Monday, June 11, 2007

News from Al-Mosul website News Desk


Another professional assassinated in Mosul and the toll of death rises in Nineveh.

Monday 11 June 2007

12:45

A body of an American soldier was found slaughtered in Mosul.

According to eyewitnesses the body of an US soldier was seen slaughtered today Monday 10/6/2007 near Mosul Al-Jadeeda district near to Abou A-Yassi roundabout (circle) west of Mosul. US forces imposed a seal on the area blocking all roads leading to the scene.

09:38

Car bomb at Tel Kaif Garage

A car bomb went off this morning 10/6/2006 inside Tel Kaif Garage, Mosul. Large number of civilians were killed and wounded.


08:55

Assassination of Mr Khairuldeen Sabri, Manager of Al-Mosul Branch of the Central Bank of Iraq in Mosul.

The manager of the Central Bank branch in Mosul, Mr Khairuldeen Sabri, was assassinated this morning with two of his aids in front of his residence which is situated in Al-Hadbaa' district in Mosul.


08:48

Katyusha rocket

A Katyusha rocker fell on a house in Bab Al-Saraei region in Tellaafer. A man and his wife were killed and 5 more were injured.

An explosive device in Tellaafer

An explosive device went off on a police patrol in the Al-Ayadhiya region neat Tellaafer wounding 2 policemen.

Two civilians murdered in Mosul on the night of 9/6/2007

Two civilians killed last night (Sunday 9/6/2007) in Al-Quds district, left bank of Mosul by unknown gunmen.

For the latest news from Mosul, Iraq click


http://www.almosul.org/000_Mosul_Observer.htm


AL-Mosul website News Desk

Courtesy of Iraqiyoun News Agency, Mosul



This and the previous two posts are just a simple example about the current situation in Mosul.

Mosul is a very safe city in comparison to Baghdad.

Baghdad is living it's worst days since the invasion of Holako.

Baghdad is a smashed city, the title of an email sent to Dahir Jamail from one of his friend after visiting Baghdad. He describe the situation in better English than mine.


"Baghdad is a smashed city..."

Below is an email I have just received from my close friend and translator Abu Talat. While he has fled Baghdad with his family and is now a refugee in Syria, he recently had to return to Baghdad in order to try to salvage what is left of his former life (his car, belongings from his house, etc.) before returning back to Syria. His note is instructive as to the current living conditions in the capital city of Iraq. Here is the full text of his message:

"Habibi…

Baghdad is a SMASHED city…no roads to drive on…most of them are closed off by concrete obstacles with concertina wire. In addition, the presence of the Iraqi military, who cover their faces with black masks and hold their guns in such a way that when you see them you will definitely be afraid that they will shoot you.

The shops in most of the area I went to see are closed. I asked one of the shop owners I know, 55-year-old Abu Fadhil, since I heard that his shop was robbed. I found his door closed and locked and he was nowhere to be found.

Later, on my way to Sadr City, I found that two of the three roads which lead all the way from south to north Baghdad are either partially or totally closed in some places. You still remember the highways in Baghdad…well now most of them are closed, or at least fenced off with obstacles, yet they say there is some progress in the security situation inside the city! Everyday two or three cars explode across Baghdad, killing big numbers of civilians.

When I returned to my neighborhood of al-Adhamiya, I couldn’t get in unless the soldiers checked my ID and my car, even though the guards are from the same neighborhood and they know me personally. But they had to check it to ensure that no car bombs might happen. Nevertheless, daily mortars shell my neighborhood and those are out of control, despite this concrete wall placed by the Americans which now surrounds our neighborhood. Despite all that they do, they cannot bring security to our small neighborhood.

Needless to say, Baghdad has been changed into THE CITY OF GARBAGE. You can find it everywhere. You can smell the stench of dead bodies wherever you go.

Talking of electricity, there is now only one hour daily. That’s it. From where we’re staying in the city center, in Bab al-Muadham, I can see from the balcony that people sleep nearly naked on their rooftops because it is so hot and there is no electricity to run fans or air conditioners. Thank God that there are two large generators that maintain electricity in our building.

Everyday by 2-3 pm the buildings where we are staying are closed so that noone can leave or enter. That way it is kept secure, and this is how it remains until the next morning.

As far as my family life in this condition, we are as though we are in jail from 2-3 pm until the second morning where the doors are opened at 7 am.

My son goes to the hospital to work, but for the last two days he finds it without any running water. [His son works in Baghdad Medical City, the largest hospital in Iraq] For the last 2 weeks, as he told me, the hospital has been without any air conditioning and almost without patients, although it’s the biggest hospital in Iraq.

My sons wife, who is also a doctor, has to go to another hospital just to try to assist since there is a drastic lack of Gynecologists. She stays in her hospital for three days continuously before my son picks her up with his car on the fourth day to bring her home, in order to insure her safety so she doesn’t have to take a bus or taxi.

As for my daughter, she has not passed out the doorway of this apartment where we are staying for the last week except for one time for some work she had to accomplish.

My wife left here only once, when she went to her job (which she has been on leave from since we left to Syria) in order to apply for a full year vacation. Thank God she got it.

As for me, I found my car ruined, so I had to repair it. For that I called the mechanic to come to my home and repair it, since I couldn’t take the car to him since all the mechanics shops are closed and there is no place to have a car repaired. All of those shops are totally closed.

When I saw the mechanic he said, “We cannot live anymore, and there is no job we can find.”

Dahr, this short letter gives you just a glance of the current situation in Baghdad. With the next letter I will tell you some more."

What you feel about this?, is it the price of liberty?, of democracy? or the price of the imported freedom?



55 comments:

madtom said...

"What you feel about this?, is it the price of liberty?, of democracy? or the price of the imported freedom?"

TT this is the war! The War against those that would take away any chance that the Iraqi people can govern themselves. You said it yourself in the other thread. The lucky few that are part of the ruling class and those close to the tyrant get everything. The rest only get what you called a safe and normal life, as long as they know their place, and look down to the feet of the luck when spoken too. So now everyone wants to be top dog.

And we all know who is bombing bridges and killing civilians and closing streets. The terrorist.

Truth teller said...

"And we all know who is bombing bridges and killing civilians and closing streets. The terrorist."

Yes they are the terrorist! But who are the terrorist? that is the question.

In Mosul, in all the neighborhoods and districts, the police and the national guards closed all the roads leading to that regions but left only one. and in the only opened road there are many check points. Most of the times two or three or even more of the five bridges in Mosul are closed by the police!!
Theoretically, it is impossible for any terrorist to get in or out from these regions, in spite of that there are always explosions and bombed cars!!
Getting in consideration that these explosions are most of the time against civilians or they harm no body else, this draw our attention to the possibility of who is the terrorists.

"TT this is the war! The War against those that would take away any chance that the Iraqi people can govern themselves."

Yes it is the war, it is the war against any chance that the Iraqi people can govern themselves!!

madtom said...

"But who are the terrorist? that is the question."

