Comments on: U.S. Forces Fighting Iranians In Iraq

Former Assistant Secretary Of State: New Efforts Against Iran Significantly Raise Stakes

[jdweymouth]

RandalDS:

And I believe you're Donald Duck...You sound just as ridiculous.

Of course you have proof of your accusations, and evidence to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt? You have access to the people and files that give you reasons to believe? Of course not, I forgot whom I was dealing with.

Up until the end when we didn't find WMDs, long after the beginning of the invasion, Bush was sure we eventually would. They have believed there to be WMDs in Iraq until well after the start of the initial occupation. Remember? The convictions of the innocent, in my opinion.

It doesn't matter what our reasons were for invading; whether for oil, land, power: as long as we follow the rules of war (we have), a war is "legal". In reality, there is no such thing as an illegal war, and, if there is, please define it for me. Now, I%u2019m not saying that%u2019s why we invaded, I%u2019m just making my point.

[randalds]

My point is: we don't know. There is no evidence of war crimes. The Geneva, and Hague conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers, and the people we're fighting aren't. No rules of war have been violated on anybody%u2019s part, but that of our enemy.

Posted by jdweymouth at 10:49 PM : Jan 14, 2007

But Bush did know. He knew he was presenting a very selective version of the intelligence we had on hand. He knew he was deliberately holding back any and all information that didn't fit his preconceived notions and that didn't support his plan to go to war. The Project for the New American Century had been looking for an excuse to go to war against Iraq since before Bush was elected. In Bush they found a willing puppet. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all signatories of this goal and I have no doubt that they were filled with joy on 9-11, because they knew they had the "Pearl Harbor type event" they'd been hoping for. There is nothing about this war that is NOT a war crime.

[randalds]

On the subject of the shah, regardless of his domestic policies, he supported us against communism, and during the cold war era, that made him our ally. You do not understand diplomacy. Regardless, the fact he was our ally made us have an obligation to him, and, as I said, you don't understand the meanin of that word along with duty and honor.

Posted by jdweymouth at 10:49 PM : Jan 14, 2007

There is no "duty or honor" in supporting a vicious dictator like the Shah, no matter if he supported us against communism as his price. Only a right winger could find duty and honor in supporting a murderous tyrant like him and such misguided support is one of the main reasons the US is rightly hated by many people around the world. The Iraqi people hate us for supporting the Shah and they certainly have reason and the right to.

[randalds]

It was declared under American law, and there is no such thing as an illegal declared war, as long as the declaration is delivered 40 minutes before the first act of war, and we gave Sadam 48 hours. For the final time, the United States and its citizens are not subject to the ICJ or WC is unconstitutional to subject ourselves to those courts. (Read Article III, section 1 of the constitution, educate yourself)
Posted by jdweymouth at 10:46 PM : Jan 14, 2007

Only Congress has the power to declare war and they did not. The authorization for use of force is not a formal declaration of war. This is, by definition, an illegal war. And I have read the Constitution and funny, but I find no where where it mentions the international courts. Of course it could be because they didn't exist at the time.

[jdweymouth]

Part 2/2
My point is we don%u2019t know what transpired before the war. You think you know, but you're not entitled to the same information as our leaders our. (Thank God, because I'm willing to bet you'd sell it) Maybe there were nukes and they were moved (with or without the knowledge of the Iranian government), maybe there were Al Quieda camps there and we kept it quiet hoping to get them before they knew we were aware of their presence. My point is: we don't know. There is no evidence of war crimes. The Geneva, and Hague conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers, and the people we're fighting aren't. No rules of war have been violated on anybody%u2019s part, but that of our enemy.

On the subject of the shah, regardless of his domestic policies, he supported us against communism, and during the cold war era, that made him our ally. You do not understand diplomacy. Regardless, the fact he was our ally made us have an obligation to him, and, as I said, you don't understand the meanin of that word along with duty and honor.

[jdweymouth]

Part 1/2
RandalDS: How would you know about "worse, off the mark interpretations of history"? If that is you're "argument, then I know you can't legitimately counter it. I know history extensively, very extensively, and assessments of those events are quite correct. You know history as much as the media will let a mouthpiece like you know, anymore would be inconvenient on their part. If you would actually read (out of a book, not the internet) and think critically, you would come to the same conclusion I have about WW1 and 2.

