quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

Bush had Congressional approval for his military actions, but Obama does not. the War Powers Act only allows him to intervene miiltarily for a maximum of 90 days without Congressional approval.

The only reason he has not been impeached over this is because the democrats still control the Senate. Hopefully that will change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Arpig, perhaps it was my fault. Perhaps the OP should have specified Tony Blair, John Howard and all the other Prime Ministers who dragged their countries into the Iraq fiasco. I should have thought of it at the time but didn't. There was no intention to single out the US on my part - that was just the way the HRW Report set things up.

If one of those other countries succeeded in prosecuting their PM responsible for participation in Iraq II, would that strengthen the chances of US investigations/prosecution?

I'd dearly love to see Howard, the then Australian PM charged with war crimes and having to justify his decisions to a court of law. I should add that Howard's reasons would include the political imperative upon Australia to contribute to the Australian-US security alliance ie. Australia was following the US lead. One clear implication of this is that, at a very sigificant level, Australian participation had nothing to do with the situation in Iraq per se, the critical factor was the state of the Australia-US alliance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

What an idiot link...you gave me Germany's reasons for war not ours....Why do you think American shipping was attacked?...Will because we were keeping you afloat in your war supplying materials...We were helping your country...The American people did not want to get into your war... But we decided to help your country from an aggressor. Germany was not going to invade the United States... We would have had no shipping attacked if we were not supplying war goods. The letter to the Mexican government was bullshit and only used as propaganda by Wilson because he thought we should help.....Your country.

quote:


The point is you did not do it and we saved your butts...because you were our ally… our friends…not for our benefit…It would have been wiser to let Hitler expend his army trying to defeat you while we gought Japan with our full might.

quote:

We paid France...now pay us..hey imagine how long 400 billion would pay for our health plan.

quote:


I appreciate your brave men and women that lost their lives fighting along side of our forces... I feel for them because the lack of will of your government and people to see the war through is a cowardly disgrace and they may have wasted their lives.

Butch

quote:

Check a few facts, Britain was owed more from other nations than it owed to America was at the end of WW1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

Yes, there is that dictomy in the thing, the supposedly fire breathing "right" wing leaders of this sit in exile and are dwindling into obscurity while the supposed "left' wing duped  follower and rube from the UK dances off into the tropical sunset, puling a groaning and increasingly weighty wagon load of money and fame  behind him.

In the normal world, the leaders get the loot and the peasants go back to the farm.

Perhaps Blair was more of the real mover and shaker of this thing, then he was of the poodle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

There might be a few difficulties with that suggestion.

The origins of Iraq II are usually treced back to the neo-con/Zionist circle that included such types as Rumsfeld, Perle, Firth, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al during the Clinton era. Their promotion of a second Iraqi war can be traced back to the mid-90s at least. Bush the Dumber's election victory (?) in 2000 enabled the transition from mad cap theory to political and military fact. As we all know, 9/11 was manipulated to seal the deal.

Blessed Tony seems to have arrived on the scene a bit later. Most accounts I've encountered date Blessed Tony's involvement as subsequent to an agreement arrived at with GWB at (I seem to recall) Camp David post 9/11. It can't be denied that outside of the US, he was chief cheer leader and a most impassioned advocate.

My feeling at the time was Blessed Tony was trying to carve out a role a broker between an angry aggressive US and an EU that ranged from sceptical to hostile. Perhaps in private moments he saw himself as the glue holding the Western alliance together, enabling its inevitable triumph .... or some such self serving gibberish. Deluded - definitely. Vainglorious - undoubtedly. But it does seem a bit of a stretch to cast him as a primary instigator or war-monger-in-chief.

OTOH Howard couldn't complain about being assigned the role of poodle. He's on the record as stating Australian involvement was primarily to preserve/strengthen the security alliance with the US. He has a lifelong record of ingratiating himself unapologetically with the centres of Western power.