CIA Intel Analyst Who Briefed President: Iran Threat All Hype

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

Well if you stop to watch your propaganda news you would know that things aren't that pretty!

Seems you pay more attention to my propaganda news than I do.

Keep on believing the hype.

OK! for the keep of arguments!

I watch almost all news channels of the world here in Europe in four different languages - uncensored mind you!

And I am comparing these news broadcasts with the same American versions which are heavily censored and twisted - and you tell me what to believe?

FOX NEWS?


[edit on 31-10-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Silver Shadow

Please remind me, what is the purpose of illegally invading and occupying Iraq, and the US military objective in Iraq ?

Seems "what we've got here is a failure to communicate."

Dang I love that quote from Cool Hand Luke.

Anyways, can't give you a purpose on any illegal invasion because there wasn't one.

Now we did legally invade Iraq. Care to talk about that legal invasion?

reply to post by Chevalerous

I watch almost all news channels of the world here in Europe in four different languages - uncensored mind you!

And I am comparing these news broadcasts with the same American versions which are heavily censored and twisted - and you tell me what to believe?

FOX NEWS?

It just amazes me how you guys talk about how lame, how bias, and how brainwashing our news organizations are, but the you guys go right along with them and spew out the same info.

Where are the rallies of everyday Americans begging to attack Iran?

Whether you believe it or not the average American is not worried about Iran having nukes or us having to invade Iran? As far as we are concerned, Iran is closer to Europe than the US.

It is our government among other governments that are leading the charge. And the media is hyping it to get good ratings.

Then you throw Israel into the loop and you guys assume that the US will be involved as well.

You all are the ones making the assumptions. Like I said, we are working to finish up in the other 2 wars. Why add more to an already full plate?

reply to post by SLAYER69

Slayer, my apologies, but some of this may be attributed to me. While I never started a thread promoting attacking Iran, I did make some strong statements as to Iran getting nukes..

I feel that Iran under no circumstances should have nukes. None. Being ruled by Muslim fanatics, I would suggest that Europe and the US would suffer untold casualties, by third-parties who would receive them.

Iran isn't stupid enough to directly attack with nukes, but just as they work the back channels with everything else in their inventory, it would be a simple enough task to share with those who would use them. Plausible deniability, and all that.

I would never suggest we start a ground war in Iran, but that's not to say we couldn't take care of business. Whatever it takes.

I never waited for my men to get shot before taking my own. I saw them, saw the threat, and I was shooting. We never, ever lost a man while I was on point. Never.

I think I've gone a bit overboard a time or two and stated that if Iran really, really wants nukes, then we should make sure they get some.

Not now, but the moment we get a firm indication that Iran has nukes, THEN we should act decisively.

Without hesitation.

But that's just me.

My deal has always been about keeping my countrymen from harm. Even if I have to kill every SOB in the enemy camp myself.

One of my flaws.

My dear neocon friend! - jam321 (nice handle/code name)

You said:

"Anyways, can't give you a purpose on any illegal invasion because there wasn't one."

"Now we did legally invade Iraq. Care to talk about that legal invasion?"

Well you are certainly lying here, or You're honestly mistaking yourself!?

The Iraq war was certainly according to International Law Illegal, and more so even Illegal to US laws because the administration failed to give the proofs and evidence to congress on the eve of the war.

Lets take a look what the neocon grandmaster himself said shall we?:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone"

www.guardian.co.uk...

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office. Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

whatreallyhappened.com...

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

And his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions

www.guardian.co.uk...

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector - by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

www.commondreams.org...

So whom am I to believe?

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Chevalerous]

The only way a country can be legally invaded (by international law) s by a vote carried in the United Nations.

Such a vote was carried to invade Iraq during Gulf War One, when Saddam illegally invaded and occupied Kuwait.

Fifty nations combined, (including the US) were involved, and it was a huge and very soift victory.

Gulf war Two was an illegal invasion, not sanctioned by the UN.

George W Bush lied when he claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Nobody believed that lie then, except the US public.

Only Britain backed the US in this second ILLEGAL invasion, Gulf War Two..
It has been a humiliating defeat for America, unlike Gulf Watr One.
Even Britain has now abandoned America in Iraq.

The UN could not pass a resolution to do the same to George Bush as it did to Saddam, for an illegal occupation, only because the US has the power of veto in the UN. The UN votes to boot the US out of Iraq, and the US vetoes that.

So instead, all nations have poured aid into Iraq, which is why a few insurgents have been able to hold off and defeat the most powerful nation on earth. And will continue to do so.

