Text 29095, 71 rader
Skriven 2006-05-09 08:43:46 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 29015 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
 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 that's
 BF>> war, but since the Congress haven't declared war, what are they doing in
 BF>> Iraq?

 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.

Whatever Johnson and Ford did I guess it was done whithin USA, Bush is
doing it to a foregin country and that's a totally other thing.
What would happend if a terrorist from say, Russia, was found working for
UbL, would you invade Russia as well? And even Swedes have been found
within Al Qaida so when are you coming here?
Can't you understand that people all over the world are worried over what
GWB can do when he doesn't follow, either yours or international laws?
What you do to your own is your buisness but leave the rest of the world
out of it. And by international law's here I mean that a war should have been
declared, otherweise you doings in Iraq is illegal.

 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 ...

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

 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.

 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> 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 Afthanistan.
 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.)

Haven't you, or was it Roy, who said that those terrorists who attacked you
were
from Jordan? Why didn't you attack THEM instead? And how could WMD:s in Iraq
threaten *you*? CIA must have known that Iraq didn't have intercontinental
missiles when they ?knew? that they had WMD:s. It all just doesn't make sence
so it's a coverup for something.

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

The "legal" gummint put there by USA.

 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.

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

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