RE: The Trial of Tony Blair

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 9:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also will someone who believes passionately that the invasion was wrong at least have the GUTS to admit who are the source of the carnage NOW. OK ? OK; how about the Iranians, and maybe the Syrians who love the idea of an unstable neighbour over whom they can exercise control? how about the nutcases from Al Quaeda (a minority IMO)? how about the Saddam cheering squad (an even smaller cheering squad)? how about the ordinary Iraqis who despite what we might like to think, resent our presence after so long? how about the Sunnis who think the Shia and/or Kurds are being given preference (and every possible other interrelation on that one)? OR, did you want me to say "those bloody foreigners" and/or "the ragheads" and/or something more offensive that might suggest that all Muslims are trouble making nutters? E edited to add; if you light a firework, it will explode. If the explosion sets fire to your house....who's to blame? Presumably, the firework.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 10:18:27 AM)
The response in your 2nd paragraph is not required, not at all, LadyE., your first paragraph is accurate and should, indeed must be held in mind by Blair/Bush bashers. With regard to para 3, if you hand somebody a firework as a present, showing goodwill, and they use it to maliciously set fire to the neighbour's property who is to blame then ? The firework is the Iraquis' option to choose freedom.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 10:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also will someone who believes passionately that the invasion was wrong at least have the GUTS to admit who are the source of the carnage NOW. OK ? OR, did you want me to say "those bloody foreigners" E HEY, I'm a Bloody Foreigner :-(

LadyEllen -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 10:39:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also will someone who believes passionately that the invasion was wrong at least have the GUTS to admit who are the source of the carnage NOW. OK ? OR, did you want me to say "those bloody foreigners" E HEY, I'm a Bloody Foreigner :-( Nah. Youre American, so more than likely have enough European blood in you not to be a "bloody foreigner". Plus which, we're the next state into the union, so that seals it I'd have thought. E

Zensee -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 11:28:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine If you don't want a USA World Police - get your country up off it's own lazy ass and make a difference for the downtrodden! Excuse me? Our soidiers are dying in Afghanistan fighting the war the USA started there. Canada is pretty much alone looking for the real perps of 9/11. US air support tends to be rather unwelcoms due to the habit of killing more Canucks than Taliban. Proportionally we are taking 5 times the casualties trying to hold down the fort while the USA diverted it's resources from the NATO action we agreed on in the first place. The European colonialism you support your ranting with happened centuries ago. Let's try and keep things a current or do you want to parse western history for 20 pages? None of the victorious countries in WW2 "occupied" the vanquished or demanded reparations. It was the poverty in Germany from WW1 reparations that largely spurred WW2. Aiding the vanquished rather than punishing them was a universal principle post WW2, not a US invention. The UN does not love dictators. That is an absurd generalisation as is most of what you write. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 11:52:36 AM)
I want to comment on the OP of this thread. The charges would fail. The Action in Iraq is legal, no jury/court would ever convict. The UN has never declared it to be illegal( though members with no power to say have). The first Gulf WAR never ended, there was a conditional cease fire. The USA and UK were given the Mandate to enforce the Ceae fire by the UN. Saddams gov was not ever in compliance with the sanctions(conditions of the cease fire). 1441 UNSECRES refered to the original cease fire, and stipulated a date for total declaration and complaince, Iraq did not meet this requirment. As holders of the Mandate Hostilities were resumed. The USA and UK are 100% legally in Iraq now, the UN mandated the occupation. There is no case.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 11:55:00 AM)
Zensee the 1940s were not centuries ago. Algeria, Vietnam, India, Rhodesia, Angola, ect. And we most certainly did occupy Germqany, Italy and Japan, we alos rewrote their constitutions.

Zensee -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 11:58:22 AM)
He was citing He was quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Zensee the 1940s were not centuries ago. Algeria, Vietnam, India, Rhodesia, Angola, ect. He was citing the ancient origins of colonial wealth and power. Anyway just because England was nasty in the distant past doesn't make it ok for anyone else to be nasty today. That's a rationalisation. Z.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 11:59:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I want to comment on the OP of this thread. The charges would fail. The Action in Iraq is legal, no jury/court would ever convict. The UN has never declared it to be illegal( though members with no power to say have). The first Gulf WAR never ended, there was a conditional cease fire. The USA and UK were given the Mandate to enforce the Ceae fire by the UN. Saddams gov was not ever in compliance with the sanctions(conditions of the cease fire). 1441 UNSECRES refered to the original cease fire, and stipulated a date for total declaration and complaince, Iraq did not meet this requirment. As holders of the Mandate Hostilities were resumed. The USA and UK are 100% legally in Iraq now, the UN mandated the occupation. There is no case. Wow Luckydog - thanks for that. Given that then, all the calls for the two leaders to be charged with anything to do with war crimes, are pretty spurious? Unless anyone can suggest otherwise? E

