature.

To again name just a few, when the veil of secrecy is lifted on the Niger uranium hoax and other fraudulent documents cited to justify the Iraq invasion, the pro-Isreal PAC secrets passing case, the Pentagon's Inspector General's investigation, and the Senate Intelligence reports, the further connections between the criminals of today and the criminals of previous administrations, such as those of Iran/Contra crimes, will be duly noted.

It's often years later that cries of conspiracy and acts of crime are borne out by the release of 'secrets'.... our history is rife with examples of what couldn't be believed at the time, but later the truth came along to smash that ill-held belief.

Some may think on a story about a boy who cried wolf......

The one thing often neglected to be emphasized, but never the less true, in the fable of the boy who cried wolf.......... the wolf does, in the end, make his appearance.

I think I'll just let this stand as an example of your partisan ideology. You just like to bandy around words like "illegal" which again, doesn't make your case. Oh, and I snipped a massive cut-and-paste of some massive conspiracy.

Paul, this is just gov't as usual. You wanted it--you got it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush, I have had some experience dealing with Paulie-poo and his consistent failure to present cogent argument on so many topics. You were right to note that his recent posts have been “cut and paste” jobs, which is quite obvious when one notes that the grammar and vocabulary of these arguments are not consistent with his prior posts.

Paulie-poo’s lack of understanding becomes all the more apparent when he cites what he thinks are justifications for his view, but instead that supports the opposite position. For example, he cited the Joint Resolution which gave the president war powers to act in Iraq, apparently unaware that resolution was based on the very intelligence that he claims was a lie. He (and others) completely ignore the simple definition of a "lie", and treat any factually incorrect statement as a lie (if that were correct, almost everything he has said would be a lie). Three things about the joint resolution he cited, but that he fails to acknowledge: 1) it shows that the Congress also believed that there were weapons of mass destruction or that Saddam was an imminent threat because he had not verifiably destroyed his WMD as obligated by cease-fire agreements, 2) it (the Joint Resolution) is not based solely on the existence of WMD, and 3) that same resolution, which gave the president the power to proceed militarily in Iraq, is in fact what makes the war perfectly legal and constitutional, and no international law changes that.

So, Rush, you can try if you wish to bring logic and facts to bear on your discussion with Paulie-poo, but be prepared to have him tell you that you are living in an “alternate reality”. I’m sure it has not escaped you that the only alternate reality being displayed here is the one presented by Paulie-poo himself. Good luck to you, but by now no one with any analytical ability listens to his rambling, baseless claims anyway.

no credible sources .......you provided no links ........you have to be ready to show credible sources.

The Congressional record is not credible?

You can choose to believe what you want..... plenty of people do. .........but it's not my responsibility to satisfy all your wishes....

......you asked for links, I provided them. It's your own perogative to look further...

I'll stand by my posts, the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, with the Nethercutt Amendment are weilded against those countries who would dare to defy our administrations believe that we are 'outside' the rule of international laws and treaties.

You may wish it were not so, but if you want to refute that, take your own advice and show your own links which show I'm not representing the facts as they are.

---

Paul, I'm not sure you have any idea about the nature of law.

Certainly, .....and contrary to the information that the US simply didn't sign on to the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, .....the US was instrumental in spearheading and forming the ICC, .........signing the treaty in 2000.

No country had ever before 'unsigned' an international treaty.......... GW Bush 'removed' or 'unsigned' the signature......

Actions have been taken by Congress to prevent U.S. involvement with the ICC as well.

Sure. But so what? This is one of the factors in discussions concerning whether international law really exists. Certainly people and countries pay lip service to it, but that means little. Countries adhere to it when it is convenient for them; they ignore it when it is convenient for them. There is almost no enforcement or recourse.

Further, if you accept that countries have the power to create treaties, then you can accept that they also have the power to end them. As there is no real controlling legal authority, other than the states themselves, there is no philosophical or legal flaw with countries that voluntarily choose to end agreements that they voluntarily chose to enter. No to mention, there are questions concerning whether any country’s leaders have to power to bind their citizens for hundreds of years or more.

