Give Bush a break!

BUMP!

Summed it up nicely - thanks Hobbes!

mycroft

Your one to talk about logic, for one of the groups who hasen't made any profit is the administration. The admin are the guys who fork out the money, not take it in.

One example; Dick Cheney is a former member of the board of Halliburton, he's made tens of millions in bonuses and share options. Halliburton has won (in several cases) uncontested contracts worth billions for the rebuilding in Iraqi. What do you call that?????

From whatever danger that may present itself, that the military can combat.

If it's a terrorist threat intelligence and a fast response team are all that matter, but we're getting off topic, you're here defending Bush not discussing miltary tactics.

One, you assume to much, you have no idea where i was during saddam's reign. And two, forgiveness should also reflect the circumstances. The rape of Africa for example, circumstances were very different from today. The circumstances under which saddam acted are not extenuating enough to be granted forgiveness.

Neither is Bush's support of brutal regiemes. See here
His current abuse of Kyoto which will have lasting ramifications but you dismiss out of hand.

"refering to either you're with us or againist us"

Thats what he said then, not what he's saying now.

Enlighten us Spock what is he saying? (for the sake of speed I'll translate it into reality ahead of you)

He's saying
"We screwed up, we didn't expect the Iraqi's to object to an occupational force that is setting up our country to be a US corporate colony, we now need international support to make this seem legit, and to shore up my flagging polls"

Spock

The US bullies to get its way. It has always been the case. Do you not think Bertie got some nice veiled threats about US businesses working here?

So what your saying is, no threat what so ever, just a list of your assumptions that you think to be true but can't back up.

Depends on how you define best? If they were the best then why are so many dying in Iraq, many more returning home disabled in some way? Why didn't they find OBL?

Ah yes, but you are looking at the military out of context. The military is designed to engage to combat operations against other militaries, not fight terrorism. We know ourselfs from our own occuption that militaries are ill equiped to fight terrorism.

You also fail to realise that the US is overly dependant to the EU for its defense. NATO? GPS System in EU airspace, listening posts for the defense shield or nukes put into England as faster attack.

The US is by no means overly dependant on anyone for its defence.Sure the president can wage war from Air Force One alone. They have complete control. If they are so dependant on the EU then how come they went to war in Iraq against the judgement of the EU? Granted they are postioned all over the world, but positioned where they can't be removed easily.

Do you not think their family should of been held for questioning?

Yes the family should have been held for questioning, i agree with that, but people here seem to have judged the entire of OBLs family as terrorist's, which they are not.

A Boston taxi driver was arrested and detained without rights or being charged for close to a month before finally being freed as innocent.

Poor guy, but i don't see how that makes OBL's family terrorists.

China is a super-power

Its military has not yet been deemed that of superpower status but is well on the way. Nor is its economy stable enough to be deemed superpower, it may well turn into a second Japan. Thats why China's government is trying to slow down its growth. At best it is a potential Superpower.

The US is the only country that is actively creating nukes for convential warfare and plan to use them.

Actually, there are no current plans to use the nukes.

Hobbes, your naming individuals on the admin that are profiting. That does not mean the admin is profiting. The admin is always there, it just changes its people every few years. By saying the admin is profiting it implies that you think the American government is profiting. I never denied that certain individuals within the admin with profit, i just said the admin, as a whole, for what it is, was not profiting.

His current abuse of Kyoto which will have lasting ramifications but you dismiss out of hand

If you have ever read the Kyoto agreement, and researched America's energy usage and pollution levels you would realise that Kyoto was totally unreasonable for America. It could never have reached its standards within the time frame without commiting economic suicide.I agree they still have to change there policy, but not with Kyoto.

Enlighten us Spock what is he saying?

To quote Oscar Wilde, " the only excuse to ask a question, is simple curiosity", you have asked a question and answered it, i would assume in an attempt to convince yourself of your own point.In a word, pointless.

AngelofFire

Bush is hitler re incarnated. As for liberating iraq, it was bush`s father who put sadaam in charge in the first place.Bush went there to exploit Iraqs natural resources hence the anti war slogan "no blood for oil"

3 reasons to hate bush

1.The war in Iraq

2.Treatment of prisoners in abu ghraib and guantanamo bay

3.Lack of compliance with kyoto protocal.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Spock
So what your saying is, no threat what so ever, just a list of your assumptions that you think to be true but can't back up.

It will be a serious problem in the coming years with the New EU expansion. Btw, Bush offered Bertie 10 attack helicopters on his visit here. Bertie decliend (for obvious and not so obvious reasons).

The military is designed to engage to combat operations against other militaries, not fight terrorism.

You said they are the best military in the world. Now you are saying they aren't? You do know that the British Army gets anti-terrorism training, as well as Police role training. US gets trained to kill people.

The US is by no means overly dependant on anyone for its defence.

Again your comments don't reflect reality.

Yes the family should have been held for questioning, i agree with that, but people here seem to have judged the entire of OBLs family as terrorist's, which they are not.

Poor guy, but i don't see how that makes OBL's family terrorists.

No one said OBL family are terrorists. Only you. But you not think it odd that the people who would most likely know the location of OBL (based on what we know before 9/11) were allowed to leave the country without being questioned.

Thats why China's government is trying to slow down its growth. At best it is a potential Superpower.

China is a superpower. Hate to break it to you. A superpower is "a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world ". China is in that position.

Actually, there are no current plans to use the nukes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126141.stm
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=5824
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/national/main553172.shtml

Thought I'd try a couple of sources.

Hobbes, your naming individuals on the admin that are profiting. That does not mean the admin is profiting.

I named a couple. If you had bothered to read the first link you would see it mentions more of the adminsitration. You can also check opensecrets.org and cross reference iraqi contracts vs those who helped them get into power.

The administration are profiting, but the top level of the Admin have profitted a lot from 9/11-Afganistan-Iraq.

You orginally made out that the administration were not profitting at all. Which was total BS.

Spock

It will be a serious problem in the coming years with the New EU expansion. Btw, Bush offered Bertie 10 attack helicopters on his visit here. Bertie decliend (for obvious and not so obvious reasons).

so, once again, no threat what so ever.

You said they are the best military in the world. Now you are saying they aren't?

Odd, i never said that they weren't the best military in the world. Not sure what thread you read that in.

Again your comments don't reflect reality.

Let's not talk about reality, your the one who thinks the American military cannot function to its full without the EU. I mean, think about it logicly, no nation would ever place themselves in that position.

No one said OBL family are terrorists

No but someone suggested the Bush should not have been meeting with OBL's brother in and around 9/11, that they must have been up to something, I'm just saying the guy's done nothing wrong and if he wants to meet Bush let him.

But you not think it odd that the people who would most likely know the location of OBL (based on what we know before 9/11) were allowed to leave the country without being questioned

If you would bother to read the posts you'd see i already agreed that they should have been questioned.

Hate to break it to you. A superpower is "a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world ". China is in that position

I can think seven nations in that position.

I named a couple. If you had bothered to read the first link you would see it mentions more of the adminsitration.

Again just member's of the administration. Even if every member of the administration is profiting, its still just the members of the administration, not the administration.Look at it this way, when the administration changes, its old member's leave with their profits but the administration has not profited.

Champ

So what your saying is, no threat what so ever, just a list of your assumptions that you think to be true but can't back up.

Actually...
"Although the Bush Administration claims that the anonymous "Coalition of the Willing" is the basis of genuine multilateralism, the report shows that most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."
http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/_external/www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm

"It's hardly a new phenomenon for the U.S. to use bribes and threats to get its way in the UN. What's new this time around is the breathtaking scale of those pressures -- because this time around, global public opinion has weighed in, and every government leaning Washington's way faces massive opposition at home."
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Coalition_of_the_willing

Actually, there are no current plans to use the nukes.

