Text 29258, 150 rader
Skriven 2006-05-10 21:46:30 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 29169 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
 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 ...

Perhaps but those "wars" didn't include your Armed Forces.

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

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

We both know that that wouldn't happend and Iraq was a more easy target
but fighting against religious fanatics wasn't that easy as they had thought.

 BF>> And even Swedes have been
 BF>> found within Al Qaida so when are you coming here?

 FS> If we were and I knew I wouldn't be allowed to give you that information
 FS> ... be prepared ... heh heh heh ...

Is it time for me to be paranoid now? :-=

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

 FS> Exactly *what* are they worried about?  The US hasn't done anything wrong.

That's where your opinion go againt the rest (most of it antway) world.
And today I heard Putin warn the US to do anything against Iran and we just
have
to wait and see what happends now. Is this the start of a new cold war or even
worse?
We are simply afraid the some day you do an even bigger mistake that trigger
the Russian and/or China to have to show you that you just can't do whatever
you like to whomever you like.

 FS> Both Afghanistan and Iraq were logically considered a threat to us.  What
 FS> this says is that if a given nation poses no threat to us it has nothing
 FS> to fear from us. What's wrong with *that*?

If you can consider Afghainistan and Iraq to be a threat to you, what is then
China and Russia? Just because they had training camps for Al Qaida doesn't
automatically mean that the country itself is a threat. None of these countries
have weapons to threat you with but China and Russia have.

 BF>> What you do to your own is your buisness but leave the rest of the world
 BF>> out of it. And by international law's here I mean that a war should have
 BF>> been declared, otherweise you doings in Iraq is illegal.

 FS> I agree that war *should* have been declared.  Why the Congress hasn't
 FS> done that I have no idea.

Thank you for a frank (pun intended) answer and here we agree. Wow!

 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 that
 BF>> USA can do whatever it does just because it suits your purpose.

 FS> Not so!  Our military actions always either are specifically in defence of
 FS> ourselves, e.g., WWII, *or* they are to help other nations, e.g., Vietnam

How can you say that an attack against Iraq is defence since Iraq hadn't
threatned you?

> ... the US is the most altruistic nation on earth!

Counted per capita you aren't as was shown after the Tsunami.

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

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

And here you agree that an attack against Iraq was unjustified.

 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> A coverup for *what*??  It's easy to make a serious charge like that, but
 FS> you present no evidence.

I can't since those, if exists, are deeply buried and top secret so it's easy
to
say that that they don't exist.

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

 FS> Huh?  Aren't you aware the Iraqi *people* actually *voted* them into
 FS> office?!?!  Wasn't that in Swedish newspapers??

Why haven't they start working after five years?

 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.

You couldn't..... :-)

 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 conflict
 BF>> against another sovereign country and you should leave Iraq. To most
 BF>> people around the world this is common sence but not to you so I wonder
 BF>> how you can defend it.

 FS> The US is entitled to defend itself, according to international law, hence
 FS> we've broken no such law.

See what I mean. Suddenly there exists international laws and *your*
interpretation of them says that you haven't broken any. You do what you do
when it suits you.

> he fact that the Congress has yet to *declare*
 FS> it a law is an internal matter here and is none of your business.

See, nothing is our buisness when you decide to invade another country.
And then you demand us to help you?

 As for
 FS> leaving Iraq -- that's uppermost in our desires and we'll leave as soon as
 FS> the Iraqi gummint feels it can survive without us.

It appears as they have nothing to say in that matter since Bush have said that
you're going to stay and leave that decision to the next US president.

F>BW, a democracy in
 FS> the Middle East will be a great leap forward for peace in the region.

It would be much better to spend that effort on making peace between Israel
and the Palestinians.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)