The fact that there is rampant corruption, and the police and guard is not in question. I will grant you that there are terrorist working from within those organization.
But I will not allow that "all the roads are closed but one" in a city of 2.5 million people. There are many byways and allies open for business. And if the people there allow armed militia to move unmolested past their homes, then they are acting as terrorist too.

Just look at what happened today, the Shi'a bombed their own mosque so that they could blame it on someone else and stir up sectarian violence to use a cover for their forthcoming military actions.

Do you really think the US was behind that, or was it Iran and her allies in Iraq?

And in Mosul how many faction are fighting for power.
The Kurds, the Turks, and the Sunni Arabs.

How do you get them all to use the same road?

Truth teller said...

The fact that there is corruption working from within the police and the guard is not in question, and it is expected, but the silence from the side of the Americans when these corrupted units did their terroristic attacks against the civilians raises a big question mark!!.

The American as an occupier are responsible for the safety of the civilians, and when they make them selves as they watching an action movies, this raises another big question, that they are either agree about what happening or they're part of the game.

BTW, I meant in every neighborhood there is one road opened, not one road in the whole city.
"Do you really think the US was behind that, or was it Iran and her allies in Iraq?"
No I don't thing the US was behind it. But I am sure Iran was, with it's allies in Iraq including the Maliky government.
The US knew the fact but keep silent!!

Madtom, can you tell me frankly, did you believe that the resistance is a terroristic act, or you consider it like that because it is against the American?
If it was against the Russian for example, it sound to you OK?

B Will Derd said...

"The fact that there is corruption working from within the police and the guard is not in question, and it is expected, but the silence from the side of the Americans when these corrupted units did their terroristic attacks against the civilians raises a big question mark!!."

I know this was not directed at me, TT, but your hypocrisy and avoidance of reponsibility is impossible to ignore, as usual. You LIVE in that sorry excuse for a nation and have your whole life. You want us to take full responsibility for your fate, you demand we leave, you do NOTHING but bitch as far as your blog reveals. Where were you when YOUR government was nothing more than a group of corrupt and vicious murdering thugs? Blaming the US most likely.

You have vital skills as a professional, English speaker, you have computer skills. Now you have a chance to work within a democratic framework and you have a government selected by your fellow Iraqis. It looks like many of them are more of the same corrupt and vicious murdering thugs. How about your own representative? Have you approached them about your concerns? Do you belong to a political organization or do you just support the 'resistance' When will you direct your efforts into organizing some of these peace loving, educated, tolerant Iraqis we keep hearing are doing all the suffering and that we are supposed to be feeling so sorry for? Do they really exist or have they all caught the train out of there? Do they exist in any significant numbers but just hide and wait to see whose ass to kiss when it is all over? You want change? Make it happen! The US has far too few Iraqi allies whose intentions are for a free and united Iraq. If the only groups willing to step up and take control are the type we see moving events in Iraq today as in the past while you sit back and watch, then live with it and quit whining.

Your question comparing actions against the Coalition vs Russian occupation (such as in Afghanistan in the 80's I assume) is without merit. The Russsians did not seek to remove a tyrant who had invaded an ally of theirs, who had engaged in acts of war against Russia, who refused to obey the terms of surrender he agrred to, who refused to obey the terms of UN resolutions regarding WMD. Russsia invaded a neighbor and committed atrocities to install a friendly tyrant. They did not fight and die to give Afghanis freedom of speech, they did not fight and die so Afghanis could organize and form a governemt through nationwide elections. They did not fight and die to try to give the Afghani Communist dictatorship a chance to provide services and security insuring the rights of the Afghani people. There are too many comparisons to show how ludicrous your question is, but that is a start.

Do you see the difference? Your 'resistance' has no desire to secure the rights of anyone but themselves and they seek to dominate Iraqis through terror, just as you have grown to love and yearn for its return, apparently.

madtom said...

What Will said.

I know all about the Russians, just look how they helped Cuba. Now compare that to anywhere the US has gone in. Even places like Nicaragua.

Tell me TT where do you think the people have it better, Nicaragua or Cuba, today?
Mind you Cuba was the first, and most advanced of the third world countries of the Americas in 1959, and Nicaragua was, an might still be, a back water.

madtom said...

"The villagers are bitter about the whole thing, but they keep murmering idiotic fatalist remarks such as "It was Allah's will", "It was his fate", and "Sad but what can we do about it?".
IBC

Nothing has changed.

Truth teller said...

B wil derd

How funny your comment!!
I don't know, are you so ignorant or just pretended to be so?

• The tyrant you mention invaded Kuwait in 1991, the US invasion was in 2003. a very long period to be taken as an excuse for overseas war.

• The tyrant you mention had not engaged in acts of war against US, but on the contrary, the US air force attacked the understructure of Iraq several times for a silly excuse. We all knew the real cause, but you seems to be don't know.

• You still believe the big lie of the WMD? Most of the US citizens know for sure that this was a lie fabricated and designed by the CIA.
Don't say that those few idiot Iraqis who came with the US tanks misleaded you.

• US invaded a far away country and committed atrocities to install a friendly tyrants, not just one.

• Freedom of speech!!, is that what US give us. Did you know if an Iraqi look to an US soldiers a hated look, they kill him first and then ask why he looked at them like that.Sorry this is a speechless freedom!!

• Organize and form a nationwide election? Regardless of the frauds, and the cheating in the results of the election? We don't forget yet what happened in that election. The independent elected government, still after 4+ year, need the presence of the US to protect it from the people who elected it !!

• The services and security!!, a very attractive words, but what services you provide for Iraq after 4+ years?, where is the security you provide? Where are the right of Iraqi people.

• I am not whining to make you help us or to feel sorry, I just want others, mainly neutral people to know the fact of the US invasion and not to believe the lies of US government, and not to believe that they are really came to free and impose democracy to Iraqi people.

madtom said...

"The tyrant you mention invaded Kuwait in 1991, the US invasion was in 2003."

You know well that the war never really ended.

"The tyrant you mention had not engaged in acts of war against US"

He did do so, he not only managed to "engage" US war planes, but also used them as a tool to destroy his enemies in Iraq.
Were you in agreement every time the tyrant placed anti aircraft radars next to Iraq schools, or the homes of his enemies in the south?
How long should we have played the game on the tyrats terms?

"You still believe the big lie of the WMD? "

No one here believed that TT. That was all about internal patrician politics. It was more about blaming Clinton for not doing enough, than about WMD. Enough of the American people understood that at the time, that once the curtains were pulled back no one has tried to impeach Bush for it.

"US invaded a far away country and committed atrocities to install a friendly tyrants, not just one.

Evidence??

"Freedom of speech!!, is that what US give us"

No, what the US has given you is a chance to fight for your freedom. Try and remember this is still the war, not the democracy that Iraqis have a chance to achieve if they win the war.

"Organize and form a nationwide election? "

Iraqis committed the fraud, not the US. You yourself committed fraud in the election, and you stood right there and watched your neighbors also commit fraud. You did not see any US soldiers committing election fraud, you saw Iraqis doing it.

But you the idea is not that you had an election, the idea is that you continue to organize election. If the last one was fraud, you we all know it was, it's up to you to organize the next election with less fraud. And hopefully you wont commit any election fraud in the future, and work hard to convince your neighbors not to either.

