Donald Rumsfeld sacked by President Bush

Now we need Bush to get the red card - Impeach his evil arse says I and then lock him up for war crimes!

Couldn't have happened to a nicer man.

a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted perhaps....

Phil

George W Bush on Senator Pelosi: 'And in my first act of bi-partisan outreach since the election, I shared with her the names of some Republican interior decorators... [LAUGHTER] ...who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new offices. '

Good to see he's taking women Democrats seriously. Git.

He now knows that what he knows is not enough
One more BIG idiot to go

Jag

Y'all still think the politicians run the good ole US of Eh?

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Y'all still think the politicians run the good ole US of Eh?

I am reading Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and one of the characters reflects that, in the days when a deity was in charge of nations, the problem was to make sure that the Deity picked the right person to rule; and that in the democratic age it's no different...

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Y'all still think the politicians run the good ole US of Eh?

So who does run the USA?

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Y'all still think the politicians run the good ole US of Eh?

So who does run the USA?

Lobbyists?

quote:

So who does run the USA?

The strings are currently being pulled by the terrorists in Iraq.

But normally it would be big business, oil, burgers, car-makers, agriculture and Bill Gates.

You simply get to vote for whichever of these you dislike least, knowing that whatever they say they will do for you is a lie.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

So who does run the USA?

The strings are currently being pulled by the terrorists in Iraq.

You mean the US Army?

quote:

You mean the US Army?

No.

I mean the various groups of blood-thirsty Islamic fundamentalists who are hell-bent on the total destruction of anything worthwhile that might still exist in Iraq, but who,given half a chance, would like to their grubby little hands on the oil reserves so they could live a life of pure decandence and rampant evil.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

You mean the US Army?

No.

I mean the various groups of blood-thirsty Islamic fundamentalists who are hell-bent on the total destruction of anything worthwhile that might still exist in Iraq, but who,given half a chance, would like to their grubby little hands on the oil reserves so they could live a life of pure decandence and rampant evil.

Cheers

Don

Of course the US was not invited to invade Iraq and they had no legal reason to so do therefore all their actions are war crimes according to International law and insofar as they targeted innocent men, women and children they are terrorists according to the definitions they apply to others who do the same thing.

Can a muslim be a grubby evil decandent oil grabber and be an islamic fundamentalist at the same time or are these labels, in fact, mutually exclusive but applied by propagandists and people who dont know what they are talking about?

Are all grubby evil decandent oil grabbers islamic fundamentalists or are some grubby evil decandent oil grabbers American neocons posing as Christians ?

What is the difference between Iraqis blowing each other up and the Americans who blew each other up in the US civil war or the British who blew each other up in their civil war?

A muslim who kills is a terrorist - an American who kills is a war hero?

Cheers,

Acad

How many Palestians killed in Gaza this week by the IDF? How many were women who were shot in the back and how many were children? Answers on a postcard please.

"Of course the US was not invited to invade Iraq and they had no legal reason to so do"
They gave plenty of notice and had every right in view of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolutions.

"therefore all their actions are war crimes according to International law"
Simply not true.

"and insofar as they targeted innocent men, women and children"
This applies to a very small number of soldiers and they ought to be punished and are being punished. I am not aware that terrorists are punishing their people who commit murder.

"they are terrorists according to the definitions they apply to others who do the same thing".
No, they are not. But they are murderers and should be punished accordingly. Again, I am not aware that terrorists are punishing their people who commit murder.

"Can a muslim be a grubby evil decandent oil grabber"
I know a lot who are

"and be an islamic fundamentalist at the same time"
Possibly. However, you have omitted the words "given half a chance" which changes the context in which the words were used.

"or are these labels,"
most of them are nouns or adjectives used to describe things.

"in fact, mutually exclusive"
as I said, "given half a chance", but in any case, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

"but applied by propagandists"
not exclusively

"and people who dont know what they are talking about?"
I have no doubt that might sometimes be the case. But since I do know what I am talking about, I was justified in using those descriptions.

"What is the difference between Iraqis blowing each other up and the Americans who blew each other up in the US civil war or the British who blew each other up in their civil war?".........how far back in history do you want to go........

"A muslim who kills is a terrorist - an American who kills is a war hero?"
I am going to assume that this is a question raised by some young children that you know, and which found its way into your text by mistake.

Cheers

Don

Don,

"Of course the US was not invited to invade Iraq and they had no legal reason to so do"
They gave plenty of notice and had every right in view of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolutions.