Part of that action was the American Servicemember’s Protection Act (ASPA), legislation to prohibit U.S. cooperation with the proposed ICC, which was attached to an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4775, which was signed into law by President Bush on August 2, 2002.

The bill contains provisions prohibiting any U.S. agency from cooperating with the court; restricting U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations; prohibiting the extradition of persons in the U.S. to the court; prohibiting U.S. military assistance to certain countries ratifying the Rome Statute; and authorizing the President to use all means necessary to free U.S. military personnel held by the court. .......(All-out War on the Hague?)

I don’t call Special Forces teams, Delta Force, or SEALs “All-out War (sic).” Shocking isn’t it, that generally the U.S. is unwilling to subordinate American citizens and soldiers to a non-U.S. legal system. More specifically, is it any real surprise that the U.S. feels that the legal system in much of the rest of the world, including the ICC, is not up to par?

The more recent Nethercutt Amendment goes even farther in it's pressure on other countries to grant immunity to the US by threatening further economic sanctions.....

This isn't the only international treaty that the current US administration feels they should be exempt from....

GW Bush was the first ever to 'remove' a signature from an international treaty, as when he 'unsigned' the Rome Statute, ..... and he still actively leads a push to exempt the US from international compliance in any number of other treaties....

Mine Ban Treaty (MBT)- ........Rejected and not in compliance

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) - ........ Rejected and not in compliance

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) - ...... Rejected and not in compliance

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) - ........ Signed, and ratified, .......Rejected by Bush and not in compliance

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)- ..........Signed, and ratified, ........'withdrawn' by Bush and not in compliance

Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002 was the first time ever a major power has withdrawn from a nuclear treaty after it had become legally binding.

Blowback, or unintended consequence, ........North Korea opted out of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty in 2003, citing new U.S. aggression on nuclear weapons.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - .... Signed in 1996, but not in compliance in any way at all.

As a signatory to the CTBT, the United States was obliged under treaty law to refrain from acts that would defeat the CTBT's object and purpose. However in 1999 the Senate voted to reject ratification, and the Bush administration does not support ratification, which action again continues to invite other NationStates to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs, (as demonstrated by India, Pakistan, North Korea, and ...Iran).

Bush also has repeatedly rejected proposals from Russia and China to ban weapons in Outer Space and Space-based weapons

Well yeah, duh. You see, treaties are only signed when the countries that sign them find them to be mutually beneficial. When the countries no longer find that to be true, they end them. Again, there is no real argument that no longer participating in a treaty is illegal, as long as one declares its intent to end the treaty and then publicly ends it.

The fact that, for example, Russia and China seek to ban space-based weapons does not mean that any Administration need agree to do so. The fact that the current Administration doesn't feel the need to adhere to the ABM treaty in perpetuity shouldn't surprise anyone. The fact that very shortly the technology will exist to protect nations from ballistic missile attacks suggests that the ABM has outlived its usefulness.

We only 'talk up' the rule of law..... what we really pursue under the Bush doctrine is merely the 'rule' of our own military force and economic power.....

Yeah, sure. This is exactly what all countries do. They pursue what they perceive at the time to be their own best interests. While you may have problems with how Dubya does it, that's all Clinton did, and that's all that the next Administration will do. Our economic power, as you put it, is formidable, and of course it is used to sway other countries, just as they use theirs to sway us. They just aren’t as effective at it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

---

Account frozen...

We know now that the bulk of the so-called 'intelligence' you like to fall back on was emanating from the same unreliable and trumped up sources....

The threat was anything but imminent... Yes, he had used weapons in the past..... weapons we had no compunction against supplying him with, and weapons we did not care if he used against what we considered a mutual enemy..... you make it sound like you want people to think our hands are clean, that we had no part in what was just another war crime. ...... but the fact remains, that was then, there was no imminent threat.

