Kerry: "Don't behave in 19th-Century fashion by invading another country on trumped-up pretext."

reply to post by _BoneZ_


This really reminded me of 1984.

The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four exists in a state of perpetual war among the three major powers. At any given time, two of the three states are aligned against the third; for example Oceania and Eurasia against Eastasia or Eurasia and Eastasia against Oceania. However, as Goldstein's book points out, each Superstate is so powerful that even an alliance of the other two cannot destroy it, resulting in a continuing stalemate. From time to time, one of the states betrays its ally and sides with its former enemy. In Oceania, when this occurs, the Ministry of Truth rewrites history to make it appear that the current state of affairs is the way it has always been, and documents with contradictory information are destroyed in the memory hole.

I can not believe the stuff that comes flying out of their mouths anymore. For everyone saying Obama and Kerry would never... only because they didn't get the chance. Their crazy selves were all ready to go into Syria, rushing to the aid of the rebels who were backed by the very people we have been fighting for the past decade. So don't give me that. While they sat and preached how it was our responsibility to aid the rebels and fight against a corrupt government who had killed less than 100 people (with the weapons of mass destruction Bush happened to say they had) North Korea was found to be killing 10's of 1000's of citizens in mass genocide yet they were all like SO you don't have any oil.

Even more ridiculous, during all this, it's OUR citizens who are paying the price while Obama sits back and talks about taking even more benefits from them because "they knew what they were getting into when they signed up".

Save us all the migraine and do not try to make ANY of the political officials out to be Saints. They are not. Well except Palin of course.

Krazysh0t

Didn't I tell you not to talk down to me?

Really? What are you going to do? TYPE IN ALL CAPS? Geez

JiggyPotamus
I'm pretty sure that Bush was the one who was responsible for the invasion of Iraq, along with his republican supporters. Kerry likely did not support the action, although I don't actually remember to be honest. So before you claim hypocrisy, I would just urge you to double check his personal stance on the issue before condemning him. But like I said, I don't really remember.

Well, like I pointed out twice on page 3 of this very thread - Kerry did vote yes on the war and additionally he reiterated his yes vote when he ran against Bush in 2004, only saying that he would have run the war differently.

So please, when you dispute something - I would urge you to at least read the whole thread first to find information regarding his stance.

And I am just playing there Jiggy. I apologize in advance if my attempted humor is offensive.

mrsdudara

Krazysh0t

Didn't I tell you not to talk down to me?

Really? What are you going to do? TYPE IN ALL CAPS? Geez

edit on 4-3-2014 by mrsdudara because: (no reason given)

OMFGosh - that was hilarious! You have my vote for the funniest post of the day!

Krazy - you need to calm down dude. You can't let some faceless words on a forum rile you up so much!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


How many takes did it take to film that without Kerry laughing.

reply to post by NavyDoc

It's not my fault that ideology has given you a selective memory.

Excuse me? What ideology would that be..?

Also where is the link to what you posted?

Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It's not my fault that ideology has given you a selective memory.

Excuse me? What ideology would that be..?

Also where is the link to what you posted?

edit on 4/3/14 by Kram09 because: Added another sentence.

Leftist. It's rather obvious.

Here is the PDF to the Iraq War resolution. You can read it yourself:
www.gpo.gov...

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
Oct. 16, 2002
[H.J. Res. 114]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:PUBLAWPUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 116 STAT. 1499
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other
nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities
that threaten international peace and security, including the
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:PUBLAWPUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1500 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress,
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Ira

edit on 4-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Just for the record folks, and no i'm not going to prove it, although you can prove it to yourselves if you really want to;

Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction, in the form of chemicals or gas in other words.

And YES, Iraq under Saddam did use those weapons to murder innocent Men, Women and Children in Kurdish villiages and enclaves in the Northern parts of Iraq.

Was Saddam a bad guy? Yes, he was, and yes he deserved his fate.

BUT...the US and the UK knew full well years before the Iraq war (slaughter) round 2 that Saddam had ordered the destruction of the chemical weapons and chemical making 'mobile labs' (sold under the Rummy deal to Iraq) shortly after the Iraq war round 1.

They did have chemical weapons, they did use them on poor bastards who couldn't defend themselves, and then they destroyed the gas, the chemical to make the gas and the labs meaning the capability to make more and everything else about them that could be used against them in an international court.

Or so they thought...they forgot about outright lies and deception, which of course they should have been familiar with themselves!

UN weapons inspectors confirmed the destruction of the mobile chemical labs they used to manufacture the crap, and certified no more CW around 1993 or 1994 if i remember rightly.

Iraq war was based on a lie...the scaremongering rhetoric at the time (2002 - 2003) was mostly centered on nukes and dirty bombs striking us within 30 - 40 minutes and we'd never be able to stop them, that was the UK propaganda from Blair and Co. The US had it's own flavour of propaganda to drag your arses to war again, but you already know that.

Yes, Saddam deserved what he got in the end, and no, the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed then and have suffered since didn't deserve their fate during and after lie based Iraq war #2.

Bush Snr. always regretted not being able to get Saddam in 91, the UN resolution wouldn't allow it...So, Bush Jnr. did it for daddy instead.

NavyDoc


Leftist. It's rather obvious.

I'm sorry I missed the bit were opposing the Iraq war made you a lefty?

I mean HOW THE HELL DOES THAT EVEN MAKE FREAKING SENSE!

Right/ Left and the IN BETWEENs (yes you don't have to be a hardline right winger or full red blooded commie *shock horror!*) is about your views on free market and amount of control of ones government.

Last time I checked it didn't include ones views on world policing an foreign policy. In fact a big giant military imposing its will on country's the other side of the world seems to be pretty leftist. In fact last time I check the libertarian gods Rand and Ron paul are pretty much against foreign interference .

I would love to know how many people spit coffie, tea, hot cocoa, or whatever else, all over the place upon hearing Mr Kerry's statement. Brings to mind another famous politicians assertion.


reply to post by _BoneZ_





S&F.

3 words people.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

reply to post by MysterX


I hit reply to start making fun of your post, but as I continued to read it, I realized you were pretty spot on. At first I thought it was you defending the bush administrations. LOL.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Leftist. It's rather obvious.

Here is the PDF to the Iraq War resolution. You can read it yourself:
www.gpo.gov...

So let me get this straight...I said I didn't recall talk of Iraq breaching the cease fire and then asked you to provide a source and it's actually just congress's own resolution to invade.

Basically the U.S. government said here in a resolution that Iraq broke the ceasefire therefore Iraq broke the ceasefire.

So if they passed a resolution declaring the moon was in fact made of cheese that would be proof enough for you?



I love this laughable little gem from the resolution:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;

Also it's nice to know that we're throwing labels around for people now. Usually it's called just having a different opinion, but apparently this a concept you to seem to struggle to understand...

Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Leftist. It's rather obvious.

Here is the PDF to the Iraq War resolution. You can read it yourself:
www.gpo.gov...

So let me get this straight...I said I didn't recall talk of Iraq breaching the cease fire and then asked you to provide a source and it's actually just congress's own resolution to invade.

Basically the U.S. government said here in a resolution that Iraq broke the ceasefire therefore Iraq broke the ceasefire.

So if they passed a resolution declaring the moon was in fact made of cheese that would be proof enough for you?



I love this laughable little gem from the resolution:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;

Also it's nice to know that we're throwing labels around for people now. Usually it's called just having a different opinion, but apparently this a concept you to seem to struggle to understand...

You said that you didn't see any reason other than WMD at the time ( how did you phrase it? propaganda?) and I pointed out that this was untrue and used a primary source to demonstrate it to you that WMD was not the only reason behind the invasion. I'm sorry that you were wrong.

Oh, and you didn't say simply "I don't recall" you said this:

Really? Please tell us more, because I really don't really remember this in the deluge of propaganda that was thrown at us in the build up to the war.

The sarcasm and snarky use of the phrase "deluge of propaganda" was not a simple request of information and was laden with a certain political position. Don't act all innocent now.


Now you change the bar to "we claim they violated the ceasefire agreement but Iraq didn't?" Is that your stance now? That Iraq did not violate the ceasefire agreement and we just made that up as well? I want to be sure that is your assertation before I go down that path.

I guess the UN was lying about this as well?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

I've got a feeling that you were less aware what was going on at the time than you think you do. How old are you?