So if the UK gave notice it was going to invade Switzerland next year it would be legal? If Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions then why has no WMD ever been found? Iraq did comply its just that they were not believed by the US/UK axis of grubby evil decandent oil grabbers.

"therefore all their actions are war crimes according to International law"
Simply not true.

Perfectly true and this will be revealed and accepted publicly by the UN in time.

"and insofar as they targeted innocent men, women and children"
This applies to a very small number of soldiers and they ought to be punished and are being punished. I am not aware that terrorists are punishing their people who commit murder.

Which terrorists are you referring to, the ‘terrorists who fight to remove a foreign occupying power like the ‘terrorists’ in France who faught against the German occupation in WW2? Or the terrorists fighting a civil war?

"they are terrorists according to the definitions they apply to others who do the same thing".
No, they are not. But they are murderers and should be punished accordingly. Again, I am not aware that terrorists are punishing their people who commit murder.

Define ‘terrorist’ – Any definition you give can equally be applied to the US/UK/Israel axis of evil.

"Can a muslim be a grubby evil decandent oil grabber"
I know a lot who are

Name them.

"and be an islamic fundamentalist at the same time"
Possibly. However, you have omitted the words "given half a chance" which changes the context in which the words were used.

There are those who pose as being X or Y in order to delude others to do their bidding just like certain neocons in the US who pose as Christians just to get the evangelist vote when in reality they are spawn of the effing devil.

"or are these labels,"
most of them are nouns or adjectives used to describe things.

So they are still labels then.

"in fact, mutually exclusive"
as I said, "given half a chance", but in any case, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

That is because you do not understand Islam.

"but applied by propagandists"
not exclusively

True, ignorant people apply the label too.

"and people who dont know what they are talking about?"
I have no doubt that might sometimes be the case. But since I do know what I am talking about, I was justified in using those descriptions.

Apparently not. You have justified nothing as far as I can see.

"What is the difference between Iraqis blowing each other up and the Americans who blew each other up in the US civil war or the British who blew each other up in their civil war?".........how far back in history do you want to go........

I am happy to go as far back as you want.

"A muslim who kills is a terrorist - an American who kills is a war hero?"
I am going to assume that this is a question raised by some young children that you know, and which found its way into your text by mistake.

The terrorists as you call them seek to rid their country from an illegal ininvited occupying force. British citizens would have fought against an occupying Soviet army if the soviets had successfully invaded the UK (legally or not) and so would be guilty of being terrorists too according to your definitions. They would happily swap their suicide bombers for heavy artillery, tanks, F16s, depleted uranium and white phosphorous so they could fight on a level playing field but they are out numbered and out-gunned.

Cheers

Acad

I said "They... had every right in view of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolutions."

You say "So if the UK gave notice it was going to invade Switzerland next year it would be legal?"
Of course not. But if Switzerland was murdering it citizens, was threatening the UK with WMD, the UN had issued Resolutions and Switzerland had refused to comply and continued its unacceptable behaviour, the yes, it would be legal.

Cheers

Don

quote:

"Of course the US was not invited to invade Iraq and they had no legal reason to so do"
They gave plenty of notice and had every right in view of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolutions.

Don,

LOL.

This was the quote I believe you should have refered to in full:

I said "Of course the US was not invited to invade Iraq and they had no legal reason to so do"

You said "They gave plenty of notice and had every right in view of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolutions".

I am pleased you have accpeted that giving notice does not turn an illegal invasion into a legal one.

Saddam complied with the UN resolutions and destroyed his WMD stocks - no stocks were found. It is illegal to invade a country on the basis that MIGHT use WMD IF they had them.

As for Saddam murdering his own people there are many countries with far far worse records and these do not get invaded. Why? Because they have no oil.

It should not cause any surprise that the only other country the US wants to invade on the spurious basis that they MIGHT use WMD IF they had them is a country with the worlds second biggest oil and gas fields - Iran.

Cheers,

Acad

quote:

Saddam complied with the UN resolutions and destroyed his WMD stocks - no stocks were found. It is illegal to invade a country on the basis that MIGHT use WMD IF they had them.

As for Saddam murdering his own people there are many countries with far far worse records and these do not get invaded. Why? Because they have no oil.

It should not cause any surprise that the only other country the US wants to invade on the spurious basis that they MIGHT use WMD IF they had them is a country with the worlds second biggest oil and gas fields - Iran.

Right up until 16th March, Hans Blix couldn't and wouldn't veryfy that Iraq had destroyed his WMD and had removed the means of remanufacturing etc etc ect all as required in Resolution 1441. The consequences of failing to meet the deadlines set out in 1441 were clear. The invasion wasn't, as you have claimed above, because the US felt Iraq MIGHT use WMD it was because Iraq had failed to comply with the Resolution 1441.

Cheers

Don

Oh dear, all the old arguments about the Iraq war are being re-hashed again...and for why?

Still, FWIW, Don surely you must realise that Hans Blix, the one person who could have verified for certain whether Saddam had WMD or not, was never allowed to complete his work. Bush and Blair had already decided to invade, come what may. Resolution 1441 is just a smokescreen used by Blair and the war apologists to claim that the invasion was legal.

John,

I know, its tedious. But when people make the repetative clain that the war was illegal........

1441 was a roll-up of all the resolutions that Iraq had ignored since the end of the first Gulf war (when Iraq had invaded Kuwait). Iraq hadn't respected any of those and Blix hadn't been able to veryfy that Iraq was doing anything different in response to 1441. Bush (and Blair) made it quite clear, over the period from December to March, that diplomacy was running its course and by 16th March the course had ended.

So, with genuine respect, I don't accept your point of view. And I am not an apologist for the war.

OTOH as I said at the time, I didn't consider it was a wise move to invade Iraq. But that's a different issue.

Cheers

Don

Hi Don,

I apologise for unintentionally lumping you in with the apologists, and I also acknowledge that I can 'do' tedium like no other.

However, all that having been said, whilst you don't accept my point of view, then with equal respect to you, nor I'm afraid can I accept yours. Bush and Blair sent their respective nations into war on the basis of a lie, and as far as I am concerned, whether you can make a genuine legal case for their actions or not, I think that events that have transpired subsequently have proved what an ill-conceived invasion it was.

Blair is looking for a legacy before he leaves office. Well, whether he likes it or not, this will undoubtedly be his.

JonR is correct in my view. Don, do you think the US/UK should invade every country that ignores UN resolutions? If so why don't you invade israel and dozens of other countries? Bush/Blair were hell bent on invasion and the last thing they wanted was Blix saying there were no WMD in a final report.

quote:

Bush and Blair sent their respective nations into war on the basis of a lie,

In the September I imagine that Bush and Blair laid down preparatory plans for an invasion, so as to be prepared, that in the unlikely event that iraq continued to flout the UN resolution, the consequences spelt out in 1441 could be implemented with surprise. Regretably that unlikely event occured. It is regretable that Iraq had been misleading Blix and his team and consequently the UN, by pretending he still had stockpiles of WMD and the means to reproduce them if necessary. Iraq could have more compliant and the invasion avoided.

"Don, do you think the US/UK should invade every country that ignores UN resolutions?"
No. it depends on the circumstances.

"If so why don't you invade israel and dozens of other countries."
as I said, it depends on the circumstances. BTW its not "me" that invaded Iraq, so i'm not sure why you are asking why "I" don't invade Israel.

At the time of the invasion, I said that I wouldn't invade Iraq. I also said that in sequence, the UN should deal effectively with Zimbabwe, North Korea, Palestine, etc etc in turn, depending on resources. I also said that the Un had become ineffective and needed change.

Cheers
Don

Don,

I think thats fair.

Cheers,

Acad

We've all being hoodwinked springs to my mind.

In January 2002 Henry Kissinger warned Bush in a letter " A military operation against Saddam Hussein cannot be long and drawn out", " if it is, it may turn into a struggle of Islam against the West" he re-asserted his thoughts again in July of the same year, " The longer the military operations last, the greater the danger of upheavals in the region, dissociation by other nations, and American isolation." What Kissinger feared has come to pass, if only Bush had listened to him.

The British government has never been more vulnerable than it is now, and extraction from the Middle East maelstrom is nowhere in sight, a maelstrom which has claimed the blood of many civilians (150,000?), never mind the privation faced by those displaced, and four more of our boys names will be carved in stone as of today.

So now we've got the Palestinian situation which remains intractable as ever, Saudi Arabia facing a possible revolution, Syria pencilled in on the list of enemies.

The road map to peace via the Middle East, what a pack of lies!


Forgot to mention Sadders lost his job, his Sons and possibly his own life too.


Beano Oh well summat might turn up eh!