According to the Bush doctrine, there doesn't need to be one..... but that's not accepted in the main by other countries..... preventive war is not recognized as anything other than an unacceptable act of aggression.

The correlation between Saddam and terrorists was mistated (....read 'it was a lie'). .....Even Bush admitted as much.

The claims of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, the claims of delivery systems, the claims immenent threat of nuclear attack, .......all have proven to be unworthy claims based on faulty and unreliable 'intelligence'....

And yet, no one has 'debunked' the claims of intelligence and military analysts who said at the time, there was no imminent threat.

After all the subsequent admissions and discoveries, to not aknowledge that pretext was given for justification of invasion flies in the face of what a reasonable man could conceive.

This is not just my opinion, it's an accepted reality by many.

That you hold onto some shred of doubt that the Bush doctrine is anything but illegal just shows a desire to maintain a belief that things can't be as they obviously are.

That's ok..... maybe that works for you and you sleep better believing that you aren't ruled by tyrants.

Maybe you believe that by dismissing international law, Bush is justified in his actions.

.....you can refuse to accept international law just like he does, that is supposed to give cover to your convictions, right?

For any others that may have any doubts about what is a generally accepted mindset about the Bush doctrine and the Iraq invasion, here's some more reading material.

http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_kel_051221_wanted_for_war_crime.htm

---

........with each days new revelations about your hero, GW, it must really suck to be you.

.

---

........with each new days passings, and the new revelations about your hero, GW, it must really suck to be you.

.
Edit... didn't mean at the time to post this twice..... but now that I look at it........ it's all the more appropriate.....

......it's doubly sucked to be you, eh?

---

We know now that the bulk of the so-called 'intelligence' you like to fall back on was emanating from the same unreliable and trumped up sources....

Uh huh, like I said, ask those that were gassed how "trumped up" those sources were.

The threat was anything but imminent... Yes, he had used weapons in the past..... weapons we had no compunction against supplying him with, and weapons we did not care if he used against what we considered a mutual enemy..... you make it sound like you want people to think our hands are clean, that we had no part in what was just another war crime. ...... but the fact remains, that was then, there was no imminent threat.

First and again, this point has nothing to do with either of your previous points. This doesn't create a rational case for pretext and nor does it make a legal case that the Iraq war illegal. Now, if you want to make a case that you think it was a bad decision to supply weapons to Saddam when he was an ally, fine, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Also, while in your opinion there was no imminent threat, it really wouldn't be that hard to charter/buy a plane, pack it full of VX or chlorine, and crash it into American soil or American assets.

According to the Bush doctrine, there doesn't need to be one..... but that's not accepted in the main by other countries..... preventive war is not recognized as anything other than an unacceptable act of aggression.

The correlation between Saddam and terrorists was mistated (....read 'it was a lie'). .....Even Bush admitted as much.

The claims of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, the claims of delivery systems, the claims immenent threat of nuclear attack, .......all have proven to be unworthy claims based on faulty and unreliable 'intelligence'....

And yet, no one has 'debunked' the claims of intelligence and military analysts who said at the time, there was no imminent threat.

After all the subsequent admissions and discoveries, to not aknowledge that pretext was given for justification of invasion flies in the face of what a reasonable man could conceive.

I've given you reasons why it was not pretext. You do not make a case that it was, you simply keep repeating your claim. Which, of course, is not an argument at all.

This is not just my opinion, it's an accepted reality by many.

Paul, this is getting silly. Again, the fact that there are other people that agree with you is not making a case that there was pretext or that the invasion was illegal. You are just repeating your claims in lieu of making a legal argument.

That you hold onto some shred of doubt that the Bush doctrine is anything but illegal just shows a desire to maintain a belief that things can't be as they obviously are.

That's ok..... maybe that works for you and you sleep better believing that you aren't ruled by tyrants.

Make an argument. At least try. Anything. Describe why you think it is illegal. Don't just repeat that it is illegal. Make a case.

