PDA

View Full Version : Bush asked to explain UK war memo


Infiniti2001
May 13th, 2005, 09:45 PM
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Posted: 2:49 AM EDT (0649 GMT)


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/vert.serious.ap.jpg
British PM Tony Blair.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..."

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."

Hmm, I want to see how the White House gets out of this one :tape:

BUBI
May 13th, 2005, 09:50 PM
The facts were being fixed for sure. The war was based on lies.

Wigglytuff
May 13th, 2005, 10:01 PM
Hmm, I want to see how the White House gets out of this one

it does not have to. at this point americans know that the war was based on lies. some care. others have decided that it doesnt matter because bush talks with god and can do no wrong. :retard:

RVD
May 14th, 2005, 02:03 AM
it does not have to. at this point americans know that the war was based on lies. some care. others have decided that it doesnt matter because bush talks with god and can do no wrong. :retard:Darn it Jigglypuff, you always hit the mark before I do. :lol:
You are very correct. Many in America are now aware of the lies and don't care. All one need do is listen to the CableNews stations and talk radio.
The Religious Right Neo-Conservatives have fully succeeded in doing what they intended (per the PNAC Doctrine). And those that do care, unfortunately assisted in voting that psycho President into office yet again.

There isn't much left for the NeoCons to do now except to complete the democratization of the rest of the Middle East, and wah-lah, world domination.
We've already given most of our own rights away by way of the Patriot Act. But oh well, this is old news. :shrug:

controlfreak
May 14th, 2005, 11:22 AM
Everyone knows the Americans were looking for those Weapons of Mass Reduction to combat their country's obesity problem.

Lord Nelson
May 14th, 2005, 12:58 PM
God bless Bush and what he has done in the world. I like Bush as much as Hautbois like Blair & they both had the same opinion on Saddam. So if you want to trash me for liking Bush than you can trash Hautbois for liking Blair.

BUBI
May 14th, 2005, 01:15 PM
God bless Bush and what he has done in the world.

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/iraqbabiesburned.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/1_215952_1_6.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/1_147151_1_6.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/menino_queimado.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/0019.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/1_148406_1_6.jpg

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/

Lord Nelson
May 14th, 2005, 01:44 PM
damned Islamic fundementalists bombing people here and there. Thanks for the post Assa. We need to combat these extremists and Bush & Blair are the best guys for these jobs. The sad part is that Iraq has a surplus of journalists. Things are far worse in Congo and Sudan but the free world can't be everywhere.

BUBI
May 14th, 2005, 01:52 PM
"An eye for an eye" only ends up making the whole world blind. Those pictures are highly symbolic. People tend to forget how terrible thing war is.

Lord Nelson
May 14th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Wars are indeed terrible but there are sometimes a necessary evil. Clinton also was involved in wars. Under the auspices of NATO, U.S. troops bombed Serbia. I'm sorry but that's war too. He was also invloved in Somalia fiasco. That's war too. In these wars, 100s of civilians died. What I'm trying to say is one should not finger-point Bush just ebcause they don't like his politics.

Wigglytuff
May 14th, 2005, 02:04 PM
Darn it Jigglypuff, you always hit the mark before I do. :lol:
You are very correct. Many in America are now aware of the lies and don't care. All one need do is listen to the CableNews stations and talk radio.
The Religious Right Neo-Conservatives have fully succeeded in doing what they intended (per the PNAC Doctrine). And those that do care, unfortunately assisted in voting that psycho President into office yet again.

There isn't much left for the NeoCons to do now except to complete the democratization of the rest of the Middle East, and wah-lah, world domination.
We've already given most of our own rights away by way of the Patriot Act. But oh well, this is old news. :shrug:
:kiss: :hearts: :hug:

GoSandrine
May 14th, 2005, 02:07 PM
I'm an American and I care. :awww: I must say I'm embarassed for my country that Bush got reelected.

As for this story, I regret most of the media bigwigs are neo conservatives or this would be getting more coverage. :mad: :fiery:

harloo
May 14th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Unfortunately Jigglypuff is right. The Bush administration will never be held accountable for the lies told to the American people. I would like to see non-partisan action taken concerning this memo because it would be a great travesty if this is not investigated.

And all the claims of how the,"liberal media" is out for Bush is simply a lie. Their is no liberal media, because if their was one they would be all over these memos. Conyers had to request a response from the President, the media is more concerned about that ignorant Runaway Bride story.

:rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
May 14th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Wars are indeed terrible but there are sometimes a necessary evil. Clinton also was involved in wars. Under the auspices of NATO, U.S. troops bombed Serbia. I'm sorry but that's war too. He was also invloved in Somalia fiasco. That's war too. In these wars, 100s of civilians died. What I'm trying to say is one should not finger-point Bush just ebcause they don't like his politics.

i do love how you totally miss the point: that this war was completely unnecessary.

as for you commentary on clinton. we are talking about the memo.
yes you hate clinton we got it. but is a non issue. (not because everyone approved of his actions, in fact everone i know who opposed bush wars also opposed clintons wars. i am opposed to anywar that is not the very last resort and justifably defense ie. is a response to a clear and present threat, which this was not.)

call me crazy but i dont think killing and dismembering children to "free" them is really unjustifiable in this day and age regardless who the fuck the leader of the attack is.

Wigglytuff
May 14th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Unfortunately Jigglypuff is right. The Bush administration will never be held accountable for the lies told to the American people. I would like to see non-partisan action taken concerning this memo because it would be a great travesty if this is not investigated.

And all the claims of how the,"liberal media" is out for Bush is simply a lie. Their is no liberal media, because if their was one they would be all over these memos. Conyers had to request a response from the President, the media is more concerned about that ignorant Runaway Bride story.

:rolleyes:

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Lord Nelson
May 14th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Actually I like Clinton, I'm not as partisan as you are. In any case I'm not even American. What do you mean 'we' are talking about the memo? What memo? Speak for yourself I'm talking about war in general and not just in Iraq. It's good to see that you oppose all kind of wars including U.S. involvement in Serbia. War is SOMETMES a necessary evil indeed. If U.S. troops was not involved in WWII than Germany would have won the war. If U.S. was not involved in Korean war than Seoul would be called KiM il Sung city. I'm the greatest supporter of USA and Bush is doing a good job getting rid of dictators;Saddam, Charles Taylor, Arisitide and my personal favourite Mullah Omar.
I'm actually far more interested in what's going on in Afghanistan than Iraq. In fact I'm more interested what's going on in Congo than Iraq too where more people are killed due to war.

p.s U.S. involvement in Vietnam was also justifiable since communist north invades capitalist south like in Korea. But LBJ did a terrible job sending troops only to South Vietnam. He reluctantly sent troops to Vietnam in a continuation of his predecessor's policies. I love how many people think that Kennedy was more moderate than LBJ. Kennedy had set the stage for sending troops to all of Vietnam & I believe would have done a better job than LBJ. But since Kennedy was a pretty boy and LBJ looked like a gangster then LBJ was made to look like a villain and Kennedy was viewed in a more favourable way.

tennisjam
May 14th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Takling about any "liberal media" is more than utopic...

tennisjam
May 14th, 2005, 02:52 PM
...up to now, the war has always been the most lucrative activity for the humanity, so don't expect it to be replaced very soon...


Lord Nelson: you seem to have rather very simple and short-sighted analysis ?

You still believe in the myth of "democracy-spreading will" of any government...?

You still believe US freed west Europe from nazis...?

You still believe the cold war was ended mainly because of the US preassure...?

You still believe "democratic countries" have never supported no matter how bloody dictators for their own interests...?

You still believe "democratic countries" don't manipulate their public opinions...?

You still believe that the real concept of "Democracy" is something that can be really respected by power-hungry human nature anywhere on the globe...?

...

...now really, how old are you...???

Scotso
May 14th, 2005, 03:06 PM
History will remember Bush as a fanatical idiot.

Wigglytuff
May 14th, 2005, 03:13 PM
Actually I like Clinton, I'm not as partisan as you are.

ok.

in fact everyone i know who opposed bush wars also opposed clintons wars.

God bless Bush and what he has done in the world.

of course not.

In any case I'm not even American.

thats all, folks.

at least i know why your "knowledge" of american history is so off, and under-researched, and often times just plain wrong.


What do you mean 'we' are talking about the memo? What memo? Speak for yourself I'm talking about war in general and not just in Iraq. It's good to see that you oppose all kind of wars including U.S. involvement in Serbia. War is SOMETMES a necessary evil indeed. If U.S. troops was not involved in WWII than Germany would have won the war. If U.S. was not involved in Korean war than Seoul would be called KiM il Sung city. I'm the greatest supporter of USA and Bush is doing a good job getting rid of dictators;Saddam, Charles Taylor, Arisitide and my personal favourite Mullah Omar.
I'm actually far more interested in what's going on in Afghanistan than Iraq. In fact I'm more interested what's going on in Congo than Iraq too where more people are killed due to war.

p.s U.S. involvement in Vietnam was also justifiable since communist north invades capitalist south like in Korea. But LBJ did a terrible job sending troops only to South Vietnam. He reluctantly sent troops to Vietnam in a continuation of his predecessor's policies. I love how many people think that Kennedy was more moderate than LBJ. Kennedy had set the stage for sending troops to all of Vietnam & I believe would have done a better job than LBJ. But since Kennedy was a pretty boy and LBJ looked like a gangster then LBJ was made to look like a villain and Kennedy was viewed in a more favourable way.

Lord Nelson
May 14th, 2005, 06:30 PM
ok.





of course not.



thats all, folks.

at least i know why your "knowledge" of american history is so off, and under-researched, and often times just plain wrong.
Ok I'm wrong and you are right, happy? If you are not partisan than I'm the Pope.

As for Tennisjam please stop making a fool of yourself. I'm sure even our favourite history teacher that is jig will contest what you said. In case you don't know, East European nations hated being under the domination of the Soviets, from Stalin to Gorbachev and U.S. involvement in WWII was principle factor in the victory. My condelences to you for the demise of the Soviet Union, I feel your pain. :p

tennisjam
May 14th, 2005, 10:18 PM
Lord Nelson, you still didn't answer me...how old are you really...???

...12, 13, 14...???

...nobody here talks about the Soviet Union as a political regime but of the role of the Soviet soldiers during the war...but for some reason, you seem rather limited on the analytical side...

I hope it's age rather than the lack of knowledge, logics or the result of one narrow, naive or manipulated mind...


...and really seriously...how old are you...?


P.S. I hope that you really read Alexandr Soljenitsyne (as you have him in your signature...), it could make you grow up a little bit and teach you something about history and much more...(especially as he was the soldier on the eastern front during the war before being emprisoned afterwords for over 8 years by Stalin because he critisized his military qualities in a private mail...)

Lord Nelson
May 14th, 2005, 11:02 PM
Tennisjam I already answered your question in another thread and so did others. How many times do you want people to repeat themselves? Are you daft or what. Oh, sorry that's a pretty obvious answer. You want to know my age? I'm old enough to bang your sexy mum. Since you claim to know about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, then you know that he criticized Stalin in his book, 'First Circle'. Despite that he was not anti-Soviet I know. In any case I don't hate Russians. In fact I love Russia and support them in their fight against Chechen extremeists.

tennisjam
May 14th, 2005, 11:12 PM
How do you know my mum is sexy...?

wta_zuperfann
May 15th, 2005, 12:03 AM
Kennedy had set the stage for sending troops to all of Vietnam


Actually, that was done by Republican Eisenhower in 1954. See his memoirs.

SelesFan70
May 15th, 2005, 01:08 AM
I hope you aren't insinuating that Bush/America is doing that to the Iraqi's. If so, you need to stop misleading people and point out that it's Muslim cowards doing that. Our soldiers are dying, too, but I don't see any pictures of that... :rolleyes:

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/iraqbabiesburned.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/1_215952_1_6.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/1_147151_1_6.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/menino_queimado.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/0019.jpg http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/1_148406_1_6.jpg

Lord Nelson
May 15th, 2005, 01:12 AM
well if Eisenhower planned for sending troops he did nothing since U.S. troops were first sent to Vietnam in 1965 during the presidency of LBJ. Kennedy was planning on sending troops but before he could do so he was killed. Hate to say this (for you) but it was a Democrat who started the Vietnam war and it was a Republican President who ended it. Truman also started the Korean war and Eisenhower ended it. :)

Wigglytuff
May 15th, 2005, 01:17 AM
listen dont get testy all i did was quote what you posted. :shrug:

Ok I'm wrong and you are right, happy? If you are not partisan than I'm the Pope.

As for Tennisjam please stop making a fool of yourself. I'm sure even our favourite history teacher that is jig will contest what you said. In case you don't know, East European nations hated being under the domination of the Soviets, from Stalin to Gorbachev and U.S. involvement in WWII was principle factor in the victory. My condelences to you for the demise of the Soviet Union, I feel your pain. :p

Wigglytuff
May 15th, 2005, 06:47 AM
Ok I'm wrong and you are right, happy? If you are not partisan than I'm the Pope.

As for Tennisjam please stop making a fool of yourself. I'm sure even our favourite history teacher that is jig will contest what you said. In case you don't know, East European nations hated being under the domination of the Soviets, from Stalin to Gorbachev and U.S. involvement in WWII was principle factor in the victory. My condelences to you for the demise of the Soviet Union, I feel your pain. :p
http://cache.wtaworld.com/wtaworld/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Bush asked to explain U... May 14th, 2005 02:33 PM Lord Nelson I take back what I said about you. Your knowledge of history is pretty limitted. So much for teacjing history, huh?

about because i quoted you?, you're joking right? i mean i can see being bad repped for disagreeing with someone that happens all time. but this is the first time for quoting what was posted.

as for my content (social studies/history, wooohooo i am 39% done with my masters requirements), get over your self. seriously, last time we got into it, you claimed you had read this book or that, and i went point by point and illustrate how you could not have, because everything you said was in the text was not, and everything you said was, was clearly not in text. i learned an important lesson that day: you dont know jack, and i can prove it.

and in fact everytime we have had a go it. the outcome has been the same.: you dont know jack and i can prove it.

n e way i need sleep.

Lord Nelson
May 15th, 2005, 01:18 PM
My bad-rep was just to show you that I think that you don' know your facts. I had previously said that you knew your facts because you were a history teacher. I now take back saying that because that does not seem to be the case. But I'm sure that you are an entertaining teacher, hey I'm entertained. I like to hear your arguments even though I don't necessarily agree with you. It's good to hear what you and tennisjam have to offer as arguments. :)

Wigglytuff
May 15th, 2005, 02:56 PM
you dont know jack.

i mean i made it clear that i dont support any war that is not justified. and by justified i me when their is an undeniable, immediate threat. by your own statements (not facts, because thats not at all what they were1) there was no threat to the US in Vietnam or most post WWII wars that the us has been involved in.

and anyway, your ideas about America is off, and under-researched, and often times just plain wrong.

i sure i could go point by point.
here a random sample:
I'm the greatest supporter of USA and Bush is doing a good job getting rid of dictators;Saddam, Charles Taylor, Arisitide and my personal favourite Mullah Omar.

Aristide is easy enough lets talk about that.
firstly he was democratically elected his first and second term in office. the first term he won with us support, but he had been in exile and the US did not allow him to serve the full length of time of his election. however at the end of his first term there was a soon transition to power. at the end of his election that lead to his second term there was drama, boycotts and violence and all manner of not goodness. there is debate about how and why he "left" or was "kidnapped" in 2004. however, the Haiti is a sovereign nation and as such should not be able be pushed are by another nation. even if you agree or disagree he was democratically elected. and therefore not a dictator.

whats that you say, it was a corrupt election and he used police intimidation and voter purgers to win the election and is therefore a dictator because the election wasn't truly democratic.

yes that is true but that does pose an interesting dilemma. because if i remember correctly. the 2000 US presidential election was a corrupt election and bush used police intimidation and voter purgers to win the election. now if thats what makes a dictator bush is most certainly a dictator.

if bush is not dictator because thats not the definition of a dictator is, well then Aristide is not either.

either way there is some hot pot on kettle action going on i will tell you that.