Americans just are not smart enough to work out how a few civilian insurgents, not even a proper army, can fight the US military with all it's advanced weaponry and technology for SEVEN YEARS and not be utterly crushed.

You are not fighting just a few rag heads, but guys that have the total support and backing, both financial and military OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.

The UN could not pass a resolution to wage war on America, because of the US power of veto. But most (or all) the UN countries have decided to do pretty much the same thing unofficially. Twenty eight nations now have military in Iraq, none are helping America as allies.

But Americans just cannot figure out why it has taken seven years of combat to get exactly NOWHERE in Iraq.

Once you realize America is fighting the whole entire world in Iraq, and all the vast resources the entire world can muster against the US, you may begin to see the long term problem you face in Iraq.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Silver Shadow]

reply to post by Silver Shadow


That's BS.

The UN has nothing to do with nation's ability to wage war.

Certainly not the US.

We do not now, and by God will NEVER defer our national interests to some damned international organization of yapping dogs.

If perchance you don't like it - kick us out.

Please. kick us out.

Please.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
My criteria for losing a war is not winning.

Not gaining the objective, still fighting after many years of combat with no victory in sight.

Please remind me, what is the purpose of illegally invading and occupying Iraq, and the US military objective in Iraq ?

1) how do you ascertain that we're not gaining on the objective (perhaps not YOUR objective...)

2) Please remind me what "law" was broken that would make your ancient, emotional accusation of an "illegal war" in fact illegal?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Please remind me what "law" was broken that would make your ancient, emotional accusation of an "illegal war" in fact illegal?

How about Section 3, paragraph B to congress?

See my above post!



[edit on 1-11-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Chevalerous


You want to debate. I'm for it. But you bringing in name calling serves no purpose.

How about some common sense and respect toward each other?

No lies- No mistake.

Article number one you presented-

Don't you find it odd that it took him a year to grow a conscious? I mean the war didn't actually start off as good as everybody hoped it would. This guy has been distancing himself ever since.

I have been widely but wrongly depicted as deeply involved in the making of administration policy, especially with respect to Iraq. Facts notwithstanding, there are some fifty thousand entries on Google in which I am described as an “architect,” and often as “the architect,” of the Iraq War. I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam, as I do in what follows. But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different.

thinkprogress.org...

Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

No Congress mentioned in text below. Only has to report to Speaker of House President Pro Temp. And nowhere in section one or 2 does it says he has to prove anything. All Bush had to show was his determination.

This resolution is LEGAL.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

uspolitics.about.com...


Hans Blix is not a US citizen. Once again, the resolution our Congress passed is legit.

Has any of the world international organizations like the UN, NATO, War Crimes Tribunals, etc. OFFICIALLY declared the Iraq war illegal?

I thought not.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by jam321]

reply to post by Chevalerous


A very cute, very fluffy, warm and fuzzy post. For all that, and for all the verbiage set forth in it, not ONCE, not in ONE SINGLE PLACE, was there a solid reference to any law that had been broken, which would make the wars "illegal".

Lot of quotes, collected not haphazardly, but emotionally and with an agenda in mind, that give evidence of exactly... nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Lots of reference to the UN, though, as if the UN were a law making body.

I give it a 7 for effort. Nice try, and thanks for playing.

Edit to add: Concerning the allegation that congress authorized a war, with provision to make it retroactively "illegal", well, that's just not how law works, and you've been misinformed. Probably by the same folks you get the rest of your "information" from.

[edit on 2009/11/1 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Silver Shadow

 

That's BS.

The UN has nothing to do with nation's ability to wage war.

True, but it has everything to do with a war or occupation being Illegal.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

You want to debate. I'm for it. But you bringing in name calling serves no purpose.

How about some common sense and respect toward each other?

No lies- No mistake.

Article number one you presented-

Don't you find it odd that it took him a year to grow a conscious? I mean the war didn't actually start off as good as everybody hoped it would. This guy has been distancing himself ever since.

I have been widely but wrongly depicted as deeply involved in the making of administration policy, especially with respect to Iraq. Facts notwithstanding, there are some fifty thousand entries on Google in which I am described as an “architect,” and often as “the architect,” of the Iraq War. I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam, as I do in what follows. But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different.

thinkprogress.org...

Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

No Congress mentioned in text below. Only has to report to Speaker of House President Pro Temp. And nowhere in section one or 2 does it says he has to prove anything. All Bush had to show was his determination.

This resolution is LEGAL.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

uspolitics.about.com...


Hans Blix is not a US citizen. Once again, the resolution our Congress passed is legit.

Has any of the world international organizations like the UN, NATO, War Crimes Tribunals, etc. OFFICIALLY declared the Iraq war illegal?

I thought not.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by jam321]

OK! I'm very sorry if I offended you by calling you a neocon! that was unmature done of me!

You said:

"Has any of the world international organizations like the UN, NATO, War Crimes Tribunals, etc. OFFICIALLY declared the Iraq war illegal?"

YES! that is the problem my friend! The UN decleared the war Illgal - read Annan's statement in the links I posted!

MY GOD! you guys are really stubborn!

Doesn't matter now, but according to us in the rest of the world the war is illegal!

And nice twist BTW regarding the issue with your congress! - you can twist it all you like - but according to International Law that the US is a part of - you screwed the world! - and the proofs are out there to everyone to read!


[edit on 1-11-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Silver Shadow

No, the UN has no real international power.

The UN is like a toothless old woman. Yaps a lot, but nothing to be concerned with.

The UN doesn't have any authority EXCEPT to "approve" an action, but as we can all see, every few months, atrocities, or attacks occur somewhere.

Resolutions have no teeth.

The root word in "enforcement" is the word force.

Nations determine the requirement for war. And then go about it.

NOT the UN.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

A very cute, very fluffy, warm and fuzzy post. For all that, and for all the verbiage set forth in it, not ONCE, not in ONE SINGLE PLACE, was there a solid reference to any law that had been broken, which would make the wars "illegal".

Quite simple really.

International law is quite clear about that.

You can defend yourself if attacked.
You can appeal to the UN for help, and if all nations agree on a police action, the UN as a whole responds.

Americans hate law and justice.
Americans hate the Geneva convention
Americans hate the UN
Americans hate the International Court.

But Americans love war, death and deadly force.

When you own vicious Government turns upon you, nothing will save you.

reply to post by Chevalerous

The UN decleared the war Illgal - read Annan's statement in the liks I posted!

Don't tell me what Annan said or declared. He is but one voice of the UN or was.

Show me the actual resolution that the UN drafted up declaring the war as illegal and what consequences they think the US should pay.

7 years and counting and I haven't seen one yet.

Doesn't matter now, but according to us in the rest of the world the war is illegal!

In Texas, we call those opinions and those come a dime a dozen.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Silver Shadow

 

No, the UN has no real international power.

The UN is like a toothless old woman. Yaps a lot, but nothing to be concerned with.

The UN doesn't have any authority EXCEPT to "approve" an action, but as we can all see, every few months, atrocities, or attacks occur somewhere.

Resolutions have no teeth.

The root word in "enforcement" is the word force.

Nations determine the requirement for war. And then go about it.

NOT the UN.

True.

But you either try to live in a civilised world with laws, and justice, or you prefer total anarchy.

Most nations try to abide by the UN which may not be great, but it is all there is.

Or you prefer the power of the gun.

Sadly, you like most other Americans are about to get your wish.
So buy more guns and ammo and get ready to live your dream.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

The UN decleared the war Illgal - read Annan's statement in the liks I posted!

Don't tell me what Annan said or declared. He is but one voice of the UN or was.

Show me the actual resolution that the UN drafted up declaring the war as illegal and what consequences they think the US should pay.

7 years and counting and I haven't seen one yet.

Doesn't matter now, but according to us in the rest of the world the war is illegal!

In Texas, we call those opinions and those come a dime a dozen.

Well my friend, there is no need for a special comment by the UN regarding this since USA violated and breached one of the corner stones of the UN charter - invasion of a soverign country without the support of the rest of the world community in a second resolution!

Please read the International Law and treaties that your country's lawyers helped to write 1948 after Nürnberg.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Silver Shadow

You were right about two things.

We Americans do hate the UN, and we do not recognize any International Court.

You see, we don't pass off to others our right to self determination.

You other clowns may cave in, but won't happen here.

The Geneva Conventions? Formed by old men from long ago far removed from the battlefields.

You do what you must.

Bottom line.

No you never cave in.

Never back down.

Never compromise.

Never surrender.

That is why, when American starts killing American in the coming anarchy, it will never end.

Some of you think that when you have killed all the bad guys, all Americans will give up their guns and agree to live in peace and total trust with each other.
That will never happen.

Can't you see, your love of violence, viciousness, and deadly force is going to destroy you all ?

Do you really believe that death and destruction of other Americans is going to somehow return your country to wealth , prosperity and power ?

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Silver Shadow]