Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[vienna]

I've been hearing that one since the day it happened. They didn't impeach Clinton for lying or for sex. They impeached Clinton for the crime of being a Democrat. It was a Right-Wing witchhunt from the start, and they used whatever they could get on him, much the same as the Oliver North trial was a Left-Wing witchhunt attempting to hang something on Reagan. It was political game-playing and nothing more.

On the Oliver North reference:

1. North was indicted on several charges, including perjury in sworn testimony before Congress;

2. North openly and boastfully admitted his perjury;

3. North was tried by a properly conducted Federal court and conviceted on three counts including the perjury charge;

4. North's conviction was overturned, not because he was "not guilty" or innocent, but because of a technicality of law and not evidence or testimony;

5. The overturning of the conviction was due to the efforts of that well-known "far-right extremist" organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU);

Just like you, Steve, I like to see the facts straightly given and you are correct about the nature of Clinton's "crime"...


EDIT:

I would also wish to point out Oliver North committed perjury while wearing his full uniform as a Marine Corps. officer, something very much frowned upon by fellow officers who felt he brought shame and dishonor to the Corps. ...


<O>

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tricky situation, on one hand if they don't and it all kicks off then Irish soldiers are going to be pretty directly in harms way, but if they do then they run the risk of looking like they are shirking their responsibilities to the UN peacekeeping forces. Especially if the US, et all, going around the UN rather than through it.

Considering that other countries have already pulled out their forces because of attacks on the UN forces I don't think the "shirking responsibilities" would carry any weight.

Once again still very happy at making it look ridiculous and all

That's the beauty of it Alex, neo-Nazis are always fun to show as ridiculous, and so easy too.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Considering that other countries have already pulled out their forces because of attacks on the UN forces I don't think the "shirking responsibilities" would carry any weight.

They have? Oh, that's fair enough then, probably wouldn't be a bad idea for the Irish gov to go with the flow on that one then. Which...because it's a sensible idea means we must apply government backwards logic to it, and therefore it's likely that the deployment will still go ahead.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by eddie

Like I said before Oberon, I'm completely against this strike. But, if they are stupid enough to carry it out, I hope they take out a bunch of the Iranian Guards who are serving over there. Sending them back to the Ayatollah in pine boxes wouldn't bother me at all.

Lets just hope they don't go through with this!

I wouldn't shed any tears, but it might just give the Ayatollah an excuse to do something stupid, and the last thing that we need is an expansion of any military action. Although some think it inevitable, this from a economist in the House of Lords:

"We are going to intervene sooner or later," he tells peers, "because this war is going last for much longer than we think. It is not just a Syrian civil war. This is part of a 40-year crisis of the Muslim Middle East... It's not just a Shia-Sunni war, this is sort of a rehearsal, like the Spanish civil war, of the bigger conflagration which is about to come".

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vienna

On the Oliver North reference:

1. North was indicted on several charges, including perjury in sworn testimony before Congress;

North was approached by a Congressional Committe and asked questions, which he answered. North then agreed to appear before congress on the condition that he would be granted immunity.

2. North openly and boastfully admitted his perjury;

In Congress, under oath, North boastfully admitted that he had lied to the Committee. He was not under oath when he answered the Committee's questions.

3. North was tried by a properly conducted Federal court and conviceted on three counts including the perjury charge;

North's convictions:

1. Accepting an illegal gratuity.

2, Aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry.

3. Ordering the destruction of documents via his secretary, Fawn Hall.

No, he was not convicted on the perjury charge.

4. North's conviction was overturned, not because he was "not guilty" or innocent, but because of a technicality of law and not evidence or testimony

His conviction was overturned by a Court of Appeals because the testimony against him was possibly tainted by the prosecution witnesses' exposure to the immunity trial.

5. The overturning of the conviction was due to the efforts of that well-known "far-right extremist" organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The ACLU supplied lawyers and did research. Is there something wrong with that?

I would also wish to point out Oliver North committed perjury while wearing his full uniform as a Marine Corps. officer, something very much frowned upon by fellow officers who felt he brought shame and dishonor to the Corps.

And I would point out that Oliver North did not commit perjury. He was tried but not convicted, so legally he is indeed "not guilty".

They have?

Oberon
Do you recall the "surrender monkeys" topic where MH was insisting that nothing much was really happening in the DMZ?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oberon
Do you recall the "surrender monkeys" topic where MH was insisting that nothing much was really happening in the DMZ?

Vaguely. I do remember posting in it too, but can't remember what I said or why.

[Jimbuna]

An email I received today from....pretty obvious really (the name is at the bottom) but imho makes a lot of sense:

Jim
Like everyone, I have been horrified by the pictures of men, women and children gasping for breath in Syria. In Parliament just now, I laid out my plan for how Britain should respond.
My position is clear: any action that our country supports must be legal, legitimate and effective. Our country must not make the same mistakes that happened ten years ago.
Our desperate desire to help stop this suffering in Syria must not lead us to rushed or wrong decisions.
You can see my full roadmap for action in Syria by watching my speech to Parliament:




If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country's men and women -- those in our forces -- it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.
Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:
1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;
2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;
3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors' findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world's most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;
4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;
5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.
I will use the full force of my position as leader of the Labour Party to ensure that Britain works fully with international institutions when we respond to outrages like those we have seen in Syria.
We must work together for a world in which there is peace and security for all people, and we must also acknowledge that stability will not and cannot be achieved by military means alone.
I will keep you updated on developments from Parliament,

Ed

[Mr Quatro]

If Obama is a fence sitter as proven by his past actions and Iran is bluffing that they will strike back at Israel (if Syria is attacked) and if President Obama does what he says he will do, which is just fire a warning shot across Syria's bow ...

then what is to stop Iran from funding an air attack by missiles from who knows where, that will be blow to smithereens' by the dome in Israel's defense network and if these missiles contain harmful ingredients it will spread the harmful agent everywhere the debris fall.

Leaving a solid message to leave Russian/Iranian assets alone

[mapuc]

Could it be that we take the news as the God given truth and act thereby ? Just like we did in the North Korea crisis

Could it be that in a few weeks from now it's back to business as usual and nothing has happened?

Markus

[vienna]

1. North was given immunity on the basis of his willingness to tell the truth; this willingness to testify truthfully is the basis of any immunity deal, so technically he violated his agreement and could have been prosecuted for that alone;

2. The "aiding and abetting" charge did cover his perjury since his actions (perjury) did aid and abett. Also consider the well known legal concept that perjury is very difficult to prove in a court of law, particularly in front of a jury. The law may not get you specifically on perjury, but in can use your perjury as a facet of a greater crime. Of course, North could have done a "Reagan" and just plain said he "forgot" all about what happened. Instead he went out of his way, flaunting the truth and other evidence to place obtacles to the investigation and prosecution of possible guilty parties and derail his conviction;

3. The overturn of the conviction, as you noted, was due to the legal technicality, not testimony or evidence that in any way exonerated him of his crimes for which he was convicted in a proper court of law. The overturn was in now way a vindication of his innocence or a finding of not guilty. The evidence was the evidence, a verdict was reached, and nothing in the overturn frees him of guilt;

4. There is nothing wrong with the participation of the ACLU. I just find it interesting those on the far right who vilify and denigrate the ACLU as an "extreme" left organization seem to have no qualms when they aid their less than ethical or honest "poster boys". To defend the rights of those who need defending is the purpose of the ACLU and they have labored long and well to maintain their integrity, even when those whose political or social philosophies are thwarted seek to shout them down. I don't always agree with some of the ACLU's cases, but I respect their consistency of purpose;

5. North escaped futher prosectution or even a retrial not because there was no evidence to support the charges, but because he, along several other Iran-Contra figures, were given Presidential pardons by G. H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992 as one of Bush's final acts as President. This, like the Ford pardon of Nixon, stopped any further legal action against North. The pardon neither decalred him "not guilty" or "innocent": it only rendered him "untouchable" (like Nixon) to the long arm of the law;

6. Evading conviction on a "technicality" is not the absolute proof of innocence or lack of guilt: it is rather like a guy who get royally soused in a bar, leaves, gets into his car and is stopped, arrested and convicted for DUI and then has his conviction overturned on a "technicality". Overturning the verdict does not mean he did not drive while drunk, it does not mean he is not responsible for his hazardous actions, and it does not mean he is morally or ethically "pure". All it usually means is he got legal counsel smart enough to find the "loophole" through which the worm could squirm;

North was, is, and always will be a "skater" who, threough smarm, guile, prevarication, and duplicity has skated through life, much like others such as O. J. Simpson (also not guilty?).


<O>

[vienna]

If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country's men and women -- those in our forces -- it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.
Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:
1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;
2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;
3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors' findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world's most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;
4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;
5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.
I will use the full force of my position as leader of the Labour Party to ensure that Britain works fully with international institutions when we respond to outrages like those we have seen in Syria.
We must work together for a world in which there is peace and security for all people, and we must also acknowledge that stability will not and cannot be achieved by military means alone.

Agreed. But i fear there are those who have not learned the lessons of the Iraq war who hold great sway politically and, in terms of the oil interests, financially, whose weight carries more than reasoned consideration. It is awfully hard to be heard over those who thump their chests (particularly those whose chests will not be in the path of a bullet) and beat the drums of war. Iraq should be a lesson in "fool me once..." ...


<O>

Originally Posted by Oberon

Vaguely. I do remember posting in it too, but can't remember what I said or why.

No worries, the only point I was making was that news of countries pulling their troops out of the area had been posted on this forum.

[eddie]

Assad's Scuds are on the move! Maybe we should tell them the exact time of the attack!!!!

http://news.msn.com/world/syrian-arm...o-avoid-strike

An email I received today from....pretty obvious really (the name is at the bottom) but imho makes a lot of sense:

I see the response from No.10 to Milliband is on par with all that "you love saddam" nonsense that was trotted out last time when people made rational objections to rushing into war