A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 6th 04, 06:05 PM
me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

nobody wrote in message ...
[snip]
Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion of Iraq
was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's invasion of the
Falklands.

[snip]

Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct. Iraq
was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
signed immediately after the first war, which they started. 'Round
here we joking refer to this as Gulf War 1A (or Ver 1.1). It was
the conclusion of the previous based upon his failure to live up
to the "cease fire" agreements. Yes, there was alot of whoo ha spread
around about what he was doing, but they were in violation and
as such subject to the terms of the surrender they signed.

This makes it "different" than the two invasions of which you
refer. It still leaves alot of discussion room about the advisability
or usefulness of having done it. Just because you can do something,
doesn't mean you should. As the shrub is fond of pointing out, removing
a brutal dictator from power is hard to argue against. None the
less, despite the short term relief given to the people of Iraq,
it isn't clear that in the long run, they will necessarily be
much better off. The US, Britian, France, Italy, and other
countries have all mucked around in other parts of the world
with the so called interest in "improving" conditions for the
inhabitants. The results are neither universal nor generally
admirable.
  #2  
Old February 6th 04, 09:54 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"me" wrote in message
om...
nobody wrote in message

...
[snip]
Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion of

Iraq
was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's invasion of

the
Falklands.

[snip]

Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct. Iraq
was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
signed immediately after the first war, which they started.


I think that the gist of the argument is that Bush and the US had no business
enforcing agreements made in behalf of the UN (resulting from action taken under
the auspices of a UN resolution) when the UN itself wasn't ready to either take
or sanction that kind of action in its behalf.

That means that we can't hide behind the UN's skirts and claim that the devil
made us do it.

George Z.


  #3  
Old February 6th 04, 10:15 PM
mellstrr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"me" wrote in message
om...
nobody wrote in message

...
[snip]
Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion

of
Iraq
was just as legal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's

invasion of
the
Falklands.

[snip]

Nope. I'm no Bush apologist, but this little bit isn't correct.

Iraq
was in violation of several agreements, most importantly the one they
signed immediately after the first war, which they started.


I think that the gist of the argument is that Bush and the US had no

business
enforcing agreements made in behalf of the UN (resulting from action taken

under
the auspices of a UN resolution) when the UN itself wasn't ready to either

take
or sanction that kind of action in its behalf.

That means that we can't hide behind the UN's skirts and claim that the

devil
made us do it.


We can't hide behind the UN's skirts at all, now, remember? We told her to
go **** herself when we invaded whether she liked it or not...

mellstrr--and how come nobody wants to talk about a certain OTHER country
who has violated many "agreements" over the years?


  #4  
Old February 7th 04, 11:58 AM
Simon Robbins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"mellstrr" wrote in message
...
We can't hide behind the UN's skirts at all, now, remember? We told her to
go **** herself when we invaded whether she liked it or not...


More likely we said "we'll go **** ourselves" because that's what we've
done. And let's face it, "Old Europe" was right: There are no WMDs and
Saddam was no clear threat, which were the points we pushed to justify the
war that they voted against. Our leaders have been shown to be either
incompetents or liars, and are now trying to get anyone they can deflect
blame onto to fall on their swords in order to protect their own
self-serving careers.

Si


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio) [email protected] Military Aviation 30 February 11th 04 04:34 AM
New Ministers of National Defence in Canada Andrew Chaplin Military Aviation 47 December 15th 03 09:36 PM
Australia to participate in US missile defence program David Bromage Military Aviation 40 December 13th 03 01:52 PM
[AU] Defence support for Bush visit David Bromage Military Aviation 7 October 23rd 03 05:04 AM
USA Defence Budget Realities Stop SPAM! Military Aviation 17 July 9th 03 02:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.