Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-27-2005, 04:01 PM   #1
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
so if Bush violated the law...

all people who continue to support the war do not respect law, right?

Well, that settles everything for me. I just wish he would of come out and said he didn't care about anything but his agenda...regardless of whether it was morally reprehensible.

I tell you. It feels real good to have what I've been saying the whole time validated.

Thank's George.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 04:04 PM   #2
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

I care about my agenda.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 04:19 PM   #3
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

but will you murder people to carry it out? (murder and collaborating murder being the same )
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 04:23 PM   #4
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Smile Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Who got murdered?
I'm not being a wiseguy; I just want to know exactly where you're coming from.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 07:11 PM   #5
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
Who got murdered?
I'm not being a wiseguy; I just want to know exactly where you're coming from.

Everyone who's died in relation to Iraq. If Bush's war was illegal, then I figure he must be a murderer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 10:44 AM   #6
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Didn't all of the United Nations sanctions that Saddam ignored make it legal for any U.N. member nation to declare war?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 12:48 PM   #7
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

No.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:00 PM   #8
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Yes it did:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

".....Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

....Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations..."
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:40 PM   #9
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

I don't know...I only posed an "if/then" proposition. But, I'd say that Bush getting caught lying to the people is going to be a little questionable

And really, even if it's "legal," and he lied...what's the difference? It's still immoral.

LOL. When Clinton was impeached, I heard liberals crying about it. And I'd always say "NO. He lied. That's it." I also heard a lot of other conservatives say the same thing.

It's nice to see that morality comes and goes so conveniently.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:44 PM   #10
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

One other thing...about that link.

IN the opening it says "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

I think that's a lie Come on Hogan. If you're only going to interject occasional--only the occasions which serve for you--atleast give us something practical...You're saying that his acts are legal because of his lie?

As I recall WMD was the clincher.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:46 PM   #11
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
I don't know...I only posed an "if/then" proposition. But, I'd say that Bush getting caught lying to the people is going to be a little questionable

And really, even if it's "legal," and he lied...what's the difference? It's still immoral.

LOL. When Clinton was impeached, I heard liberals crying about it. And I'd always say "NO. He lied. That's it." I also heard a lot of other conservatives say the same thing.

It's nice to see that morality comes and goes so conveniently.
Jean -

I guess it comes down to ones opinion on whether Dubya lied or not. Some people say yes, some people say no - I don't want to get into another time wasting argument about that....

But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH, and THAT is againt the law - PERIOD, no matter what the subject matter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:52 PM   #12
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
One other thing...about that link.

IN the opening it says "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

I think that's a lie Come on Hogan. If you're only going to interject occasional--only the occasions which serve for you--atleast give us something practical...You're saying that his acts are legal because of his lie?

As I recall WMD was the clincher.
Sorry - Iraq WAS in non-compliance with all the resolutions. And remember, this res. was adopted by the UN. So then maybe you should pick your battle with the world.

Remember, WMD was a PART of the reason. NOT the whole part. Is war then justified when only part of the whole turns out to be relevant ? That's for historians to decide.

And given the recent developments that our 'allies' only were against this war so they can continue participating in the Oil-ForFood boondoggle, I don't buy any argument that if the 'allies' didn't support it then we were wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:55 PM   #13
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Jean -

1)I guess it comes down to ones opinion on whether Dubya lied or not. Some people say yes, some people say no - I don't want to get into another time wasting argument about that....

2)But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH, and THAT is againt the law - PERIOD, no matter what the subject matter.
1)If reality follows perception, then yes, it depends on what one believes. I, however, believe that perception should be based on reality.

2)Actually, I think Clinton found a potential safe-haven in "depends what the definition of 'is' is." I think Bush is going to do the same thing...technicalities. They both intended to deceive. That makes them both lyers.

Again, it's interesting to see how easy morality goes out the door.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:58 PM   #14
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Sorry - Iraq WAS in non-compliance with all the resolutions. And remember, this res. was adopted by the UN. So then maybe you should pick your battle with the world.