We cant do that for your. No one can do it for you.

B Will Derd said...

Just to give you the satisfaction of knowing I read what you wrote, TT, because at least I am not ignorant enough to think I could ever persuade someone so filled with the Arab mindset that has made the region what it has been for centuries and is today, speaking of ignorant:

>From the time of the Gulf war until 2003, Iraq did not abide by the terms of surrender or the demands of the UN. Were we supposed to just give up and go home and wait for your daddy Saddam to acquire the means to achieve his goals next time? Is your complaint that we gave Iraq 11 years to get rid of Saddam on their own before taking decisive action? You failed or didn't even try, now you are suffering the consequences. I have always thought we failed to convince enough Iraqis that they have been defeated and need to reconsider their methods and thinking. You haven't given me any reason to think otherwise. You still want to fight, but for what other than more of the same servile existence you have known your whole life?

>Iraq did fire on US planes and made statements indicating intentions to wage war on the US and our interests on many occaisions, and did support terrorism.

>The Big Lie of the WMD? Yes, I believe Iraq had WMD, and at least retained the capabilty and the intention to create as many WMD as possible as soon as the inspections stopped and they could do so without fear of having them blown up. That is a proven point beyond any reasonable question. Do you think Saddam would do any less with Iran in a race to acquire WMD themselves? Whether they existed in appreciable numbers immediately before the invasion is a valid question, but a moot point. The CIA lacked the competence to convince every intelligence agency in the world that Saddam had some WMD. And, as I said already, he certainly had the means and intent to reconstitute them, so it made no real differnce except that he was unable to use them against our troops.

>The US certainly did not impose any tyrants on Iraq. That may very well prove to have been a mistake not to do so. Allawi possibly would be running the place today if the US had imposed a leader on Iraq, and he would probably make a better tyrant than Iraq has ever had to date. We thought Iraqis could chose wisely and that hasn't worked out so well. The Palestinians seem to be just as foolish as Iraqis, by the way. Let Arabs choose and they will choose to join the rest world and get out of the 12th century. They want peace. Wrong, so far, but you gotta start somewhere. We can't coexist with people who find archaic beliefs and methods like 'jihad' and suicide bombers admirable in the age of WMD technology. Either the Islamist's change, are destroyed from within by the less ignorant among them, or we will do it for you. Right now we are in an era of politically correct, relatively gentle persuasion that won't last forever. I don't think we will surrender to the slavery to totalitarianism mindset that you seem to enjoy so much. Even Europe is showing signs they are awakening to the threat of Islamism which is very near to them.

>Freedom of speech? Can you direct me to the archives of all the Iraqi bloggers prior to the US invasion? Were they too busy shopping for the lastest cell phones to blog during Saddam's reign? Yes, I know. The bloodthirsty murdering, raping American soldier thing, again.


>Election fraud? Can you direct me to the proof of that overall election changing fraud beyond the fact that your choices lost? Do you really think that a perfect election was possible under the circumstances in Iraq coming out of such a brutal police state collapsing catastophically? It went amazingly well, I thought, though the choices of the Iraqi people left much to be desired. When competence was in great demand, Iraqis chose sectarian ideology. Not our fault. Do you really thin that governemnt is the one America would have chosen?

>Services and security? The way you praise the 'resistance', you should rejoice that there is a shortage of those things. That is their goal, to destroy services and securtiy and hide among women and children while they do it. Make up your mind which one you want. It must be nice to feel so powerless and put upon that your goal in life is to bitch, no matter what. I really think that is what you resent the most: being presented the responsibilty for what is going on and the opportunity to influence the future of your county. The Americans go and you need only wait for the best terrorist to present his backside for you to kiss. Easy for some, but those who would not, deserve a fighting chance, no matter how small the number.

>Yes, I know what your intent is, TT. You want everyone to abandon all reason and beleive that the US came to conquer and pillage Iraq, perhaps on behalf of the Zionists. Sort of like how Iraqis are victimized, peace loving, educated people. You must think that your Baathist wannabe Nazi friends will protect you from the likely Iranian dominated regime that will clamp down with a vengance should we leave. But anyone willing to think can see by now that if pillaging had been the intent, it would have been relatively easily accomplished. We could have left you all to die in the desert while we pumped the oil you are incapable of producing on your own, but we haven't done that. We are not Arabs. We have sacrifice billions upon billions and thousands of lives to do it the hard way and give Iraqis th opportunity to have what they like to tell themselves they want and deserve. Iraqis are accustomed to being dealt with as petulant children and we have tried to treat them as capable adults who want what all decent modern humans should want. Mistake? Maybe, but overall, an honorable one.

madtom said...

Those dammed Kurds

waldschrat said...

TT, I keep silent in these arguments as a rule, but tonight I am a bit bored and will break that rule to give you a little mental exercise. You said "The American as an occupier are responsible for the safety of the civilians". That seemed implausible and certainly impractical to me since the Americans are totally outnumbered and the criminals of Iraq are adept at hiding. Further, no government, whether imposed from without or within, is capable of so totally protecting it's citizens that there is no crime at all.

Perhaps a government or "occupier" could give every civilian a gun and tell them to guard themseles and their neighbors, but in Iraq it seems likely Iraqis would race against one another to see who could first slaughter their neighbors and then themselves, leaving a note explaining that the result was the fault of the Americans.

I suggest that rather than claiming that an "occupier" has a responsibility to guarantee safety of civilians it is closer to the truth to say this: It is the responsibility of every person to keep the peace.

I realize you may be embarassed for the behavior of your fellow citizens, but please do not blame your helpful American liberators.

Bruno said...

Truthteller, I see that you have suffered an unfortunate infestation of war-parasites in response to your post of the truth on your blog. Yes, they, who have never been to Iraq, presume to inform you about the true situation, down to what roads are and are not closed. Well, let me see if some of them cannot be fumigated …


[will b derd] “You want us to take full responsibility for your fate, you demand we leave, you do NOTHING but bitch as far as your blog reveals.”

Well, what do you expect? Do you expect applause for raping and pillaging your way through Iraq, a country that never did you any harm? Do you expect sweets and flowers for your naked aggression and brutality? Seriously. What do you want TT to do? You should thank your lucky stars that he confines his protests to mere words and not bullets, as so many of his countrymen have done.

[willbderd] “Where were you when YOUR government was nothing more than a group of corrupt and vicious murdering thugs?”

Trying to make a living like all the other Iraqis, and trying to support his wife and daughters. I suppose that’s evil, in your book.

[willbderd] “When will you direct your efforts into organizing some of these peace loving, educated, tolerant Iraqis we keep hearing are doing all the suffering and that we are supposed to be feeling so sorry for?”

That’s true, there are in fact educated, peaceloving Iraqis that try to organise themselves. For example, we could examine the case of the Iraqi Journalists Federation, which had its HQ trashed and ransacked by US troops. Why? Because they insisted on reporting the TRUTH, and not some US-filtered version of events. Or, we could take the US raids on the General Federation of Iraqi Workers union HQ’a in February as another example of forcible attacks on peaceful organisations.