It was declared under American law, and there is no such thing as an illegal declared war, as long as the declaration is delivered 40 minutes before the first act of war, and we gave Sadam 48 hours. For the final time, the United States and its citizens are not subject to the ICJ or WC is unconstitutional to subject ourselves to those courts. (Read Article III, section 1 of the constitution, educate yourself)

[randalds]

Supporting the Shah and backing him up is not illegal, it's called supporting an ally. I know that's difficult for liberals to understand. Honor, Loyalty, and Duty are not words very high on your vocabulary list.

Posted by jdweymouth at 10:13 PM : Jan 14, 2007

The Shah was a vicious tyrant that had been thrown out of power by his own people who wanted freedom. We used our CIA to put him back. He had secret police that "disappeared" people who opposed him in any manner. He engaged in torture and murderous oppression of his own people. There was no freedom of speech, religion, or the press. Funny, but those seem to be some of the same reasons Bush used for his invasion of Iraq. I guess a vicious dictator who is on our side (as Saddam was for decades) is different then one who is not. Selective loyalty always was a trait of the modern right wing republican party. Come to think of it the Shah was just the kind of guy the current Bush would love after all. He*ll he's probably a big admirer of the type, dictator.

[randalds]

(Preceded by one of the worst, off the mark, interpretations of history I have ever read)
You, sir, have a problem that I can't pinpoint, because, unlike you, I don't claim to be a psychologist when I'm not. You either have some dark past with George Bush that causes you to hate him, or you're psychotic. I can't tell which. Maybe I'm wrong, but the way you're rambling on about him being insane, basing it on the fact he's executing a declared war, is insane as I know the definition of the word.

Posted by jdweymouth at 09:54 PM : Jan 14, 2007

I don't have a dark past with Bush, I just hate mass murderers, esp when they say they are doing it in my country's name. The war was not declared under American law and is in fact illegal under international law. Of course one can always set legal points aside (as this administration has shown by ignoring the law many times) and go to the obvious position that he's just plain wrong. There were no WMD's and he knew it. There was no connection to 9-11 and he knew it. There was no connection to international terrorism at all and he knew it. Iraq was no threat to us in any way, shape or form and he knew it. He cherry-picked intelligence and presented a raft of lies to Congress, the American people and the world to build a false case for an unnecessary war of choice. That's sick. That's insane. That is mentally ill.

[jdweymouth]

"Have you read history at all? The only reason the ex-government had been in power in the first place was because of our CIA forcing it down the throats of the Iraqi people. The Shah was a tool of the CIA, no more, no less. Of course they hated our guts for it."--Posted by RandalDS

The shah was the legitimate and traditional ruler of Iran, he was Persian, and his family was noble. The current government is foreign. Ask any Persian refugees in the U.S., and they'll describe the current government and ruling class in Iran as, "a ragheaded religion that's going to destroy my country". The shah wasn't the nicest guy, but at least he was a traditional ethnic Persian, because the current president of Iran is not the nicest guy and is not an ethnic Persian.

Supporting the Shah and backing him up is not illegal, it's called supporting an ally. I know that's difficult for liberals to understand. Honor, Loyalty, and Duty are not words very high on your vocabulary list.

[jdweymouth]

RandalDS: First of all, being a communist still isn't good, even though the cold war's over

Second of all, you're wrong. Woodrow Wilson got himself involved in a European territorial war we had no business getting into, WWI started out of rising nationalism in the countries subject to the European dynasties.
FDR provoked Hitler into declaring war. We gave military support to Britain before declaring war on Germany, and that is the definition of an illegal war. We could have limited our war to Japan ending it more quickly, and possibly without the A-bomb. The war in Europe was another European territorial war.
The Civil War was forced on Lincoln after James Buchanan (a democrat) sowed the final seeds that would divide the country. The civil war was forced on Lincoln. It could be said that this war was forced on us, Bush, being president and having more information at his fingertips, might have concluded that this war was necessary as a response against those who attacked us. In other words, forced on us.
You, sir, have a problem that I can't pinpoint, because, unlike you, I don't claim to be a psychologist when I'm not. You either have some dark past with George Bush that causes you to hate him, or you're psychotic. I can't tell which. Maybe I'm wrong, but the way you're rambling on about him being insane, basing it on the fact he's executing a declared war, is insane as I know the definition of the word.