Remember, WMD was a PART of the reason. NOT the whole part. Is war then justified when only part of the whole turns out to be relevant ? That's for historians to decide.

And given the recent developments that our 'allies' only were against this war so they can continue participating in the Oil-ForFood boondoggle, I don't buy any argument that if the 'allies' didn't support it then we were wrong.
I guess it'll come out in the wash. I agree with the earlier posting: there's no need to carry this out.

Bottome line: Bush and Clinton are no different and those who choose a side...well...it's funny how morality goes out the window.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 03:09 PM   #15
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
...2)Actually, I think Clinton found a potential safe-haven in "depends what the definition of 'is' is."...
Oh good god.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 04:41 PM   #16
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Smile Re: so if Bush violated the law...

If there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then they must have gone somewhere else. Saddam Hussein had WMD's in the past; just ask the Kurds about them. We all know that he used to have them. We saw them used on TV during the first gulf war. He used them to gas the Kurds, who were citizens of his own country. Now, quite a few people want to behave as if they never existed.
Even if all of the WMD's had been moved/sold out of Iraq well before our entering Iraq, the only thing Bush is guilty of is making the same educated decision that anyone else would make.
I don't like some of the decisions that W has made. He spends way too much of our tax dollars for my liking. I just don't think that we should start chanting that "Bush lied!" mantra just because what W thought to be true turned out to be false.

If one is not AWARE that what they are saying is false, then they are NOT lying. They're just misinformed. Blame the genius that cut our intelligence funding.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 06:14 PM   #17
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Well James I seem to remember an awful lot of protests at the time saying that Saddam did not have WMD and that the war was unjustified. Well he didn't have WMD, he wasn't involved in 911 and he didn't have mobile chemical weapons labs...in fact everything that we were told has turned out to be a lie. As many people were saying at the time.

And when he gassed the Kurds he was our friend...in fact the West was supporting him then, especially America because he was at war with Iran - America wanted to punish Iran for getting rid of the Shah...remember?

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 08:16 PM   #18
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
Didn't all of the United Nations sanctions that Saddam ignored make it legal for any U.N. member nation to declare war?
Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Yes it did:
No, it didn't. Ignorance is a sad thing.

The Bush Administration's Attacks on the UN

Quote:
Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter specify that UN Security Council resolutions cannot be enforced by military action unless the Security Council as a whole determines that the government in question is in material breach of the resolution, that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of force. This was reiterated in Article 14 of UN Security Council resolution 1441 targeting Iraq, that was introduced by the United States last fall, which states that the Security Council "remains seized of the matter." In other words, only the Security Council as a whole, not any single member state, has the right to determine what happens next.
Individual member-states of the SC cannot unilaterally decide what to do in the event of "material breeches." You bring out the same tired old dirge; and STILL you can't dance to it, no matter how many times you repeat the BushCo mantra's.

In short...NEXT!

Last edited by Neil Mick : 06-28-2005 at 08:28 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 08:19 PM   #19
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
1)If reality follows perception, then yes, it depends on what one believes. I, however, believe that perception should be based on reality.

2)Actually, I think Clinton found a potential safe-haven in "depends what the definition of 'is' is." I think Bush is going to do the same thing...technicalities. They both intended to deceive. That makes them both lyers.

Again, it's interesting to see how easy morality goes out the door.
Clinton lied: no one died. Personally, I think that it makes a lot of difference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 08:27 PM   #20
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
If there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then they must have gone somewhere else. Saddam Hussein had WMD's in the past; just ask the Kurds about them. We all know that he used to have them. We saw them used on TV during the first gulf war. He used them to gas the Kurds, who were citizens of his own country. Now, quite a few people want to behave as if they never existed.
Nooo...you're forgetting something. In '91, he declared that he didn't have them, anymore. In '95 Kamal Hussein, at the time in charge of these programs in Iraq, testified that they were all dismantled in '91.

And, what's the big deal, anyway? Israel surely is in greater violation of more UN protocols than Hussein was.