Fact of the matter is, you chaps don’t give peace-loving Iraqis much of a chance, do you?

Bruno said...

[willbderd] “Your question comparing actions against the Coalition vs Russian occupation (such as in Afghanistan in the 80's I assume) is without merit.”

That being your opinion, of course.

[willbderd] “Russsia invaded a neighbor and committed atrocities to install a friendly tyrant.”

That’s not true. The bloody Afghan politics had managed to spew forth a decidedly pro-USSR government, and this government asked the Soviets in. I don’t agree with the Soviet occupation, but there is a far greater legal basis for the USSR intervention in Afghanistan than the US in Iraq.

In Iraq, however, we have an illegal invasion on the basis of lies. Worse, Amreekans like yourself like to pretend it was in favour of free speech and democracy, where in fact US troops crush Iraqi free speech and Iraqi unions by force. The difference between American rhetoric (for example, rebuilding) contrasts markedly with the reality, which is that your “rebuilding” has left Iraqis worse off than they were under sanctions, even. The only people to have profited are the profiteers. Billions of Iraqi dollars have gone to these companies, and the return has been meagre to say the least.

[willbderd] “Your 'resistance' has no desire to secure the rights of anyone but themselves and they seek to dominate Iraqis through terror”

Yeah, you know, that’s really odd, because after four years of getting blown up, the Americans are seeking to ARM SOME OF THESE SELFSAME RESISTANCE GROUPS against Al Qaeda, you nitwit. Of course, that doesn’t obscure the fact that the greatest use of terror and torture is that perpetrated by the US, which has a very dim view of anybody trying to stand up for their country and people, and will impose its will through violence wherever it can.

[willbderd] “Is your complaint that we gave Iraq 11 years to get rid of Saddam on their own before taking decisive action?”

“You”, being the USA, didn’t have ANY right to take “decisive action” at all. That is the prerogative of the UN. Yes, that means the UNITED NATIONS. A country can’t simply decide to gallop off half arsed into the desert randomly enforcing UN decisions as it sees fit. (What if Pakistan decided to invade Israel on the basis of the long list of UN resolutions against that country, for example?)

[willbderd] “Iraqis are accustomed to being dealt with as petulant children and we have tried to treat them as capable adults who want what all decent modern humans should want.”

No, that’s exactly your mistake. You treat the Iraqis exactly as second grade petulant children, and you expect them to love you for it. What abysmal parallel dimension do you pop out of? Truth Teller is a doctor, yet you speak to him as if he is some punk teenager on the street. How do you THINK Iraqis will react? Three and a half thousand coffins later, it seems you still have not learned.

Bruno said...

[TT] "The tyrant you mention invaded Kuwait in 1991, the US invasion was in 2003."
[madtom] “You know well that the war never really ended.”

Really? Madtom, perhaps YOU in your great knowledge, can tell me where THIS comes from:

“33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait [ea] in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);”

BTW, Iraq was fully, legally entitled to defend its sovereignty by engaging US warplanes violating its airspace after 1991. If you think that this is not the case, you need to provide legislation from the UN that authorised these overflights.

Truth teller said...

waldshcrat

"I realize you may be embarassed for the behavior of your fellow citizens, but please do not blame your helpful American liberators."
I as an Iraqi is very proud for the behavior of the resistance against the occupations. Yes there are some murderers and thugs who take the advantages of the US presence and the absence of law, and did some unacceptable things. But compared to the crimes committed by the occupation forces ant their allies, it means nothing.

Truth teller said...

Bruno

Thank you very much, you always say what I failed to say.

Bruno said...

Shukran for your words Truth Teller.

It annoys me greatly that certain arrogant and ignorant people see fit to reveal to Iraqis the wonders of civilisation, as if your people have only just come in from the desert as opposed to have been civilised before their country and people was even a thought.

It furthermore irks me that they presume the right to interfere with the affairs of other countries and that we citizens of the rest of the world should just bow down to the wishes of 5% of the world that is American.

Isn't it ironic that they like to talk about 'democracy' all the time, but are opposed to the nearest thing to a world democracy, the UN, unless it suits them?

Hypocrisy has always annoyed me.

Thank you for your posts, Truthteller, and I hope that you and your family are shielded from harm in these awful times.

madtom said...

BTW, Iraq was fully, legally entitled to defend its sovereignty by engaging US warplanes violating its airspace after 1991. If you think that this is not the case, you need to provide legislation from the UN that authorised these overflights.

Bruno no one here denies Iraqis right to defend it territory. The US also has rights, to defend our allies.

Iraq also had choices, it could have come to the table and made a deal, it could have complied with the UN and sued for peace. But Iraq made another choice. It chose to target and fire on US aircraft. An act of war.
It chose to prolong the conflict and put Iraq on the path to where it finds itself today.

No one has argued that Iraq did not have the right to fire on the US, only that those action had consequence.

You know all this, your just trying your best to build straw castles in the sky

Bruno said...

[madtom] “Iraq also had choices, it could have come to the table and made a deal”

What on earth are you talking about? A deal about what? The “deal” was already MADE, in the form of UN Resolution 687. I EVEN quoted it to you, in the hopes of addressing your lamentable ignorance, but evidently my attempt passed through your ears like water through sand.

[madtom] “it could have complied with the UN and sued for peace.

Yes, and Resolution 687 is precisely the ceasefire agreement. You evidently have a problem in understanding this.

[madtom] “But Iraq made another choice. It chose to target and fire on US aircraft.”

That is NOT “another” choice. That is precisely allowed for by the terms of the UN Charter and Resolution 687. Iraq was a SOVEREIGN STATE, entitled to defend its airspace.

[madtom] “An act of war.”

Rubbish.

Are you telling me that if Russian aircraft flew over the US and threatened to shoot down American aircraft and bombed American defence installations, and the US fired back … the US would be the aggressor?

That’s ridiculous, yet that is precisely what you are arguing here.

Simply. The US actions were ILLEGAL and immoral. It shows that the US commitment to Res 687 was a LIE. That’s precisely why I said:

BTW, Iraq was fully, legally entitled to defend its sovereignty by engaging US warplanes violating its airspace after 1991. If you think that this is not the case, you need to provide legislation from the UN that authorised these overflights.

And as I expected you were UNABLE to refer me to any such authorisation by the UN, because, in fact, NONE EXISTS.

B Will Derd said...

Bruno---- where is the UN resolution declaring the US to be in violation of international law when in the middle of the Overwatch missions? (missions which saved the lives of untold thousands of rebellious Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north from the mass murdering Baathists who are now leading TT's heroic Resistance) If you put so much stock in the joke that is the UN, then you must have something to back up your argument that the US was in violation with regard to Iraq at any time, unless NONE EXISTS? So drop the whole inane argument that matters not.

Dismissal of the UN does not indicate a lack of confidence in democracy. The majority of its members represent dictators, theocracies, thugocracies and are antagonistic to the US to which the majority of their subjects would flee if given half a chance.

Iraq is much more democratic than a majority of the UN member states, so why don't you respect their wishes that the US remain in their country? Talk of hypocrisy....

madtom said...

Bruno your flights of fancy are unnecessary, so are your hypothetical about Russian aircraft. We have plain facts with which to argue this. saddam's regime invaded Kuwait. saddams regime is and was the aggressor from the beginning, they were the ones that declared Kuwait a runaway province. There is no need to fantasies about Russian aircraft.

"What on earth are you talking about? A deal about what? "

Are you blind, a deal, or a promise to abide by 687.1.
Where we just supposed to take his word?

The Saudis did not believe he would comply so they gave us an airbase, they trussed saddam so much that they allowed infidels on holy land, that is how much they trusted saddam. I guess you loved and trusted saddam, and can't understand why it is that no one else did.

I do not have the problem understanding ceasefire agreements, it's you that seem not able to believe that saddam's regime did not ceasefire.

Your assertions that saddam did not have a choice is your opinion, one that is not shared by many people.

"Iraq was a SOVEREIGN STATE, entitled to defend its airspace."

You seem to have trouble reading, I have already granted you Iraqis sovereignty. That has nothing to do with this debate. Iraqis sanctions and restrictions of airspace come directly from it's aggressive stance with it's neighbors, where he had no sovereignty, nor right to invade. Had saddam come to the table and made a deal in 94-98 he would still be sipping tea in his palace tonight.

Bruno as always you run circles around the issues and try your best to obfuscate the facts

Bruno said...

[bruno] "What on earth are you talking about? A deal about what? "
[madtom] “Are you blind, a deal, or a promise to abide by 687.1.”

Madtom, Res 687 IS A PROMISE to do certain things. You’re inventing excuses now, excuses that have no legal basis whatsoever in order to justify American aggression. It’s like Saddam sending his troops back into Kuwait to make sure the Kuwaitis were abiding by their promises!

[madtom] “it's you that seem not able to believe that saddam's regime did not ceasefire.”

(1) You need to base your assertion with proof.
(2) If Iraq did breach Res 687, then it was up to the UN, NOT AMERICA, to decide on a course of action.

[madtom] “You seem to have trouble reading, I have already granted you Iraqis sovereignty.”

It doesn’t look like you understand the meaning of the word.

[madtom] “That has nothing to do with this debate.”

It has everything to do with this debate.

[madtom] “Iraqis sanctions and restrictions of airspace come directly from it's aggressive stance with it's neighbors, where he had no sovereignty, nor right to invade.”

Frankly I’m wasting my time with you.

You DO NOT have any clue about the actual issues at hand, NOT are you able to back your assertions up with fact. The sanctions on Iraq relate directly to UN attempts to control Iraq’s access to NBC weaponry, they have NOTHING to do with “aggressive stances” or any other such madtom inventions.

I already asked you to provide the relevant UN legislation restricting Iraqi airspace, which you seem to imagine exists, and you failed spectacularly at that.

Res 687 explicitly put an END to the right of the 1991 coalition countries to be in Iraq.

Somehow, you just don’t get it.

[madtom] “Had saddam come to the table and made a deal in 94-98 he would still be sipping tea in his palace tonight.”

That’s more absolute bullshit. The US explicitly said he had to go and that it would do everything in its power to remove him. What sort of fools do you take us for?

I’m beginning to understand WHY America somehow manages to justify the biggest lies and outrages to its public, and fine specimens like Madtom are the answer. Yes, I believe his sort must be rather common over there.

Bruno said...

[willbderd] “Bruno---- where is the UN resolution declaring the US to be in violation of international law when in the middle of the Overwatch missions?”

The US holds a veto in the UNSC. It’s highly unlikely it will vote against itself.

The law does, however, have a position on the matter. That’s the basis for international relations today. I quote to you:

Charter of the United Nations:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

“2.3 All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

2.4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” //end


Yes, believe it or not, the US is itself bound by the UN Charter, and Res 687 which it endorsed. And yes, believe it or not, actions contravening the UN Charter and Resolutions are de facto illegal unless specifically authorised.

[willbderd] “missions which saved the lives of untold thousands of rebellious Shiites in the south and Kurds”

Good thing that the US waited until the rebellions were well and truly crushed, before so generously contravening international law and applying its writ to Iraq, isn’t it? For US foreign policy, I mean.

[willbderd] “The majority of its members represent dictators, theocracies, thugocracies and are antagonistic to the US to which the majority of their subjects would flee if given half a chance.”

The US is quite free to withdraw from the UN if it so wishes. Interesting, however, that America USES the UN when it is convenient, and dismisses it as a useless institution when it is not. You mentioned hypocrisy?

[willbderd] “Iraq is much more democratic than a majority of the UN member states, so why don't you respect their wishes that the US remain in their country? Talk of hypocrisy....”

Whose wishes? Maliki’s? Certainly not the Iraqi people’s.

I refer to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf

US and UK occupation forces

Great deal of confidence 6
Quite a lot of confidence 12
Not very much confidence 30
None at all 52

Q24 Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the United States and other
Coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities in Iraq? Have they done a very good
job, quite a good job, quite a bad job, or a very bad job?

A Very Good Job 6
Quite a Good Job 18
Quite a Bad Job 30
A Very Bad Job 46

Q25 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the
presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

Strongly Support 6
Somewhat Support 16
Somewhat Oppose 32
Strongly Oppose 46

Hurrah! 6% of “strong support” (probably all Kurdish) for the supposed “liberators” of Iraq.

You know, somehow your claims fall flat in the face of Iraqi public opinion.

B Will Derd said...

Bruno--- democracy is not using BBC polls to determine policy. They have these things called elections in which the people choose representatives to make policy decisions for them and the elected representatives of the Iraqi people do not want the Coalition forces to leave at this time.

The rebellions were well crushed before the US took action? Do be an idiot. The South and North were practically autonomous under US protection and the crushing was far from over when the US began the overflights. The rest of the world was calling for US action, just as in Bosnia, Rawanda, Somalia, Darfur, and they do little to nothing but criticise when action is taken. Certainly you know that.

The UN Charter items you quoted showed that Iraq was in violation and the resolutions authorizing force to bring Iraq into compliance were justified.

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; "


Let me get this straight: the US is in violation of Internatioanl Law, but hasn't been found in violation of Internatioanl Law because International Law as it is applied in the UN Securtiy council gives the US a lawful veto of the legal resolutions of the UN security council? They broke the law, but according to the law, they can't be judged as having broken the law--- I guess is your argument.



The UN General Assembly could pass a resolution demanding US withdrawal, but doesn't choose to do so. US has no veto in the general assembly.



I won't even cover the rest of your UN idiocy, except to say that you just disproved your argument that the UN is a democratic institution and is worthy of respect in any way. That the US uses the UN to further its national interests is certainly true--- and is true for every member state. That is the whole point, isn't it? Do you really need to make so many keystrokes to prove your informed ignorance?

Bruno said...

[willbderd] “They have these things called elections in which the people choose representatives to make policy decisions for them and the elected representatives of the Iraqi people do not want the Coalition forces to leave at this time.”

(1) Elections under occupation are dodgy at best. The US itself rejected Lebanese elections under Syrian occupation.

I refer to:

“The president pressed Syria to comply with a U.N. resolution and withdraw its troops from Lebanon, not merely redeploy them within the country. He said the complete withdrawal is necessary for upcoming elections to have legitimacy. "The time has come for Syria to fully implement Security Council Resolution 1559: All Syrian military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw before Lebanon's elections for those elections to be free and fair," Bush said.”

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/bush.mideast/index.html

Why should the rules suddenly change for the US in Iraq?

(2) The Iraqi elections were marred by gross and rampant ballot stuffing from all parties concerned. Bloggers from the Kurd, Shia and Sunni communities reported witnessing this phenomenon first hand. Not surprising, since international UN oversight was minimal.

(3) If the will of the people is not expressed through the parties elected to power, the legitimacy of the process is lost. The will of the Iraqi people IS clear and always has been clear regarding the Occupation.

(4) The ‘elected representatives’ have THIS to say regarding the Occupation:

“On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.”

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/

Works for me, either way.

Bruno said...

[willbderd] “The rebellions were well crushed before the US took action? Do be an idiot. The South and North were practically autonomous under US protection and the crushing was far from over when the US began the overflights.”

In other words, you are making the case that the overflights did nothing to help protect the Shia and Kurds and that in fact the US let them be crushed anyway. This obviously renders null the entire rationale for the No Fly Zones, and thus, by extension, your argument that the NFZ were protecting the Iraqi people.

Who’s the idiot now?

Willbderd, I suggest respectfully that you are more than a little out of your depth here. Perhaps you ought to make factual references before shooting yourself in the foot again.

[willbderd] “"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means [bla bla bla] ”

That’s cute, Willbderd.

That’s not the text from any UN document, that’s the text from the internal WHITE HOUSE statement authorising the US to wage war on Iraq that can be found here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Of course, you didn’t provide a link, because you KNEW you were being deceitful.

And, furthermore, the White House quoting 678 as a casus belli is equally deceitful, since the mandate of that resolution terminated on the signing of 687 which is the Ceasefire resolution. The UN reserved the right to take military action to enforce its resolutions, sure. But that’s THE UN’S DECISION, not America’s.

[willbderd] “They broke the law, but according to the law, they can't be judged as having broken the law--- I guess is your argument.”

A little roughly put, but that’s exactly the position the US finds itself in. It’s like Saddam murdering somebody. Obviously it’s murder, but who the hell is going to prosecute him? The US occupies a similar position globally.

(Actually, they can be confirmed as having broken the law – if the US agrees to indict itself. Not likely)

[willbderd] “The UN General Assembly could pass a resolution demanding US withdrawal, but doesn't choose to do so.”

That’s because General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. Such a General Assembly vote might give American generals and politicians a brief spell of amusement, but nothing else.

[willbderd] “to say that you just disproved your argument that the UN is a democratic institution”

I said that it is the NEAREST THING to a world democracy. My point is, for a country SO enamoured with the democratic principle, the United States goes to great lengths to discredit and break down this institution … just like you. And I quite understand WHY America does this. It does this because of the great military advantage it has, and a world where the law of the jungle applies would be necessarily to the US advantage. It’s much the same as the period prior to WW2, when the Axis powers destroyed the League of Nations, only this time America = Germany.

[willbderd] “That the US uses the UN to further its national interests is certainly true--- and is true for every member state.”

The UN is MEANT to be a forum through which states can legitimately pursue their interests. That’s the POINT, you prat. My statement, however was this:

[bruno] “Interesting, however, that America USES the UN when it is convenient, and dismisses it as a useless institution when it is not. You mentioned hypocrisy?”

There’s a difference between legitimate pursuing of one’s interests through the UN … and selectively using and IGNORING the said institution when the fancy strikes one. That’s hypocrisy.

B Will Derd said...

Bruno--- please. I said that the voerflights stopped the massacres, which they plainly did.

Out of my depth? If that puts me on a different plane from, then I am thankful. Once again, you take something I said and create something I never said. I merely quoted the case as it was made by the US and never refuted in the UN or anyother Interantioanl body that 'matters'. A ceasefire does not end a war. The US remains at war with North Korea and any violation of the terms of that ceasefire would result in the nullification of that ceasefire, just as it did in Iraq.

And I see you agree with me, The US is not in violation of UN resolutions and won't be because of the way the UN is set up. The General Assembly could pass a non-binding resolution, but won't. They could vote to move to Venezuela, but won't. So if you are going to hold up the UN as the way international matters are approached, you have to live with its by-laws. Can't have it both ways.

You can't honestly make the case that the UN serves any real purpose other than a drain on mostly US resources to mollify the elite of tin pot countries worldwide. NYC is a great party town if you are spending other peoples money.

You get the last word if you must. I know how yoiu can go on and on making baseless arguments, but I tire easily.

madtom said...

"Frankly I’m wasting my time with you."

Believe me the feeling is mutual, yet I do see some benefit in our exchange. For the most part the story of Neville Chamberlain is just a historical curiosity to me, and I have on many occasions wondered just how anyone could have fallen for such nonsense.

But here we have you, Bruno, and I can in my minds eye replace a vision of you for the picture of Chamberlain walking down from the plane waving a copy of Res 687 in your hand and proclaiming "peace in our time, peace in our time"
At the same time ignoring 10 years of facts and troop movements on the ground, or the aggressive stance of a tyrannical regime.

So at least for me there is a leaning curve to our exchange, one which I value..

Peace in our time, for Bruno is the destruction of the US and it's position as te worlds only superpower, sort of like equality in the communist system is achieved by making everyone poor.

For the rest of us Peace will only come by raising the rest of the world up to our level, and by default sharing power with equals. The major difference being we believe there are equals to us out there, and you just don't.

Bruno said...

[willbderd] “I said that the voerflights stopped the massacres, which they plainly did.”

No, you said:

[willbderd] “the crushing was far from over when the US began the overflights.””

There’s a big difference, right?

[willbderd] “A ceasefire does not end a war. The US remains at war with North Korea”

The North Korea situation is not analogous to the Iraqi situation. Perhaps I used the term ‘ceasefire’ a little liberally. Res 687 most definitely DID end the war. If you think it did not, then you need to quote from it in order to show where further action by MEMBER STATES was reserved. READ THE RESOLUTION.

[willbderd] “The US is not in violation of UN resolutions and won't be”

No, it most certainly is in violation of international law. If I murder somebody, is that act legal until I’m formally convicted? Of course not. The act is de facto illegal because I’m breaking EXISTING laws. Your position is equivalent to saying that breaking existing laws is legal, and that each and every illegal act must be formally ruled as being such before being against the law.


[madtom] “I can in my minds eye replace a vision of you for the picture of Chamberlain walking down from the plane waving a copy of Res 687 in your hand and proclaiming "peace in our time, peace in our time"
At the same time ignoring 10 years of facts and troop movements on the ground, or the aggressive stance of a tyrannical regime.”

That’s crap, Madtom. Res 687 set the basis for the disarming of Iraq which was accomplished through the imports control regimen and the inspections teams. There’s no “appeasement” or any other such twaddle in 687.

[madtom] “Peace in our time, for Bruno is the destruction of the US and it's position as te worlds only superpower”

Peace is the US realising that it does not need a global empire to prosper, and that in fact its enormous military expenditure would be best used to serve its own people rather than used on subduing other nations. My God, I’m sounding like a conservative, right?

madtom said...

"There’s no “appeasement” or any other such twaddle in 687. "

That distinction is irrelevant to our discussion here of your position, your still waving a piece of paper in the air and claming that the US should not have flown the no fly zone flights. And that by doing so, was solely responsible for the saddams regime tactic of targeting and firing of US and British planes.

I mean if that is not appeasement of tyranny, what is.

Nor dose it change the facts. Iraq fired on the US during the No Fly Zone flights, putting Iraq on a path to war, and giving the US every right to invade Iraq to take out the tyrant and his regime to remove the threat to world peace, energy supplies, and regional stability.

It was and still is in the US interest to support and protect our allies and the free flow or energy worldwide, not to mention the treat of Islamo fascist movement to the region and the world, as seen on 9/11 and 7/7, and the tube bombings, and last weeks attempts to kill civilians and tourist in a night club.

Your telling me that your position is not appeasement?

madtom said...

"and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,"
688 April 1991

Clearly Iraq had not in fact ceasefired, according to the UN.
If you go in for that sort of fluff.

Bruno said...

[madtom] “your still waving a piece of paper in the air and claming that the US should not have flown the no fly zone flights. And that by doing so, was solely responsible for the saddams regime tactic of targeting and firing of US and British planes.”

Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. You have a little trouble in understanding the meaning of “sovereign” and the terms of Resolution 687. Your position is like me arguing that if Saddam flew military jets over the US, America would be responsible for the ensuing war if the US tried to shoot them down. That’s ridiculous. You clearly have no, repeat NO idea of what the legalities are in the matter, despite my pedantic step-by-step explanation of the facts.

[madtom] “Your telling me that your position is not appeasement?”

My position is one of upholding what is right and what constitutes international agreements and law. You’re making the argument that oath-breaking and treachery is a GOOD thing. No thanks.

[madtom] “Clearly Iraq had not in fact ceasefired, according to the UN.”

Even if I accept your interpretation, it is UP TO THE UN – that is United NATIONS – to decide on the appropriate action. Not America.

madtom said...

"Saddam flew military jets over the US, America would be responsible for the ensuing war'

It would all depend on what actions America took. If we had lost a war to Iraq, and were still trying to threaten Canada, refused to abide by the ceasefire, were massing troops on the boarder, sending in small units to attack Canadian infrastructure, and just plain refusing to cooperate, and Iraq took action to protect it's ally Canada, then yes America would be guilty of needlessly prolonging the conflict and inviting an attack.

Anyone reading this can understand why these Bruno hypothetical are a waste on electrons

" that is United NATIONS – to decide on the appropriate action. Not America."

That is nonsense. Iraq was not at war with the UN. If Iraq failed to uphold the terms of the ceasefire, it was with the US and it allies not the UN. The UN is a diplomatic body where countries can take their grievances, but it is not the ultimate arbiter of all disputes. After failing to abide by 687 Iraq exposed itself to further hostilities.

And it was not just America, we had the British and even the French. I mean if even the French agree what do we need to go back to the UN for. The UN is not an independent body, but a grouping of nations. If you have already reached a consensus with members outside the UN what good does it do to go in, beyond exposing your self to delay after delay.

Bruno said...

[bruno] "Saddam flew military jets over the US, America would be responsible for the ensuing war'
[madtom] “It would all depend on what actions America took.”

America would be 100% entitled to shoot them down. Sovereignty means sovereignty. Full stop.

[bruno] " that is United NATIONS – to decide on the appropriate action. Not America."
[madtom] “That is nonsense. Iraq was not at war with the UN. If Iraq failed to uphold the terms of the ceasefire, it was with the US and it allies not the UN.”

I rest my case. You’re an idiot. Iraq was PRECISELY at war with the UN, you dunce. My God, how long will it take for you to figure this out? THAT is the reason why the 1991 war was legal and THIS 2003 war was illegal.

Here:

“2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;”

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm

That is the money quote authorising “the US and its allies” to drive Hussein from Kuwait.

Let’s be rational for a moment, alright?

Israel for example, has flouted dozens of UN resolutions. Does that entitle anybody to go in there and steamroll the country?

Would that be legal?

NO.

Specific UN authorisation would be needed.

The Iraqi situation works the same way.

madtom said...

"Let’s be rational for a moment, alright?"

That is the part that worries me.
What ever happened to your favorite word "sovereignty", by your interpretation of the UN's roll, the US, and every other country for that matter, would have to seed most of it to the UN.
WE here in the US do not for the most part subscribe to that radical interpretation of the UN or it's roll in international affairs or our collective security. Your interpretation is in fact un-constitutional and illegal in the US.

Bruno said...

[madtom] "WE here in the US do not for the most part subscribe to that radical interpretation of the UN or it's roll in international affairs or our collective security. Your interpretation is in fact un-constitutional and illegal in the US."

Madtom, I'm going to be kind to you here, and suggest that perhaps you have a, um ... limited understanding of your own constitution in that case. The UN Charter is part of it. Look it up and see.

Actually, no. I'll quote it for you:

Article 4, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The UN Charter is PRECISELY a "treaty made under the authority of the United States". The US was one of the original members that drafted it, to boot.

The UN makes PLENTY allowance for National sovereignty. The US is even "more equal" than most other countries by having a VETO on the most powerful body of the UN, the UNSC. And, I think that its a fair enough concession to the realities of global power balances that this is so.

The problem comes in where America thinks (as do you, apparently) that it has some sort of mandate from God to supercede the UN when and as it desires, when it can't achieve its aims through that organisation. The SAME organisation the US helped BUILD.

I'm thinking League of Nations, Germany about now.

Let's just hope I'm wrong.

madtom said...

"The UN Charter is PRECISELY a "treaty "

Yes Bruno I know. But like I said it's your interpretation of the treaty that is the problem. If you tried to push your interpretation thru, someone would sue and the treaty would be vacated.

The specific powers granted to the branches can not be changed or modified by a treaty, they could only be modified by amendment.

You could try if you like, good luck.

Bruno said...

Again, Madtom, we are talking about international law, not US domestic law. My point is that the UN Charters are part of the "supreme law of the land" insofar as the US Constitution is concerned.

If you feel that the UN Charter clashes with authority granted to US legislative branches, you need to show how, and why, with reference to specific cases.

As I said again, the Charters are good laws, laws that the US itself helped create. It's just pretty sad that the US executive selectively ignores those laws when it wants.

How can it do this?

Easy. Might makes right, insofar as some people are concerned. It's a classic clash between legal restrictions and worldly power realities.

madtom said...

Oh cry me a river.

I never said that international law adopted by the senate clashed with the constitution. I said that your interpretation of those laws and the UN charter clashed.

Case in point. I doubt very much that the US will ever ratify the world court treaty..Whatever it's called.. I forget.

"Might makes right,"

Well in your case it would seem that anything saddam did made right. According to you he was as innocent as the wind blown snow, and it's the big bad US that is to blame for everything.

In our defense I would just point the reader to the history of the world prior to 1945 when the US took on the lead roll in world affairs and let the chips fall where they may.

Truth teller said...

madtom

"Well in your case it would seem that anything saddam did made right. According to you he was as innocent as the wind blown snow"

It is very clear that you are a looser. the discussion is not about Saddam, you behave exactly as our poppet government, when they are in trouble they said Saddam was so and so.
I will believe in you and your government whaen I see they behave the way the said, to stop the double standard in their policy.

I am non-politician, I can't keep in line with you in politics, but I feel what my people felt, There is no way to compare what Saddam did in 35 years with what the US and it's allies did in 4 years.
Ask the ordinary Iraqi people , not those who survive on the US presence.

Bruno said...

[madtom] “I never said that international law adopted by the senate clashed with the constitution. I said that your interpretation of those laws and the UN charter clashed.”

No, Madtom, there is no clash. And my “interpretation” is correct. Again, you need to point out specifics.

[madtom] “Case in point. I doubt very much that the US will ever ratify the world court treaty.. Whatever it's called..”

That’s a complete red herring, sorry.

Just because the US made the UN Charters a part of its constitution, does NOT mean it has to automatically incorporate the World Court into that constitution. IF you agree to the WC (which would be a good thing IMHO) … THEN it becomes a part of your constitution, as a Treaty. But as pertains to the present discussion, it’s irrelevant.

[madtom] “Well in your case it would seem that anything saddam did made right. According to you he was as innocent as the wind blown snow, and it's the big bad US that is to blame for everything.”

LOL! Really?

I’m afraid, Madtom, that you’ll have to find me specific EXAMPLES of where I expressed such an opinion. You are going to find it hard to substantiate your lies, because unfortunately for you, I have not, and will not, express such an opinion.

Saddam did a lot of things wrong, and frankly I don’t think he was fit to be the ruler of a post-office, never mind a nation like Iraq. However, the truth is, that compared to the absolute chaos that the US has brought into Iraq, the sectarianism, the militias, the fight with Al Qaeda, the bloodsucking profiteers, the thuggish soldiers … you know what … Saddam was by far the least worst option.

[madtom] “In our defense I would just point the reader to the history of the world prior to 1945 when the US took on the lead roll in world affairs and let the chips fall where they may.”

I really don’t think that you want to go there, Madtom. There are some NASTY surprises waiting for you back there. Here’s one of them:

“U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into “protected zones” (concentration camps). Many of the civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to savage reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a “nigger killing business”. […] From almost the beginning of the war, soldiers wrote home describing, and usually bragging about, atrocities committed against Filipinos, soldiers and civilians alike. Increasingly, such personal letters, or portions of them, reached a national audience as anti-imperialist editors across the nation reproduced them.[21]”

http://www.answers.com/topic/philippine-american-war

Bruno said...

Truth-Teller –

Shukran for your comment. I find it amazing that our Amreekan friends are so obstinate about convincing YOU, an Iraqi, that your own eyes are lying to you. It really boggles my mind.

madtom said...

"I’m afraid, Madtom, that you’ll have to find me specific EXAMPLES of where I expressed such an opinion."

What do you want me to do, quote back this entire dissuasion? Remember we are debating the legality, or lack there of, for the no fly zones, and how saddams action during that time lead directly to today's conflict.
You have during this whole debate made light of sddams actions and tried to paint the US as the aggressor.

"you know what … Saddam was by far the least worst option."

I rest my case

"There is no way to compare what Saddam did in 35 years with what the US and it's allies did in 4 years."

TT I don't have time right now, I'm on lunch break, but when I get back tonight I am going to quote back your own words, and we will see who is doing what to who.

Truth teller said...

Sorry every body
I will be out of reach for the next month.
See you later.

Bruno said...

Keep safe, Truth Teller.

Bruno said...

[madtom] "You have during this whole debate made light of sddams actions and tried to paint the US as the aggressor."

Rubbish, madtom. Saddam invaded Kuwait and was rightly thrown out. Legally so. Where did I ever argue about that?

Your problem is that you want there to be an "extra-special" dispensation for the US just in case it wants to continue bombing Iraq in spite of all the treaties it signed and the laws it would break. That "extra-special" dispensation simply DOES NOT EXIST.

Just face it, and move on.

Saddam was a bad egg that got what he deserved.

That STILL does not make American actions right, nor does it make them legal.

madtom said...

"Your problem is that you want there to be an "extra-special" dispensation for the US just in case it wants to continue bombing Iraq in spite of all the treaties it signed and the laws it would break."

I would gladly debate the validity of this, your latest flame, But I do not think that it would be proper to use TT forum in that manner while he is out.

You can do what you want, but I will either wait till he returns, or move the debate to a different forum.

Bruno said...

I'm happy to leave the discussion as is.

I do however, suggest that you think a little on the nature of international law and what purpose it serves.

Perhaps as a member of the strongest country the purpose of this is not quite clear to you. I assure you, however, that the people from other, militarily weaker countries most certainly do see a purpose and need for it.

madtom said...

"Perhaps as a member of the strongest country"

Most if not all of the people I know do not see ourselves as members of a select club, but rather citizens of the world.

We understand the need for law and order, we depend on it to facilitate the free movement of people and trade with as few artificial barriers as is humanly possible in the real world.

I would suggest you and your friends take your own advice. You might want to start with the basic assumption you seem to hold about the people of the US.

Bruno said...

[mt] "Most if not all of the people I know do not see ourselves as members of a select club, but rather citizens of the world."

Except that's not how the world is organised, is it?

[mt] "We understand the need for law and order, we depend on it to facilitate the free movement of people and trade with as few artificial barriers as is humanly possible in the real world."

No comment. Don't get me started again.

[mt] "You might want to start with the basic assumption you seem to hold about the people of the US."

US People != US foreign policy.

I don't have a problem with the US people. Your foreign policy, however, is another matter.

madtom said...

"Except that's not how the world is organised, is it?"

I guess it's all in your perspective Bruno. You do remember that I'm Cuban, I live in a Cuban community, I stop every morning before I get to work and ask for a "colada"...
What city do you think I'm talking about?

US People != US foreign policy."

Yea sure. That's just like your understanding of US constitutional law.

Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.
Oes Tsetnoc | Semangat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa

mewmewmew said...

[mt] "We understand the need for law and order, we depend on it to facilitate the free movement of people and trade with as few artificial barriers as is humanly possible in the real world."

griechenland
silver charms

慢慢來 said...

監聽器材
離婚諮詢
監聽手機
財產調查
電話監聽
網路詐欺
女人偷腥
肉體外遇
商業調查
信用調查
婚姻諮商
婚姻問題
老婆外遇
外遇處理
筆跡鑑定
挽回婚姻
老公偷腥
男人外遇
丈夫外遇
婚姻諮詢
感情諮詢
挽回感情
老婆偷腥
工商徵信
商標侵權
市場調查