How can you have ANY respect for these crazy fuckers?

[Kirkland Laing]

Secularism doesn't lead to violence. Leaders arrogating religion for their own personal ends however does.

....not specifically but not having religion at all doesn't mean the end of all violence and you had better understand that.

Wars have been fought long before religion as we know it was around and wars will be fought if religion is not around.


More wars are fought over money and national pride than religion....hate to disagree with you once again but I figure you're about used to it by now

I'm not saying that wars are fought over religion, I'm saying there are leaders who use religion to create popular support for war and violence in general.

[El Kabong]

I'm not saying that wars are fought over religion, I'm saying there are leaders who use religion to create popular support for war and violence in general.

Understood...the main thing is there is a unifying cause that people rally behind and that can be anything....but those things sort of fall under the relm of group psychology instead of politics

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm not saying that wars are fought over religion, I'm saying there are leaders who use religion to create popular support for war and violence in general.

Understood...the main thing is there is a unifying cause that people rally behind and that can be anything....but those things sort of fall under the relm of group psychology instead of politics

When politicians use religion to get their illegal wars on it's very much a part of politics. If we really were democracies instead of plutocracies that hold elections every few years we'd have accountability for doing so too.


[img width=700 height=425]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/400280852_c2a7b6d6fa_o.jpg[/img]

[El Kabong]

When politicians use religion to get their illegal wars on it's very much a part of politics. If we really were democracies instead of plutocracies that hold elections every few years we'd have accountability for doing so too.

...there was no "illegal war" on Iraq, we just called them out for failure to follow the lack of an OFFICIAL treaty that had been set up after the first Gulf War.

On 17 March 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the US and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action.

We did not use RELIGION to attack Iraq.....we used shitty ENGLISH intelligence and a "wait and see" United Nations

[Kirkland Laing]

When politicians use religion to get their illegal wars on it's very much a part of politics. If we really were democracies instead of plutocracies that hold elections every few years we'd have accountability for doing so too.

...there was no "illegal war" on Iraq, we just called them out for failure to follow the lack of an OFFICIAL treaty that had been set up after the first Gulf War.

On 17 March 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the US and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action.

We did not use RELIGION to attack Iraq.....we used shitty ENGLISH intelligence and a "wait and see" United Nations

Even Bush admitted he didn't have any authority to go to war. Here's a history lesson :


Tuesday, March 18, 2003

War looms as Bush issues final warning

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post

WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.

Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader.

Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.

The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.

Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."



Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm

[El Kabong]

....well that can just be countered by this simple fact

IRAQ VIOLATED SPECIFIC UN RESOLUTIONS SET FORTH BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

[Kirkland Laing]

....well that can just be countered by this simple fact

IRAQ VIOLATED SPECIFIC UN RESOLUTIONS SET FORTH BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

The UN Security Council didn't agree that Iraq had violated resolutions to the extent that war was justified and refused to authorise a preemptive invasion of Iraq. The war criminal Bush then declared that the authority from the UN wasn't necessary and got his illegal war on.

[El Kabong]

....Iraq kept UN inspectors from their job of making sure Iraq had no WMD's and if they had nothing to hide then they should have played ball.

[Trainer Monkey]

....Iraq kept UN inspectors from their job of making sure Iraq had no WMD's and if they had nothing to hide then they should have played ball.

They let them back in,and unlike the original Gulf War inspectors,this set had unfettered access.
BTW Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular govt(something that really bent the Iranians) the head of the military was a Christian

[Kirkland Laing]

....Iraq kept UN inspectors from their job of making sure Iraq had no WMD's and if they had nothing to hide then they should have played ball.

The American conservative version of history strikes again.

It's understandable though :

President Bush: "Saddam Hussein said, I'm not going to expose my weapons, I'm not going to get rid of my -- I'm not going to allow inspectors in, he said." February 26th, 2004.

President Bush: "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..." July 14th, 2003.