Emphasis on current.
I just can't help but be boggled; by an administration that makes such an issue of other countries having WMDs; when you look at their own track record.
http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM

Coupled by this is not a good combination:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

While on the issue of "superpower"; yes the US is a superpower that is to be respected especially in military might. Bear in mind though that its somewhat heavily dependent on foreign finanical intervention to stay on its feet:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

MeatProduct

It's sad that the strength of a nation is measured in its capacity to kill and destroy. I know I'm not alone when I say that the world would be a safer place if the US had no WMD. Indeed wouldn't it be nice if no country/individual had the potential to kill large populations? 'Tis pure fantasy though, we're much better off living in fear of death.

Nick

Hobbes

Odd, i never said that they weren't the best military in the world. Not sure what thread you read that in.

From what you said. You said that US military are incapable of dealing with insurgent attacks (not terrorist attacks). Yet the British army are trained for this as well as other things.

Let's not talk about reality, your the one who thinks the American military cannot function to its full without the EU. I mean, think about it logicly, no nation would ever place themselves in that position.

Then you need to do some reading. Some of the defense systems set by the US require the help of the EU.

No but someone suggested the Bush should not have been meeting with OBL's brother in and around 9/11,

Can you even read? I never said that at all.

Again just member's of the administration. Even if every member of the administration is profiting,

You claimed that the administration were not profitting, now you claim it is not all of them. Your the one spinning your position.

Simple Fact, Bush his close administration and friends have all profitted from 9/11.

Your excuse that because not all the administration have not profitted somehow negates it makes absolutly no sense.

Spock

"Although the Bush Administration claims that the anonymous "Coalition of the Willing" is the basis of genuine multilateralism, the report shows that most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."

But that has nothing to do with his offer of friendship to the EU. Someone claimed that he was offering friendship to the EU while holding threats/weapons behind his back. The Coalition of the Willing is just a buzz word, its nearly all American troops.

I just can't help but be boggled; by an administration that makes such an issue of other countries having WMDs; when you look at their own track record.

A lot of that(the link) is just stats on what it takes in build and maintain their arsenal of nukes.

I know I'm not alone when I say that the world would be a safer place if the US had no WMD.

The world is a safer place because the US has WMD's. If not for fear of US reprisal's there would be a considerably larger amount of military attacks by rogue nations.The US realise's its responsibility because it's the only Superpower and keeps the peace all over the world.

From what you said. You said that US military are incapable of dealing with insurgent attacks (not terrorist attacks). Yet the British army are trained for this as well as other things.

I never said incapable, buts its not what they are designed to do. The FBI and CIA are far better than the military when dealing with terrorists. Insurgent/terrorist, its all a form of guerrilla warfare.

You claimed that the administration were not profitting, now you claim it is not all of them. Your the one spinning your position.

Oh for God's sake let me make it simple for you. Lets say I'm on the admin, and I profit (because of my connections) from 9/11 and the war. Doe's the admin profit, no it doesn't , i do.

Batbat

Spock that is illogical

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Spock
The world is a safer place because the US has WMD's. If not for fear of US reprisal's there would be a considerably larger amount of military attacks by rogue nations.The US realise's its responsibility because it's the only Superpower and keeps the peace all over the world.

Right, this is the level of debate that's going on here. Your belief system is doesn't reflect reality very well. Where are you from Spock? Are you a Christian?

So the more weapons the US has the safer the world is. How about if no country had weapons, would we be better off? The US is one of the most irresponsible administrations with WMD.

Nick

EDIT: Since I asked I should also mention that I have no faith in a God and I live in Ireland. The reason I ask is because I find Christians have a tendancy to ignore reality a lot more than they should.

Batbat

The world is a safer place because the US has WMD's.