I know full well that the world is ruled by tyrants. Installed there willingly by people that love to use gov't force when they agree with its use, never quite bothering to understand that plenty of times the force they get will not be what they wished.

Maybe you believe that by dismissing international law, Bush is justified in his actions.

.....you can refuse to accept international law just like he does, that is supposed to give cover to your convictions, right?

No. Incorrect. I provided you reasons why international law fails, and fails repeatedly. If you understand that countries have to power to enter into agreements, then you can understand that that same power gives them the power to end their agreements.

If you do not think that is true, then make an argument why it is not.

For any others that may have any doubts about what is a generally accepted mindset about the Bush doctrine and the Iraq invasion, here's some more reading material.

You quote sites that agree with you, yet again failing to make an argument. A brief point from each:

http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm

Here we have,

"Following World War I, sixty-three nations renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The United States, Australia, Great Britain, Italy and Japan were among the countries that signed that treaty, which provided that the Parties 'solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.' That Pact failed to prevent World War II, but in condemning recourse to war and renouncing war as an instrument of national policy it formed the basis for ‘crimes against peace’, which were described in the Charter of the Nuremberg tribunal as those crimes aimed at the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties."

Note that the emphasis is mine. And it bears repeating, that Pact failed to prevent World War II. Why is that? Because treaties in and of themselves mean absolutely nothing when those that sign them aren't interested in adhering to them any longer.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_kel_051221_wanted_for_war_crime.htm

This is interesting as well. It says in part,

"There were three reasons given for the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War; 1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction with which he threatened his neighbors and the U.S., 2) Saddam supported and was connected to al-Qaeda and 3) he was a ruthless tyrant. It is now clear to any thinking citizen (Bush apologists are not thinking citizens) that the President and other neo conservatives in the United States Government lied to the American public in order to gain support to launch a war of aggression against Iraq for ideological and economic motives.

Of the three justifications there is no doubt about the last. That alone ignores the fact that we do not invade countries because their leaders are tyrants, in fact we have supported many including Saddam in the past. Even conservative George Will was forced to state in a June 23 editorial 'But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny, it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam’s mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for pre-emptive war.' Lets look at what the postulation of that U.S. duty would mean."

To use the author's words, "that alone ignores the fact that" while any country has the moral right to dismantle any tyranny to end the use of mass graves and torture chambers, this does not mean they have the moral obligation or duty, to do so. The U.S. need not invade Uzbekistan, to use the author's example, simply because it chooses to invade Iraq. More generally, no country has a duty to invade all miserable countries simply because it chooses to invade one.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Iran tells atomic agency to pull cameras, seals
Demand follows referral to U.N.

By George Jahn
ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 7, 2006

VIENNA, Austria – Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove surveillance cameras and agency seals from sites and nuclear equipment by the end of next week in response to referral to the U.N. Security Council, the agency said yesterday.

Iran's demands came two days after the IAEA reported Tehran to the council over its disputed atomic program.

In a report to the IAEA's 35-member board yesterday, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran also announced a sharp reduction in the number and kind of IAEA inspections, effective immediately.

Iranian officials had repeatedly warned they would stop honoring the “Additional Protocol” to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty – an agreement giving IAEA inspectors greater authority – if the IAEA board referred their country to the council.

A diplomat close to the Vienna-based IAEA said Iran had also moved forward on another threat – formally setting a date for resuming full-scale work on its uranium-enrichment program. Iran says it wants to make fuel through enrichment, but the activity can also generate the nuclear core of warheads.

Robert G. Joseph, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, said yesterday that Iran used negotiations with the European Union to play for time and develop its capabilities.

“I would say that Iran does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them,” he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned against threatening Iran after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with an interviewer at the German daily newspaper Handelsblatt that all options, including military response, remained on the table.

In Dubai, United Arab Emirates, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was still hopeful Iran will take confidence-building measures with the IAEA.

In his brief report, ElBaradei quoted E. Khalilipour, vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying: “From the date of this letter, all voluntarily suspended nonlegally binding measures . . . will be suspended.”

Iran indicted - U.N. must enforce anti-nuclear treaty

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

February 7, 2006

Kudos to the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency and its 35-nation board of directors. Out of patience, at last, with Iran's deception and defiance over nuclear weapons, the IAEA board voted 27-3 to report Iran to the Security Council.

That referral, which will occur formally next month, opens the possibility of formal censure of Iran or imposition of political and economic sanctions. Iran could remove the threat of these consequences by doing what it should have been doing all along under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT, to which Iran is a signatory, requires that the Iranians refrain from a nuclear weapons program and open all nuclear facilities to unrestrained inspection by the IAEA's monitors to ensure compliance.

Iran's repeated deceptions, its refusal to permit sufficient inspections and its recent decision to defy the United Nations and reopen a uranium enrichment facility padlocked by IAEA inspectors effectively forced the IAEA's vote. And now that the IAEA's board has acted, Iran's government seems more defiant yet.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's firebrand president, now vows full-scale uranium enrichment and an end to all cooperation with the IAEA. For the record, Ahmadinejad and his government continue to deny that beneath Iran's civilian nuclear power program lies a covert effort to develop nuclear weapons. As the IAEA's overwhelming vote showed, hardly anyone believes Iran's denials.

Responsibility for stopping Iran's drive for nuclear weapons now rests squarely with the Security Council. The council's clout rests, in turn, on remaining united. Any Security Council wavering likely would mean that peaceful means alone cannot stop Iran from acquiring the bomb.

---

Account frozen...

........with each new days passings, and the new revelations about your hero, GW, it must really suck to be you.

.
Edit... didn't mean at the time to post this twice..... but now that I look at it........ it's all the more appropriate.....

......it's doubly sucked to be you, eh?

Your lack of wit(s) is showing . . . again.

You don't answer me, you don't answer Rush, you don't answer Octagon or anyone who gives you a look at what a reasoned response is; you just post your crude remarks aimed at me.

When your pal Carl complained about the way I treat him, I noted that he has ignored the fact that you have no problems being snide and insulting. But that doesn't bother me. What does make me cringe is your single digit IQ that simply can not grasp the fact that repeating the same opinion over and over does not give it any force.

I'm sorry about your grandfather.

Thank you. He wasn't a jew, but a resistence hero. Since I beleive it's a moral crime to forget those who died for us and the peace, I'll just take a minute to say who he was:

Halfdan Marius Jønsson, b. Petersen (in Levanger, Nord-Trøndelag, Norway), 5/15/1891 - 2/7/1945. Norwegian laber union man, co-founder of Norsk Kjemisk Industriarbeiderforbund, the Norwegian Chemical Labor Union, and its first leader. Leader of Faglig Utvalg, the national Union's resistence coordination during WWII. Member of the National Coordination Comittey from 1942-1944 (when he was arrested by Gestapo). Member of "Kretsen", the secret and illegal government of 12, which got their orders directly from our exiled government in London during WWII.

He was arrested January 7 1944, brought for questioning to Møllergt. 19 in Oslo, tortured for months until transferred to a local consentration camp outside Oslo; Grini. In August 1944 he was shipped together with other Nacht-und-Nebel (NN) prisoners to the continent (probably France). He was in Natzweiler, France, and walked from there to Dachau, germany, where he finally died at age 54 by Spot Typhoid an early February morning, just a month or so before the americans liberated the camp and freed the starved prisoners.

Thank you, bestefar, for what you did for us all.

Thank you, America, for trying to free him and for liberating Europe.

And thank you for sharing that very important story. I will remember it.

---

And thank you for sharing that very important story. I will remember it.

I'm honored! Obviously, it means a lot to me, but it's just one of many stories like that out there. There are so many silent destinies also. Both tragic and heroic.