Text 29173, 132 rader
Skriven 2006-05-10 08:50:06 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
  Kommentar till text 29169 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
You're even blinder than I thought.


-=>> Quoting Björn Forsström to Frank Scheidt <=-

 BF>>> Yes, sure, but then this is the biggest Catch 22 in the world so far.
 BF>>> When the military is in action with guns and bombs, killing people
 BF>>> that's
 BF>>> war, but since the Congress haven't declared war, what are they doing in
 BF>>> Iraq?
 FS>
 FS>> Our Armed Forces are fighting terrorists in Iraq.  Even President Bush
 FS>> refers to it as a "war", but that's merely a figure of speech indicating
 FS>> intense action.  It's similar to the old "War on Poverty" of Lyndon
 FS>> Johnson or the "War on Inflation" of Gerald Ford.  It doesn't mean it's a
 FS>> true *war*, since the Congress hasn't declared it.

 BF>> Whatever Johnson and Ford did I guess it was done whithin USA, Bush is
 BF>> doing it to a foregin country and that's a totally other thing.

 FS> OK ... however the nomenclature is *still* the same ...

 BF>> What would happend if a terrorist from say, Russia, was found working
 BF>> for UbL, would you invade Russia as well?

 FS> I doubt it, but I have no way of knowing ...

 BF>> And even Swedes have been
 BF>> found within Al Qaida so when are you coming here?
 FS>
 FS> If we were and I knew I wouldn't be allowed to give you that
 FS> information ... be prepared ... heh heh heh ...

 BF>> Can't you understand that people all over the world are worried over
 BF>> what GWB can do when he doesn't follow, either yours or international
 BF>> laws?

 FS> Exactly *what* are they worried about?  The US hasn't done
 FS> anything wrong.  Both Afghanistan and Iraq were logically
 FS> considered a threat to us.  What this says is that if a given
 FS> nation poses no threat to us it has nothing to fear from us.
 FS> What's wrong with *that*?

 BF>> What you do to your own is your buisness but leave the rest of
 BF>> the world out of it. And by international law's here I mean that a war
 BF>> should have been declared, otherweise you doings in Iraq is illegal.
 FS>
 FS> I agree that war *should* have been declared.  Why the Congress
 FS> hasn't done that I have no idea.

 BF>>> I don't think you ever can explain this to me so I would understand it.
 BF>>> Do you really understand it yourself?

 FS>> I think so, yes ...

 BF>> Well, I don't think so. It's just a smoke screen in order to justify
 BF>> that USA can
 BF>> do whatever it does just because it suits your purpose.

 FS> Not so!  Our military actions always either are specifically in
 FS> defence of ourselves, e.g., WWII, *or* they are to help other
 FS> nations, e.g., Vietnam ... the US is the most altruistic nation
 FS> on earth!

 FS>>> And Congress hasn't declared war since
 FS>>> December 1941 and *that* one ended September 1945.  As long as Congress
 FS>>> doesn't declare war we cannot *be* at war.
 FS>
 BF>>> What the 'eck is going on in Iraq then?
 BF>>> Please, do try to explain it to me so we can leave this and move on.
 FS>
 FS>> It's a response to the terrorist attack on our World Trade Center on
 FS>> 9/11/01.  First we attacked the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
 FS>> Then, based on intelligence reports from five sources -- including the
 FS>> intelligence agencies of four foreign nations -- we attacked Iraq to
 FS>> defend ourselves from WMDs which Iraq was thought to have.  As you know,
 FS>> we didn't find any there. (That, of course, doesn't mean they weren't
 FS>> there as the intelligence agencies had told us.)

 BF>> Haven't you, or was it Roy, who said that those terrorists who
 BF>> attacked you were
 BF>> from Jordan? Why didn't you attack THEM instead?

 FS> Fifteen of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia.  We *should* have
 FS> attacked that nation.  Afghanistan was the second worst enemy.

 BF>> And how could WMD:s
 BF>> in Iraq threaten *you*? CIA must have known that Iraq didn't have
 BF>> intercontinental missiles when they ?knew? that they had WMD:s. It all
 BF>> just doesn't make sence so it's a coverup for something.
 FS>
 FS> A coverup for *what*??  It's easy to make a serious charge like
 FS> that, but you present no evidence.

 FS>> Now, of course, we're helping defend the legally-elected Iraq gummint
 FS>> against the insurgents.

 BF>> The "legal" gummint put there by USA.

 FS> Huh?  Aren't you aware the Iraqi *people* actually *voted* them
 FS> into office?!?!  Wasn't that in Swedish newspapers??
 FS>
 FS>>> As for your calling it a war in Iraq, you can call it anything you wish.
 FS>>> What difference does *that* make??

 BF>>> As usual, you brought it up, not me.

 FS>> If that's the case, then *I* will just drop it.

 BF>> Since Bush is calling it a "war", and that's actually what it is, he
 BF>> should even
 BF>> declare war, otherweise it is an illegal act to start an armed
 BF>> conflict against another sovereign country and you should leave Iraq.
 BF>> To most people around the world this is common sence but not to you so
 BF>> I wonder how you can defend it.

 FS> The US is entitled to defend itself, according to international
 FS> law, hence we've broken no such law.  The fact that the Congress
 FS> has yet to *declare* it a law is an internal matter here and is
 FS> none of your business.  As for leaving Iraq -- that's uppermost
 FS> in our desires and we'll leave as soon as the Iraqi gummint feels
 FS> it can survive without us.  BTW, a democracy in the Middle East
 FS> will be a great leap forward for peace in the region.

 FS> ... COMMITTEE:  A life-form with several mouths but no brain.

 FS> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
 FS> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 FS>  * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: ==<<FLaSHBaCK-BBS>>== part of the NYCap/Adirondack Netwo (1:267/169)