Not with that scumbag Bush with his finger on the button

seamus

Originally posted by Spock
The US realise's its responsibility because it's the only Superpower and keeps the peace all over the world.

Yeeesss. So keeping the peace involves making up reasons to go to war, and then bombing the **** out of a poorly-armed, practically undefended nation?
It's also "keeping the peace" when you give millions of dollars, and political support to a country which uses military helicopters to attack family sedans?
Do you really think that America acts in the interests of the entire world, and not just in the interests of America (or more accurately, in the interests of its administration)?

Oh for God's sake let me make it simple for you. Lets say I'm on the admin, and I profit (because of my connections) from 9/11 and the war. Doe's the admin profit, no it doesn't , i do.

"The admin" is a collective noun for the people on Bush's team. They're all profiting out of this - otherwise why would they all play ball?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Spock

The world is a safer place because the US has WMD's.

How do you work that out? The world hasn't been this dangerous a place (certainly for US citizens) since the cold war days.

The use of US WMD are having a negative effect on the rest of the world, and certainly on those they are claiming they are helping.

Then you have the issues of the US supplying some of these dictators (eg. Saddam) with the weapons to begin with.

Lastly, you have incidents like the Anthrax letters at 9/11 which were not a terrorist attack but in fact someone in the US military activating a project to send out the stuff. Lets not forget about the recent closesure of nuclear facilities in the US because they don't know what has been stolen.

I never said incapable, buts its not what they are designed to do.

ergo. They are incapable currently.

The FBI and CIA are far better than the military

The FBI only deal within the US borders. So it would be illegal for the FBI to be dealing with anything going on in Iraq. As for the CIA. You do know that the prison abuse is due to the CIA ("contractors")? Doesn't look like they are doing a good job.

British soliders are trained to act as policemen, rather then shoot first ask questions later.

Oh for God's sake let me make it simple for you. Lets say I'm on the admin, and I profit (because of my connections) from 9/11 and the war. Doe's the admin profit, no it doesn't , i do. [/B]

If you then went and let your friends join the administration, and they all profited too? You not see this as dishonest? Do you not think they should removed or charged with a crime? Or do you live by the fact that because a % of the administration are not dishonest that we should leave the dishonest ones in there?

lucernarian

He had the balls to get rid of saddam, a highly risky affair.
If he wanted oil he would have allied with saddam.
I find it disgusting that many people prefer that no force be used to get rid of saddam because there has been almost no incidence in history where there was a peaceful removal of a dictator and a stable country left afterwards. IMO saying "no war" is indirectly the same as "leave saddam in power" How many hundreds of thousands of people did he murder and torture?

Im not sure that the business connections of dick cheny has much relevance to the war in iraq and i think that the idea of a war started to generate money for contractors with links to the us admin is a conspiracy theory

Im fed up with people thinking they're bombing ordinary people deliberite

Batbat

He had the balls to get rid of saddam, a highly risky affair.

your a fking moron

gandalf

Originally posted by Batbat
your a fking moron

And your banned for a week for a personal insult :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
He had the balls to get rid of saddam, a highly risky affair.

With no proof that he had WMD, against the wishes of the UN he dragged the US into a war which cost countless lives.

Yes very risky. Especially considering he declared the war over, but forgot to tell the other side.

If he wanted oil he would have allied with saddam.

No he would invade the country. You do know that the US were the major importers of Iraqi oil prior to the invasion. Isn't it great invading a country knowing you won't have to pay the bills beforehand.

I find it disgusting that many people prefer that no force be used to get rid of saddam because there has been almost no incidence in history where there was a peaceful removal of a dictator and a stable country left afterwards.

I am pretty sure there has been on numerous occasions. Let go dig out a few.

IMO saying "no war" is indirectly the same as "leave saddam in power" How many hundreds of thousands of people did he murder and torture?

As opposed to now? Bare in mind the US had no problem with him killing people when it suited them.

Please tell me how Iraq (or the world for that matter) is better before?

Im not sure that the business connections of dick cheny has much relevance to the war in iraq and i think that the idea of a war started to generate money for contractors with links to the us admin is a conspiracy theory

You mean the fact Halliburton have made huge profits from contracts awarded which were allowed no bidders and have no fixed price on the bids. Or overcharging of US military to get profits?

It is very relevent, especially when you consider that US companies are profitting also off the destruction in Iraq (the US wouldn't share the contracts with other countries).

seamus

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
He had the balls to get rid of saddam, a highly risky affair.
If he wanted oil he would have allied with saddam.

People in power don't want to share power. Why share oil, and therefore profits, when you can cook up some phoney story about immediate dangers to your country, and fulfill both a personal vangeance quest, and a major contract for all your mates in one go? Killed a while flock of birds with one stone.

I find it disgusting that many people prefer that no force be used to get rid of saddam because there has been almost no incidence in history where there was a peaceful removal of a dictator and a stable country left afterwards.

I think you'd hard-pressed to find a bloodless coup of a dictator anywhere. To quote the Simpsons - "It was a bloodless coup - all strangled." But to find one where a dictator was removed with relatively little bloodshed, you only need look as far as France. Bastille Day anyone? It was a revolution, but compared to most, it was tame, but ended a dictatorship, and gave us what we have today. I'm sure someone can come up with a better example.

IMO saying "no war" is indirectly the same as "leave saddam in power" How many hundreds of thousands of people did he murder and torture?

How many thousands of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers have already died because of the ongoing Iraq war? How many more will die in the future Iraq from terrorist attacks, regional battles (Sunnis and Shiites - sp? - still occupy and control quite a chunk of the country) and poverty?
It was made perfectly clear that not one person who was anti-War believed that Saddam was OK to be left in power. The general feeling was that Bush was going to war for personal reasons, sacrificing lives for the sake of money and personal vendettas, not for some humanitarian cause. Saddam was no threat to any other country. Hell, even his own people weren't at sudden risk of death. They knew if they kept their nose clean and praised Saddam, they'd survive. It's a horrible way to live, but it's a hell of a lot better than the sudden exploding of your home, or having your family riddled with bullets by friendly forces while you try to escape towards them.

Im not sure that the business connections of dick cheny has much relevance to the war in iraq and i think that the idea of a war started to generate money for contractors with links to the us admin is a conspiracy theory

Im fed up with people thinking they're bombing ordinary people deliberite

I was once idealistic like you. And that was only a few months ago. You have absolutely no idea how low anyone will stoop to make some money. None of us do. Think about huge corporations. They make billions each year, yet continue hiring the cheapest labour they can find, using their money to influence elections so that the politician with the laxest safety policies, with the lowest tax policies get elected. Why? To make more money on top of the massive amounts they already have.

Greed is limitless. Compassion is not.

Hobart

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
He had the balls to get rid of saddam, a highly risky affair.

Risky to whom? Why did it take balls? What about all these stories of mass Iraqi surrenders during the "war"?

If he wanted oil he would have allied with saddam.

After daddy had ousted him from Kuwait? Yea, of course that could have happened.

I find it disgusting that many people prefer that no force be used to get rid of saddam because there has been almost no incidence in history where there was a peaceful removal of a dictator and a stable country left afterwards.

And I find it disgusting that the entire World was lied to by Bush and Blair wrt the real reasons of invasion. I also find it disgusting that many thousands of civilians were killed in this war. I find it disgusting that prisioners were abiused and (reports of) wemon and children were raped. I find it disgusting that for many years the US insisted that the country of Iraq was embargoed and that many more civilians died as a result. I find it disgusting that the US defied the UN and started this illegal "war" in the first place. I find it disgusting that the US is directly responsible for making this world a more dangerous place through its illegal war in Iraq. (I could go on)

IMO saying "no war" is indirectly the same as "leave saddam in power" How many hundreds of thousands of people did he murder and torture?

Probably not as many as the US through it's illegal campaigns in Vietnam, Korea and Cambodia. But hey! 1 person murdered is 1 too many, is it not?

Gizzard

He had the balls to get rid of saddam, a highly risky affair.
If he wanted oil he would have allied with saddam.
I find it disgusting that many people prefer that no force be used to get rid of saddam because there has been almost no incidence in history where there was a peaceful removal of a dictator and a stable country left afterwards. IMO saying "no war" is indirectly the same as "leave saddam in power" How many hundreds of thousands of people did he murder and torture?

Im not sure that the business connections of dick cheny has much relevance to the war in iraq and i think that the idea of a war started to generate money for contractors with links to the us admin is a conspiracy theory

Im fed up with people thinking they're bombing ordinary people deliberite

Bush is a greater threat to the world, his foreign policy has turned america into a rogue state, with no respect for international law, unlike Saddam USA has WMD, with Bush finger on the button.

have alook at this image, something to think about
http://www.theatrinomics.com/archives/images/Rumsfeld%20Hussein.jpg

Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands best of friends, this is farce.

Champ

But that has nothing to do with his offer of friendship to the EU. Someone claimed that he was offering friendship to the EU while holding threats/weapons behind his back. The Coalition of the Willing is just a buzz word, its nearly all American troops.

The US bullies to get its way.

The point was to give an example of the latter quote which you disputed... i.e the US does tend to act akin to a bully; at least under Bush's leadership...

A lot of that(the link) is just stats on what it takes in build and maintain their arsenal of nukes

And shows just how much effort that the US puts into developing WMDs; nuclear wise..
e.g "Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200"

The world is a safer place because the US has WMD's. If not for fear of US reprisal's there would be a considerably larger amount of military attacks by rogue nations.The US realise's its responsibility because it's the only Superpower and keeps the peace all over the world.

Okay; a blunt view of this would be that you consider threat of oblideration to be a just means of imposing your will (and the US undoubtedly have the capacity to do that several times over).. that could be interpreted as threatening acts of genocide... should they actually be carried out i'm sure the international crimes court will have their hands full with an influx of crime against humanity cases.. Oh wait the US refuses to join the ICC... i wonder why? And our confidence should further be inspired by the fact that a "Bring em on" president is in power....
It's still debatable whether the US is the only Superpower ... for a superpower they're in a very sad state of afairs in their debt...
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

lucernarian

You all convieniently forget that Saudi Arabia, one of the US "allies" is nearly a dictatorship, has few rights for women and is guilty of several alleged breaches of human rights. The US imports large amounts of oil from them. Saudi Arabia knows this and uses that fact as a sword of damocles over the Western World's head along with other opec members.

Bush's finger on the button??! Thats absurd. If they didnt use it during the cold war, why would they press it now? And don't forget that the US is not the only country with WMD, particulary nukes.

It was risky from the American Administration point of view. Things could/have gone wrong and this puts his presidency in jepoardy. Obviously it is also risky to Iraqi Lives. by answering that I also answered the second question.

It wouldn't be the first example of American hypocrisy for them to ally with Saddam.

Indeed it was very wrong to lie about Iraq having WMD. I never condoned that but I think the torture and murder of Iraqi citizens by saddam was the proper reason to go to war and I still stand by that, despite Abu Gharib and thousands of Iraqi dead. I think things are going to improve as time goes on.

Dont con people by saying korea was an illegal war. Why was the Un directly involved with organising the campaign? Why did american soldiers wear un uniforms? (i think most of them did)

Could you enlightem me about this "campaign" in cambodia? Weren't the Khmer Rouge not a ultra far left organisation?

Most people seem to have ignored a lot of the points people made. No one accepts that despite all the deaths in Iraq, they are a tiny fraction of the deaths under Saddam by internal "security" or by wars (iran and kuwait). Let no one forget that he used conscription to construct his army for those wars.