ToGiveDivine -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 12:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine If you don't want a USA World Police - get your country up off it's own lazy ass and make a difference for the downtrodden! Excuse me? Our soidiers are dying in Afghanistan fighting the war the USA started there. Canada is pretty much alone looking for the real perps of 9/11. US air support tends to be rather unwelcoms due to the habit of killing more Canucks than Taliban. Proportionally we are taking 5 times the casualties trying to hold down the fort while the USA diverted it's resources from the NATO action we agreed on in the first place. The European colonialism you support your ranting with happened centuries ago. Let's try and keep things a current or do you want to parse western history for 20 pages? None of the victorious countries in WW2 "occupied" the vanquished or demanded reparations. It was the poverty in Germany from WW1 reparations that largely spurred WW2. Aiding the vanquished rather than punishing them was a universal principle post WW2, not a US invention. The UN does not love dictators. That is an absurd generalisation as is most of what you write. Z. Wow, I'm not feeling the love. "The war we started in Afghanistan"? Oh yeah, we started that for no particular reason. And great, your in Afghanistan; but what about Darfur??? Canada has sent 2, just 2, Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Sudan. Whoa, the bad guys better be worried now. I can't find any other news items suggesting there are any other soldiers from Canada there. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/news/n_0601_e.htm As for the friendly-fire incidents - that happens in war, every war. It's awful and horrible, but it's not like the U.S. is purposely targeting friendlies as you seem to be insinuating. European colonialism was still alive and well even after WWII, Iraq, Syria, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. Whether they were called protectorates or whatever, they were still "occupied" by France, Spain, England, etc. Crack a book and learn. The "UN loving dictators" is an absurd generalization? Even the absurd can be true once enough light is shed on a subject. Oil for Food is just the most recent big headline of UN absurdity. So, send your hate down South here; and yes, the U.S. screws up by the way it is doing things, but at least we are "doing".

Zensee -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 12:01:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Zensee the 1940s were not centuries ago. Algeria, Vietnam, India, Rhodesia, Angola, ect. He was citing the ancient origins of colonial wealth and power. Anyway just because England was nasty in the distant past doesn't make it ok for anyone else to be nasty today. That's a rationalisation. The manner in which Germany and Japan were occupied Post WW2 was very different from previous modes. It was not intended to be permanent but rather restorative. Big difference from moving in and calling it home. Z.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 12:05:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine As for the friendly-fire incidents - that happens in war, every war. It's awful and horrible, but it's not like the U.S. is purposely targeting friendlies as you seem to be insinuating. Yes, friendly fire is a hazard of war that is pretty much unavoidable. Its accidental as TGD says; its not like there is purposeful targetting of friendlies. But it is odd that its mostly the US forces that seem to score the highest number of friendly fire hits...... Is it down to training? Or just that there's more US guns than any others on our side? E

ToGiveDivine -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 12:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine As for the friendly-fire incidents - that happens in war, every war. It's awful and horrible, but it's not like the U.S. is purposely targeting friendlies as you seem to be insinuating. Yes, friendly fire is a hazard of war that is pretty much unavoidable. Its accidental as TGD says; its not like there is purposeful targetting of friendlies. But it is odd that its mostly the US forces that seem to score the highest number of friendly fire hits...... Is it down to training? Or just that there's more US guns than any others on our side? E I would say it was more quantity than quality - friendly-fire makes me ill; but a "smart bomb" is only as intelligent as the person firing it.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 12:31:00 PM)
Zensee, the 20th century was not the distant past. You did not conquer the Ottomans in the distant past. The wars of decolonialism were not in the distant past. You are correct being occupyied by America is very different than most historical occupations. Its called Liberation.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 12:41:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You are correct being occupyied by America is very different than most historical occupations. Its called Liberation. Liberators go home. Very soon liberation becomes occupation.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 1:42:12 PM)
Yet Meat, the majority of your fellow countrymen( and Eu fellows), disagree with you.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 2:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Yet Meat, the majority of your fellow countrymen( and Eu fellows), disagree with you. I wouldn't say the majority but the ones that matter disagree with me.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 4:59:16 PM)
My only input. I'd like to sell a couple of bridges to anyone who believes we went into Iraq in a benevolant move to remove an evil dictator. I'd like to pat you on the head.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 5:11:06 PM)
As expressed by the voting patterns of the past 50 years, The majority is not with you.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair (1/23/2007 5:18:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I want to comment on the OP of this thread. The charges would fail. The Action in Iraq is legal, no jury/court would ever convict. The UN has never declared it to be illegal Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials argued that for these actions Bush, with his Administration, could be prosecuted for war crimes. Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as leaders of several nations made similar statements.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875