Im still trying to get my head round how being opposed to the Iraq war makes you a lefty

reply to post by NavyDoc

and used a primary source to demonstrate it to you

A primary source? So what? Yes, what is basically just a declaration from the very country that is calling for the war in the first place. A truly objective and impartial source there! I also have a primary source which is a resolution from the Reichstag for the invasion of Poland.

Oh, and you didn't say simply "I don't recall"

I don't recall and I don't remember actually mean the same thing. Surely you're not that daft. But if you want to be picky and facetious about it fair enough. It doesn't matter whether I said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" in my sentence, it doesn't change the meaning of it.

Yes propaganda, there was wall to wall propaganda at the time. The press failed to ask questions and to challenge the government and instead just acted as their mouthpiece. I mean you can choose to see whatever you want to see in my posts...

"we claim they violated the ceasefire agreement but Iraq didn't?"

I'm confused why you've made that post and why you put it in quotation marks as if it was something I said when it wasn't.

How old are you?

So now you're being ageist as well? My age is irrelevant and quite frankly none of your business.


What I was trying to mean in my original posts was that I wanted some more in depth instances of how and when Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, not generalised statements that are set out in those resolutions - and no I don't recall/remember the breaking of the ceasefire being mentioned back in the build up to the war.
Perhaps it was yes - but I definitely recall all the stupid hysterical stuff about weapons of mass destruction. How Tony Blair told the Commons that Saddam could launch biological warheads in 45 minutes. Guess what? It all turned out to be **** - but who knows maybe the stuff the media was force feeding you over there in the U.S. was different to what we were being force fed in the UK. Either way it really smelt like **** and since not surprisingly no weapons of mass destruction were ever found (despite a couple of decrepit mustard shells that some have tried to portray as some sort of credible proof) I think we can say it was. After all they told us Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks which was completely false yet it was rammed down your throats so much, many people still erroneously believed that years later.

But at the end of the day we can both choose to have different opinions and believe what we want to - hopefully without throwing childish labels at each other and making shallow judgements about people based on their age.

Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

and used a primary source to demonstrate it to you

A primary source? So what? Yes, what is basically just a declaration from the very country that is calling for the war in the first place. A truly objective and impartial source there! I also have a primary source which is a resolution from the Reichstag for the invasion of Poland.

Oh, and you didn't say simply "I don't recall"

I don't recall and I don't remember actually mean the same thing. Surely you're not that daft. But if you want to be picky and facetious about it fair enough. It doesn't matter whether I said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" in my sentence, it doesn't change the meaning of it.

Yes propaganda, there was wall to wall propaganda at the time. The press failed to ask questions and to challenge the government and instead just acted as their mouthpiece. I mean you can choose to see whatever you want to see in my posts...

"we claim they violated the ceasefire agreement but Iraq didn't?"

I'm confused why you've made that post and why you put it in quotation marks as if it was something I said when it wasn't.

How old are you?

So now you're being ageist as well? My age is irrelevant and quite frankly none of your business.


What I was trying to mean in my original posts was that I wanted some more in depth instances of how and when Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, not generalised statements that are set out in those resolutions - and no I don't recall/remember the breaking of the ceasefire being mentioned back in the build up to the war.
Perhaps it was yes - but I definitely recall all the stupid hysterical stuff about weapons of mass destruction. How Tony Blair told the Commons that Saddam could launch biological warheads in 45 minutes. Guess what? It all turned out to be **** - but who knows maybe the stuff the media was force feeding you over there in the U.S. was different to what we were being force fed in the UK. Either way it really smelt like **** and since not surprisingly no weapons of mass destruction were ever found (despite a couple of decrepit mustard shells that some have tried to portray as some sort of credible proof) I think we can say it was. After all they told us Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks which was completely false yet it was rammed down your throats so much, many people still erroneously believed that years later.

But at the end of the day we can both choose to have different opinions and believe what we want to - hopefully without throwing childish labels at each other and making shallow judgements about people based on their age.

Age is important because the resolutions were 12 years ago. If you were a teen or less back then, it may explain a superficial memory of the situation.

It has nothing to do with "belief" but the facts of the matter and, the facts of the matter is that Saddam repeatedly broke the 1991 ceasefire agreement and thus it was both legal and a standard in international law to resume hostilities.

Now, just to be clear, are you saying that he did not violate the 1991 ceasefire agreement?