If you have a choice to save 30000 people or 2000000 people what would you choose?

indeed there are few examples of bloodless coup d'etats. This virtually guaranteed that only with the loss of thousands of iraqi lives would saddam be removed from power and almost certainly thousands more in a civil war.

It is an awful shame that Bush did it for alterior motives but what about the reason I mentioned earlier? That reason alone is enough to justify the "war".

It would be nieve to expect a fully functioning oil production system after a war by the us, which has proved the case. They were lucky not to find the oil wells blazing when they arrived.

The world in general is safer in one way as iraq is no longer any kind of risk to neighbouring countries. I admit of course that there are probabbly more terrorists in the world now but I hoped that that would decrease if Bush pressurised Sharon to be less extremist. After all, not many jews vote republican anyway. He had little to lose and less expenditure on israel to gain.

Its ironic that an ignoramist calls me a moron while getting banned for a week at the same time. I feel that I have made some valid points about this.

sceptre

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
Could you enlightem me about this "campaign" in cambodia? Weren't the Khmer Rouge not a ultra far left organisation?

Ah the day that satire died according to Tom Lerher. Henry Kissinger awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Vietnam Peace Accords (jointly with Le Duc Tho, who had the cop-on to refuse it on the grounds that there was no peace) while organising extra secret bombing raids in Laos and Cambodia to cut off the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Bombing raids started in Laos in 1965 and in Cambodia in 1969. Regardless of the sympathies of the Khmer Rouge, compare the latter date to the date they came to power (hint: it was 1975). The US bombings created the conditions for the coming to power of the Khmer Rouge. In the early days they called it "Operation Breakfast" so google for that. In the latter days of the Lon Nol government the US bombings gave it a lifeline of an extra few months but it took half a million tonnes of US bombs for this, killing anywhere up to an estimated half million people (that'll be the Arclight bombardment, google for that as well). Of course Pol Pot killed off another 2 million when he got going. Find out everything else with this search, almost any link will do.


As for the Korean War, it was fought wth a UN mandate for action (the Soviets were away sulking as the Chinese Nationalists were still occupying the Chinese UN Security Council seat). However, Truman came under a whole pile of criticism as he didn't get a declaration of war from Congress before sending troops. Even Vietnam was defended as an escalating police action.

lucernarian

Thanks for that, although I only didnt know about us involvement in cambodia(and now it appears laos), not the problems that cambodia had afterwards. If the korean war got a mandate from the un, why would he need congress backing as officialy it was a peacekeeping operation?

sceptre

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
If the korean war got a mandate from the un, why would he need congress backing as officialy it was a peacekeeping operation?

The Korean War isn't really something I know a great deal about but I assume (if I have to guess) it was due to the bombings of installations in the north, which went beyond the remit of either a police action or a peacekeeping operation (the Korean War wasn't a peacekeeping operation by the way, the US got a firm mandate to act and repel). Either way Truman got a lot of flak for it at the time as Congress technically retains the power to declare war under one of the sections (8 or 9 or somewhere round there) of Article 1 of the US Constitution. This might be of interest. It's something that wouldn't bother me a great deal (but then I'm not Korean) but it's capable of being used as a precedent to justify (even without cheating like Vietnam), which isn't good.

Moving back to where you were going above, I've some sympathy for where you're coming from (Saddam as a tyrant we're better off without, I imagine there are few who disagree and they're all people with something to gain from his retention) but it's another example of the end justifying the means question. It's a lot easier to say the means are justified by the end if everyone says it does. And without getting into a semantic argument over what any given resolution allowed the US (or a US-led coalition of the willing) to do, I might have had some sympathy for the introduction of the war (as opposed to the conduct of the war) had there been a formal UN mandate to act. As it is, it creates a potential precedent for the US in the future to invade anyone they can justify invading (and justification is easy).