Quote:
I just don't think that we should start chanting that "Bush lied!" mantra just because what W thought to be true turned out to be false.
The facts revealed in the Downing St Memo indicate otherwise. It was NOT just faulty intel: BushCo massaged the intel to hasten the war, popular opinion bedamned.

Quote:
Blame the genius that cut our intelligence funding.
Personally, I think it goes a lot further than that. BushCO could have had the best intel in the world (waitaminute! he DID!!! ), but he still had plans to attack Iraq, hours after he was selected as the President. Good intel is irrelevent, when you have all of the answers figured out in advance (as does our beloved Mass-Murderer-in-Chief).
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 08:43 PM   #21
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Jean -

I guess it comes down to ones opinion on whether Dubya lied or not. Some people say yes, some people say no - I don't want to get into another time wasting argument about that....
Of course not. Because, you cannot (will not) explain yourself. But, by this logic: I suppose that MLK wasn't really murdered; (it's all opinion), or even, I suppose that it's debatable that we are at "war;" or that when I go to get my paycheck--my boss can debate whether or not I actually worked the last two weeks...

Gosh, pure relativity sure is fun...

Quote:
But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH.
In your opinion...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 10:10 AM   #22
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
No, it didn't. Ignorance is a sad thing.

The Bush Administration's Attacks on the UN



Individual member-states of the SC cannot unilaterally decide what to do in the event of "material breeches." You bring out the same tired old dirge; and STILL you can't dance to it, no matter how many times you repeat the BushCo mantra's.

In short...NEXT!

This same article also says:

"According to the UN Charter, the only other circumstance
in which military force is allowed is under
Article 51, which allows a member state to use force
in the event of "armed attack…until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security." In other words, the
United States cannot make war against Iraq unless
there is a direct attack by Iraq against the United
States and only until the Security Council convenes
and decides what to do about it."

HAHHA !!! Yes, only time a nation can repel an attack is with UN approval....

AHAHAHHA !!! That IS good. Sorry Neil, wake up from your nap and smell the real world:
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 10:15 AM   #23
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Of course not. Because, you cannot (will not) explain yourself. But, by this logic: I suppose that MLK wasn't really murdered; (it's all opinion), or even, I suppose that it's debatable that we are at "war;" or that when I go to get my paycheck--my boss can debate whether or not I actually worked the last two weeks...

Gosh, pure relativity sure is fun...
Please look in the directionary and look up 'lie'. Then look up what everyone was saying back in the early '90's re Uncle Saddamy and his threat, opionions based on the intelligence out there. Everyone was syaing he was a threat, including your cronies Clinton and his liberal ilk. Given your logic, they all lied.

And bases on your napping in aikido class, I wouldn't question your boss withholding your paycheck.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 10:19 AM   #24
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
But what I think EVERYONE can agree on is that Clinton DID lie UNDER OATH.


Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
In your opinion...
Again, read the transcripts and the law. Only people who would say he didn't lie are those napping in their lives...

oh, hey wait a minute....
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 01:02 PM   #25
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Hogan no-one disputes that Saddam was a nasty guy. Saddam being a nasty guy was never part of the equation though.

Saddam was a friend of the US when he gassed the Kurds, so you can see why some people question the motives of Americans when they use this argument.

The US went to war with Iraq SPECIFICALLY because they claimed he was in possession of and developing WMD and was about to attack the US and its interests. End of story.

So the US was basically saying it was acting in self defence, which was a lie. When it turned out that there were no WMD (as everyone including the USA knew) the argument changed to 'bringing freedom to Iraq'.

The US lied about Iraq....losing all sympathy that there was over 911. To spend such capital, the death of thousands, so cheaply is an insult to their memory.

And what of Bin Laden, what of the Saudis, what of the root causes of 911? None of these things have been addressed, the US is more hated and loathed than ever before. Up to its ass in trillions of debt, the economy failing, public services being decimated. And still fighting a war based on lies and costing billions upon billions.

And losing the war, it seems - just to rub salt in the wound.

  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate