BF2S Forums Blaming President Bush for the Iraq War.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Want to know another FACT?  I'll plagiarize this piece from Francis Boyle:

"..right after September 11 President Bush called these attacks an act of terrorism, which they were under the United States domestic law definition at that time. However, there is no generally accepted definition of an act of terrorism under international law[...]. Soon thereafter however and apparently after consultations with Secretary of State Powell, he proceeded to call these an act of war, ratcheting up the rhetoric and the legal and constitutional issues at stake here. They were not an act of war as traditionally defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publically admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion.

But in any event this was not an act of war. Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time, but not an act of war. Normally terrorism is dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement. Indeed there was a treaty directly on point at that time, the Montreal Sabotage Convention to which both the United States and Afghanistan were parties. It has an entire regime to deal with all issues in dispute here, including access to the International Court of Justice to resolve international disputes arising under the Treaty such as the extradition of Bin Laden. The Bush administration completely ignored this treaty, jettisoned it, set it aside, never even mentioned it. They paid no attention to this treaty or any of the other 12 international treaties dealing with acts of terrorism that could have been applied to handle this manner in a peaceful, lawful way."

So getting Congress to give the president his unfettered use and abuse of the us military was not even justified since this was terrorism and not war.  But hey, Bush regarding ANY laws is just not his "shoot from the hip" style, is it.

That's Afghanistan, not Iraq.

I think the Afghanistan war was a good idea, unlike the Iraq war which was a stupid destabilising crusade which has done far more harm than good and was illegal under international law, which the Afghanistan war was not if I remember rightly, they had UN approval for that one.

Well that's the thing, i can site plenty of lawyers (including an ex-DOJ attorney who works in my law firm down the hall who would lovingly produce a detailed illustration of Bush's illegal maneuvers) who can prove it wasn't legal in any way. 

Gonzales is probably the poorest excuse for a lawyer, expecially regarding constitutional law.  But he was Bush's buddy, and chronies are all the rage in the White House...  (meyers, brownie, chertoff, goss, bolton, etc).

tru.dat

ATG wrote:

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I don't get your point.  Are you bringing to light something that is well known to those who understand the constitution (without just wiki'ing it?) that Bush has illegally and unconsitutionally attacked two sovereign nations?

Because it is true.  Congress does not have the right to forfeit their ability to declare war (which forfeiture they did) by giving the president sole descretion to do so (which they illegally did).  Remember the uproar when the San Francisco Mayor decided to just let gays get married at City Hall and the whole country freaked out..and utlimately the CA state attorney general voided those certificates because they were not lawful?  Well the EXACT same lawlessness occured when Bush decided to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.  You simply cannot usurp power from Congress and you cannot invade countries without declaration of war (regardless of doing this in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraqx2, and any other unlawful warfare our country has conducted.  The only real bad part about this president is that he has seriously jacked up our constitution and truly created an empire...which will hopefully end this November.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Quoted for truth.

Are you guys JUST discovering this? IRONCHEF has long been the laughing stock of these forums. For example:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Oh, and I'd love for you to cite some of the "science" that proves evolution.  Then I'd love for you to tackle the truth that scientist are just dumb, slow, vain men and women trying to discover how God created things, seasons, time and space.  They get it now and then, but mostly they are dealing with adversaries beyond their understanding.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Weeee!!!  more attention starved shit from pollux!!  How bout posting something that will get them to really think you're cool like you sitting on colbert's thumb?  woohoo!

Damn you're a lifeless little geek.

You can make blind insults all you want. I have irrefutable proof that you have no clue what you're talking about.

GATOR591957 wrote:

3.The US has used more WMD's than any other nation in the world combined!

I thought this would be an interesting counterpoint.

USA = 2.

Without even searching:
-Ever heard of the gassings during the Holocaust?
-Mustard Gas in WWI
-Kurds
-Russia used it in a peasant uprising

And for irony, since we're talking about Iraq, count how many times it was used by Iraq in the following from Wiki:

Chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq War

Victims of Iraq's poison gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraq. Iraq dropped the poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. Then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran.

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China. The Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 when Iraq attacked Iran. Early in the conflict, Iraq began to employ mustard gas and tabun delivered by bombs dropped from airplanes; approximately 5% of all Iranian casualties are directly attributable to the use of these agents. Iraq and the U.S. government alleged that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but independent sources were unable to confirm these allegations.

About 100,000 Iranian soldiers were victims of Iraq's chemical attacks. Many were hit by mustard gas. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 80,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Iraq also targeted Iranian civilians with chemical weapons. Many thousands were killed in attacks on populations in villages and towns, as well as front-line hospitals. Many still suffer from the severe effects.

Shortly before war ended in 1988, the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja was exposed to multiple chemical agents, killing about 5,000 of the town's 50,000 residents. After the incident, traces of mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX were discovered. While it appears that Iraqi government forces are to blame, some debate continues over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party, and whether this was a deliberate or accidental act. (see Halabja poison gas attack)

There's this too:
Iraq under Saddam Hussein is reported to have tested a radiological weapon in 1987 for use against Iran. This weapon was found to be impractical because the radioactive isotopes in the weapon would decay quickly, rendering it useless within a week after the weapon was manufactured. Furthermore, it was found that for the radioactive material to spread, weather conditions had to be ideal. These problems are in general shared by all forms of air-borne radiological warfare.

That's probably an indication that Iraq wasn't at all interested in WMD development.  They are completely innocent!!!

enemy Bush spotted!

Exactly.  You can't refute shit.  Listing a thread where I debated accurately and honestly against the hoardes of ignorant anti-religious freaks does nothing.  Please tell me the proof that i'm full of shit..that i don't know what i'm talking about.  I'm asking you honestly, as a man to..whatever you are, to show me the errors of my ways.

Kosovo war = bombs, DU, and more bombs.

Oh yeah, there was these two bombs that went off called little boy and big boy.  They should end this debate.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-06 15:19:17)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Exactly.  You can't refute shit.  Listing a thread where I debated accurately and honestly against the hoardes of ignorant anti-religious freaks does nothing.  Please tell me the proof that i'm full of shit..that i don't know what i'm talking about.  I'm asking you honestly, as a man to..whatever you are, to show me the errors of my ways.

Maybe you were drunk that night have no memory of posting in that thread? All you have to do is read your own writing. Stop whining. Stop your childish name-calling. Just read what you've posted. That said, I don't think anyone will expect you to have a sudden epiphany that will bring you to your senses. However, what is evident here is that I am supplying the proof while you continue to make blind insults in a poor attempt of self-defense. This is a debate forum. Part of debating effectively is maintaining credibility. Many of your posts are so outrageous that we can only assume that this is just a gimmick account. If you disagree with any of my aforementioned statements, simply look through your own post history.

How then are you debating by throwing up a quote I made which, in reality, does little to make a point..in any of the unrelated threads you've posted?  Further, how am i the one void of credibility when you've not once made a real argument against anything I've said?  And I'm the childish one doing the name calling?  I'm the one making ourtageous posts?  At least I'm making them and making substance.  Have you once even read my posts outside of that thread to see my contribution?  Having you seen the debate I've made over the weeks here?  no.  You've got this religious topic up your ass and you can't seem to move on.  You've got a serious problem with me because of my religious comments as I was heavily outnumbered in a thread where I made the only relevant religious posts in it because everyone else is afraid or just doesn't know such things.  Just because you can't fathom religious things, you make fun of them and call the people making them crazy.  How does that equate to credibility?

You know, you have shown your wit here and there, but largely, you have proven to be an unreliable source for good debate on this forum.  At least ATG has a purpose when he spews his shit...you?  You just do random shit that makes no sense.  So I'll let you get your last word in because I don't need the attention.  I know you need the attention and can use it more. 

But if you want to actually debate, PM me your single questions, and we'll go back and forth from there.  But I suspect you have no capacity to do such.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Exactly.  You can't refute shit.  Listing a thread where I debated accurately and honestly against the hoardes of ignorant anti-religious freaks does nothing.  Please tell me the proof that i'm full of shit..that i don't know what i'm talking about.  I'm asking you honestly, as a man to..whatever you are, to show me the errors of my ways.

Maybe you were drunk that night have no memory of posting in that thread? All you have to do is read your own writing. Stop whining. Stop your childish name-calling. Just read what you've posted. That said, I don't think anyone will expect you to have a sudden epiphany that will bring you to your senses. However, what is evident here is that I am supplying the proof while you continue to make blind insults in a poor attempt of self-defense. This is a debate forum. Part of debating effectively is maintaining credibility. Many of your posts are so outrageous that we can only assume that this is just a gimmick account. If you disagree with any of my aforementioned statements, simply look through your own post history.

How then are you debating by throwing up a quote I made which, in reality, does little to make a point..in any of the unrelated threads you've posted?  Further, how am i the one void of credibility when you've not once made a real argument against anything I've said?  And I'm the childish one doing the name calling?  I'm the one making ourtageous posts?  At least I'm making them and making substance.  Have you once even read my posts outside of that thread to see my contribution?  Having you seen the debate I've made over the weeks here?  no.  You've got this religious topic up your ass and you can't seem to move on.  You've got a serious problem with me because of my religious comments as I was heavily outnumbered in a thread where I made the only relevant religious posts in it because everyone else is afraid or just doesn't know such things.  Just because you can't fathom religious things, you make fun of them and call the people making them crazy.  How does that equate to credibility?

You know, you have shown your wit here and there, but largely, you have proven to be an unreliable source for good debate on this forum.  At least ATG has a purpose when he spews his shit...you?  You just do random shit that makes no sense.  So I'll let you get your last word in because I don't need the attention.  I know you need the attention and can use it more. 

But if you want to actually debate, PM me your single questions, and we'll go back and forth from there.  But I suspect you have no capacity to do such.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Oh yeah, there was these two bombs that went off called little boy and big boy.

Again, the key word here is "credibility". And don't expect me to read any post of yours over a single paragraph in length. The last time I did I got nothing but a bunch of biblical scripture and other religious babble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credibility

And don't think for a minute that anyone here agrees with you. I'm actually banking tons of karma at your expense:

LOL, Thank from the tippy-tip of my funny-bone! That has some priceless IRONCHEF quotables in that thread! - topal63. P.S. To fucking funny!

When you finally reveal that this is just some alternate trolling account you use, remember that I picked up on it first.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-10-06 15:37:37)

pollux, as usual, you proved my point.  you have NOTHING on me.  you are such a fucking coward, you can't even debate with me?  it's a message board.  i'll never meet you.  nobody will know how bad you feel when your ass is owned here because you can jsut go away for a few days.  just humor me and point out a single point where i'm full of shit.  i asked you once sincerely already, but you keep being a pussy and changing the subject, shifting context, or making up shit.

oh, this is a karma i got on this thread....though it's not about you, sorry.
Hooray! Someone who uses intelligence! Keep up the e-Battering on them fools ATG & Kmarion pls. Much obliged. m3thod