Here's what actually happened :

The United States administration has dismissed as a stunt Iraq's offer to admit CIA agents to assist United Nations arms inspectors.

On Sunday, Iraq said it was ready to answer any questions raised by the US and UK governments on its weapons declaration to the UN.

An adviser to the Iraqi leader, General Amir al-Saadi, said all available information had been provided. He invited CIA personnel to direct arms inspectors to any suspect sites.

Iraq insists it has nothing to hide.

"After 24 days of inspections covering practically all the sites [...] the lies and baseless allegations have been uncovered," General al-Saadi said.

He said Washington and London had convinced the "IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] and the whole world to believe they have iron-clad evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and promised to provide the evidence".

Referring to UK and US allegations that the Iraqi declaration omitted to account for banned materials, General al-Saadi described them as "a hodgepodge of half-truths, naive short-sighted allegations and lies", and "rehashed allegations" from the time of Unscom - the previous UN monitoring mission.

On Sunday, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq continued their search for prohibited weapons programmes.

They visited six sites, including the al-Battani company - a space research centre near Baghdad.

Meanwhile, the US is continuing its massive military build-up in the region in anticipation of a possible strike against Iraq.

UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to present a full report on the work of his teams to the UN by 27 January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2600207.stm

[El Kabong]

They let them back in,and unlike the original Gulf War inspectors,this set had unfettered access.
BTW Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular govt(something that really bent the Iranians) the head of the military was a Christian

I know Saddam lead a "secular" Iraq....but it didn't stop SECTARIAN VIOLENCE....the gassing of the Kurds, the brutal treatment of the Shi'a.....this is why the Sunnis are catching shit now that the Shi'a have the power.

We help put Saddam in power

...then please explain the British Intelligence reports which stated that Saddam did have WMD's

[Trainer Monkey]

They let them back in,and unlike the original Gulf War inspectors,this set had unfettered access.
BTW Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular govt(something that really bent the Iranians) the head of the military was a Christian

I know Saddam lead a "secular" Iraq....but it didn't stop SECTARIAN VIOLENCE....the gassing of the Kurds, the brutal treatment of the Shi'a.....this is why the Sunnis are catching S*** now that the Shi'a have the power.

We help put Saddam in power

...then please explain the British Intelligence reports which stated that Saddam did have WMD's

Lyle,your really digging yourself in now
Iraq isnt a real country,its 3 different ones,that got thrown together by another occupying force
The Kurds are really a part of Turkey,Turkey doesnt want
The Shi'ites are Iranians
And the Sunni's are more or less Syrians
If we had gone in with the idea,he's a scumball and kills people,we'd have a very,very busy military,because there are alot of them.
We'd bomb Israel back to the stone age for starters
This has been a Neo COn wet dream for years,and the Nixonites were right there for it
The Neo Cons thought it would disrupt a power base that had threatened Israel,and the Nixonites wanted to prove that we could have won Vietnam with enough ordinance and public support.
Well guess what,they were both wrong again
Iraq's more volataile then its ever been

[El Kabong]

.....I'm not a Neo-Con, I don't like the Neo-Cons.....creating one big nation of Persians or Arabs would NOT be good as history tells us all.......well everyone except you

[Trainer Monkey]

.....I'm not a Neo-Con, I don't like the Neo-Cons.....creating one big nation of Persians or Arabs would NOT be good as history tells us all.......well everyone except you

You pay for them and obviously support them
Me personally,I think Iraq should be split in to three sectors,these people have never liked each other,it took a ruthless SOB like Sadaam to keep the whole fake country together.Its not something I care to emulate.

[El Kabong]

....Iraq COULD be split into three sectors......and we would have to deal with a much stronger Iran OR Iraq could wake the fuck up and stop the sectarian violence and start working together for their country.....but then again that's a HUGE cultural difference to overcome.


If peace in the Middle East was easy it would have been achieved by now....and I think we can agree on that