----
ok let talk more about dictators. one of my personal most hated dictators. is the current ruler of china. i mean this man makes Saddam seem like Santa clause. this man is truly, truly evil. and unelected (by any definition) and really just a nasty nasty man.

now what i find interesting about this guy, is not that they US loves him because unlike the others on your list, he allows the us to exploit its women and children for unnaturally cheap labor. he also has nukes. and yet this bonafide dictator is NOT on any US hit list.

hmmmm, this bring to focus an interesting point. someone who does not let the us have their way and is democratically elected IS a dictator to be removed. but some who is NOT democratically elected and lets the US have its way with the women and children of that nation, IS NOT a dictator to be removed.

wow!! this shit is hard. being a policing force for world, i mean. wait wait, i just realized something, the US is NOT THE WORLDS POLICE AND BECAUSE THERE IS PLENTY OF CORRUPTION HERE AT HOME, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION OR RIGHT TO GO AROUND AND KILL ALL THE OTHER DICTATORS.
wow.
so wait if the politcal leader in the US do have the legal right to pick and chose who gets to be a dictator and who do not; doesnt that mean they cant justify actions related to these policing efforts? yes i do believe it does.

now if only there was an international collective of nations with representatives from each who worked together to try to figure out the best way to resolve these complex issues. sure with so many nations working together they would be at least a little corrupt and slow moving and ineffectually at times, but at least they would have some sort of legal right to do some light police work. they could even call themselves the UN. i dont know why but as i am describing this thing called the UN i get de ja vu, almost as if there actually is a UN.

so i think that the US is no place to go around deciding who is and is not a dictator. the US has its own economic interests that it has routinely held higher than any humanitarian efforts.

grrrrrrr, that was longer than i expected. and that was only ONE point. i just dont have the time to do point by point with you today. maybe another time ok?

tennisjam
May 15th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Jigglypuff, you really have a "teacher's patience" with Lord Nelson...

But he seems to be rather a nasty pupil, so I don't think he deserves it... ;-)


(Lord Nelson, this is just a joke in case you get agressive once more...)

BUBI
May 15th, 2005, 08:24 PM
I hope you aren't insinuating that Bush/America is doing that to the Iraqi's. If so, you need to stop misleading people and point out that it's Muslim cowards doing that. Our soldiers are dying, too, but I don't see any pictures of that... :rolleyes:
Actually those pictures are from the bombings before the invasion, where thousands of civilians were killed or injured. I agree that insurgents are stupid, I'm not at all patriotic or religious myself :) You can see pictures of soldiers (http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/us/) on this site (http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/) too.

Lord Nelson
May 15th, 2005, 11:04 PM
Hey jig. You have nice arguments but I don't agree with you. SO Bush should not have won the elections for his first term. Well that's speculative, if Gore had been declared the winner, his win would have been suspicious too. Democrats also have suspicious wins too such as Washington state. Arisitide was a thug who publicly encouraged his opponents to be killed. He was as democratically elected as Charles Taylor of Liberia. Both of these used intimidation and fraudulous means to win the election. Perhaps Bush did too but USA is not at all as unstable as Liberia and Haiti. At the end of the day what counts is stability. By the way, the way the French helped the americans boot out Arisitide. So much for the illegal war that France accused the U.S. of with Iraq.

Wigglytuff
May 16th, 2005, 02:20 AM
Jigglypuff, you really have a "teacher's patience" with Lord Nelson...

But he seems to be rather a nasty pupil, so I don't think he deserves it... ;-)


(Lord Nelson, this is just a joke in case you get agressive once more...)
:lol:

Hey jig. You have nice arguments but I don't agree with you. SO Bush should not have won the elections for his first term. Well that's speculative, if Gore had been declared the winner, his win would have been suspicious too. Democrats also have suspicious wins too such as Washington state. Arisitide was a thug who publicly encouraged his opponents to be killed. He was as democratically elected as Charles Taylor of Liberia. Both of these used intimidation and fraudulous means to win the election. Perhaps Bush did too but USA is not at all as unstable as Liberia and Haiti. At the end of the day what counts is stability. By the way, the way the French helped the americans boot out Arisitide. So much for the illegal war that France accused the U.S. of with Iraq.
it seems like you have ideas about things and look for random tidbits that look to support what you already believe. and there is nothing wrong with that, but i dont see how you expect me to argue with that.

RVD
May 16th, 2005, 03:51 AM
you dont know jack.

i mean i made it clear that i dont support any war that is not justified. and by justified i me when their is an undeniable, immediate threat. by your own statements (not facts, because thats not at all what they were1) there was no threat to the US in Vietnam or most post WWII wars that the us has been involved in.

and anyway, your ideas about America is off, and under-researched, and often times just plain wrong.

i sure i could go point by point.
here a random sample:


Aristide is easy enough lets talk about that.
firstly he was democratically elected his first and second term in office. the first term he won with us support, but he had been in exile and the US did not allow him to serve the full length of time of his election. however at the end of his first term there was a soon transition to power. at the end of his election that lead to his second term there was drama, boycotts and violence and all manner of not goodness. there is debate about how and why he "left" or was "kidnapped" in 2004. however, the Haiti is a sovereign nation and as such should not be able be pushed are by another nation. even if you agree or disagree he was democratically elected. and therefore not a dictator.

whats that you say, it was a corrupt election and he used police intimidation and voter purgers to win the election and is therefore a dictator because the election wasn't truly democratic.

yes that is true but that does pose an interesting dilemma. because if i remember correctly. the 2000 US presidential election was a corrupt election and bush used police intimidation and voter purgers to win the election. now if thats what makes a dictator bush is most certainly a dictator.

if bush is not dictator because thats not the definition of a dictator is, well then Aristide is not either.

either way there is some hot pot on kettle action going on i will tell you that.

----
ok let talk more about dictators. one of my personal most hated dictators. is the current ruler of china. i mean this man makes Saddam seem like Santa clause. this man is truly, truly evil. and unelected (by any definition) and really just a nasty nasty man.

now what i find interesting about this guy, is not that they US loves him because unlike the others on your list, he allows the us to exploit its women and children for unnaturally cheap labor. he also has nukes. and yet this bonafide dictator is NOT on any US hit list.

hmmmm, this bring to focus an interesting point. someone who does not let the us have their way and is democratically elected IS a dictator to be removed. but some who is NOT democratically elected and lets the US have its way with the women and children of that nation, IS NOT a dictator to be removed.

wow!! this shit is hard. being a policing force for world, i mean. wait wait, i just realized something, the US is NOT THE WORLDS POLICE AND BECAUSE THERE IS PLENTY OF CORRUPTION HERE AT HOME, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION OR RIGHT TO GO AROUND AND KILL ALL THE OTHER DICTATORS.
wow.
so wait if the politcal leader in the US do have the legal right to pick and chose who gets to be a dictator and who do not; doesnt that mean they cant justify actions related to these policing efforts? yes i do believe it does.

now if only there was an international collective of nations with representatives from each who worked together to try to figure out the best way to resolve these complex issues. sure with so many nations working together they would be at least a little corrupt and slow moving and ineffectually at times, but at least they would have some sort of legal right to do some light police work. they could even call themselves the UN. i dont know why but as i am describing this thing called the UN i get de ja vu, almost as if there actually is a UN.

so i think that the US is no place to go around deciding who is and is not a dictator. the US has its own economic interests that it has routinely held higher than any humanitarian efforts.

grrrrrrr, that was longer than i expected. and that was only ONE point. i just dont have the time to do point by point with you today. maybe another time ok?What you've stated above is sad but true. However, might I add one small tidbit? :)
The US has either created or supported over half the world's dictators...which is not cool.
I know that you already knew this, but wasn't aware if it had been posted. Sorry. Carry on. ;) :wavey:

Wigglytuff
May 16th, 2005, 04:53 AM
What you've stated above is sad but true. However, might I add one small tidbit? :)
The US has either created or supported over half the world's dictators...which is not cool.
I know that you already knew this, but wasn't aware if it had been posted. Sorry. Carry on. ;) :wavey:

too true! :sad: