NationStates Jolt Archive

We (The American's under the leadership of George W. Bush) who are participating in this so called "unneeded" "illegal" "wrong" war, are there to help liberate the Iraqi peoples from these type of abuses.
The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.

Maybe they should attack America again

I'm sorry, when did Iraq attack America? I remember when Al Queda attacked America but if I remember correctly thier leaders were based in Afghanistan. Remember that country?

I'm sorry, when did Iraq attack America? I remember when Al Queda attacked America but if I remember correctly thier leaders were based in Afghanistan. Remember that country?

Couldn't agree more. Maybe if the US didn't invade their country and totally destablise it, they would be threatening to burn people alive. In bad situations people do bad things, regardless of race. Need I mention My Li? (sp?)

I'm sorry, when did Iraq attack America? I remember when Al Queda attacked America but if I remember correctly thier leaders were based in Afghanistan. Remember that country?

Maybe you will notice that I said we are there to liberate the people of Iraq. I did not say we are at war with Iraq.
The term I used for the people we are at war with was "The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity."

*sigh* quote added.

If the country of Iraq surrendered to the U.S., it would not stop the war, because we are not at war with that country.
In case you didn't notice there are troops in Afghanistan.

We (The American's under the leadership of George W. Bush) who are participating in this so called "unneeded" "illegal" "wrong" war, are there to help liberate the Iraqi peoples from these type of abuses.
The war is illegal and immoral.

The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
If those people were not intruders in their country, they would be alive today. No I don't condone the burning of bodies, but I also don't condone the innocent men, women and children of Iraq that have been blown to bits by "smart" bombs. You are not invited guests.

Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
Get your facts straight. Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 period.

I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.
That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

If yoiu are going to commit soldiers to the fight then you should be behind them 100%

jim

If the country of Iraq surrendered to the U.S., it would not stop the war, because we are not at war with that country.
In case you didn't notice there are troops in Afghanistan.

Wow, that is certainly how I think when I think of "liberation" just surrender and you will be free.. ummm mmmk.. :roll:

Why hasn't anybody asked the simple question: "What in god's name are you talking about with the burining bodies!?" I mean, I'd really like know what even is being refrenced here besides "Sadam is evil therefore he MUST have burned people alive!"

But at the same time, we have all these "crusaders" that swoop down at any attempt to rip on this dead horse of an issue. Please, illegale and immoral at the same time: don't get greedy!


To wit: both sides show their biasis in this thread.

If yoiu are going to commit soldiers to the fight then you should be behind them 100%

jim

Maybe a better way to support your countires soldiers is to not let your government put them in pointless situations where some of them will die in the first place. That's truely supporting them, and democracy whilst you're at it.

But I must say, returned servicemen should always be well treated, regardless of how immoral the war they were sent to fight was, it wasn't their fault. It's the governments and public at large fault for allowing a pointless, bloody war to happen in the first place.

They're referring to the kidnapping of the Japanese civilians; the Iraqi resistance fighters have threatened to burn them alive unless their demands are met.

The war is illegal and immoral. I have yet to see anyone able to prove either of those statements. Who has been arrested for this illegal action? Immoral? How?

The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
If those people were not intruders in their country, they would be alive today. No I don't condone the burning of bodies, but I also don't condone the innocent men, women and children of Iraq that have been blown to bits by "smart" bombs. You are not invited guests. The "intruders" are alive and are going to be used as torches while still alive. Maybe not invited, but thanked. Do you forget so soon the words of the Iraqi leader at the State of the Union address?

Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
Get your facts straight. Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 period. And just where did I say Iraq was?

I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.
That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Doesn't the UN allow for a country to defend itself? Iraq is where we found people who were/are a threat to us. At that point we did not need UN approval nor should we have waited for it.

Why hasn't anybody asked the simple question: "What in god's name are you talking about with the burining bodies!?" I mean, I'd really like know what even is being refrenced here besides "Sadam is evil therefore he MUST have burned people alive!"

But at the same time, we have all these "crusaders" that swoop down at any attempt to rip on this dead horse of an issue. Please, illegale and immoral at the same time: don't get greedy!


To wit: both sides show their biasis in this thread.
Well is the war legal?
Is the war moral?

Why hasn't anybody asked the simple question: "What in god's name are you talking about with the burining bodies!?" I mean, I'd really like know what even is being refrenced here besides "Sadam is evil therefore he MUST have burned people alive!"

But at the same time, we have all these "crusaders" that swoop down at any attempt to rip on this dead horse of an issue. Please, illegale and immoral at the same time: don't get greedy!


To wit: both sides show their biasis in this thread.

It's to do with militamen threatening, allegedly, to burn some Japanese hostages. I checked the story out on www.ninemsn.com (not an American media outlet).

They're referring to the kidnapping of the Japanese civilians; the Iraqi resistance fighters have threatened to burn them alive unless their demands are met.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3613383.stm

Allright, but that would have been nice.

Doesn't the UN allow for a country to defend itself? Iraq is where we found people who were/are a threat to us. At that point we did not need UN approval nor should we have waited for it.

Last time I checked, preemtive strikes weren't a valid form of self defence.

Well is the war legal?
Is the war moral?


The war is legal.
The war is moral.


that seems to be logic you like.

If the country of Iraq surrendered to the U.S., it would not stop the war, because we are not at war with that country.
In case you didn't notice there are troops in Afghanistan.

Wow, that is certainly how I think when I think of "liberation" just surrender and you will be free.. ummm mmmk.. :roll:

And I thought you could read. I said it would not stop the war, because we are [/b]not[b] at war with that country.

Bush excuse for going to war in Iraq was that the Iraqis had biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

The only reason the Bush administration has for beleiving this is that 10 years ago, the US sold Iraq these weapons of mass destruction so that they could fight Iran, the national enemy of the time. America was friendly with Iraq then, but has now turned on them through a) a Bush family fued with Saddam (started by George Bush senior) and b) desire for the vast oil reserves Iraq has.

Nice reasoning on Bush's part.

Well is the war legal?
Is the war moral?


The war is legal.
The war is moral.


that seems to be logic you like.This is just Can not being able to support the claims he made.

If the country of Iraq surrendered to the U.S., it would not stop the war, because we are not at war with that country.
In case you didn't notice there are troops in Afghanistan.

Wow, that is certainly how I think when I think of "liberation" just surrender and you will be free.. ummm mmmk.. :roll:

And I thought you could read. I said it would not stop the war, because we are [/b]not[b] at war with that country.

Ok, so you're not at war with Iraq.. must of been a dream.. yeah, that's the ticket, we all just imagined you bombing the sh*t out of it..lol

Not at war with Iraq is the silliest thing I've seen posted about Iraq and the war yet! You win the Stephistan award for the best spin in a year..lol not at war..lmao :shock:

We (The American's under the leadership of George W. Bush) who are participating in this so called "unneeded" "illegal" "wrong" war, are there to help liberate the Iraqi peoples from these type of abuses.
The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.

I don't see why burning alive somebody is more cruel than throwing clusterbombs al over a country. They are both disgusting

He's got a point there; except the people most often injured by unexploded bombs are kids who think they're toys.

The war is illegal and immoral. I have yet to see anyone able to prove either of those statements. Who has been arrested for this illegal action? Immoral? How?

The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
If those people were not intruders in their country, they would be alive today. No I don't condone the burning of bodies, but I also don't condone the innocent men, women and children of Iraq that have been blown to bits by "smart" bombs. You are not invited guests. The "intruders" are alive and are going to be used as torches while still alive. Maybe not invited, but thanked. Do you forget so soon the words of the Iraqi leader at the State of the Union address?

Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
Get your facts straight. Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 period. And just where did I say Iraq was?

I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.
That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Doesn't the UN allow for a country to defend itself? Iraq is where we found people who were/are a threat to us. At that point we did not need UN approval nor should we have waited for it.
Was Iraq attacking the US? Who in Iraq was a treat to the US? Yes you need UN approval unless you are attacked.

Here is why I think the war is wrong:

1. The war against Iraq is illegal. (no UN approval)

2. The war against Iraq is immoral. Many people have died during this campaign of "Shock and Awe", including innocenr men, women and children.

3. The US should have allowed the UN inspectors to complete their job.

4. The UN inspectors were NOT finding any banned WMD, save a few short range missles that slightly exceeded the allowance given them by the UN, AND they were being destroyed by the team.

5. Iraq posed no threat to the US security by either terrorism or WMD.

6. The US is using deadly nuclear weapons, including bullets that are bad for the Iraqis as well as the troops:

"When the uranium bullets, missiles, or bombs hit something or explode most of the radioactive uranium turns instantly to very, very small dust particles, too fine to even see. When US Troopers or Iraqis breathe even a tiny amount into their lungs, as little as One Gram, it is the same as getting an X-Ray every hour for the rest of their shortened life.

The uranium cannot be removed, there is no treatment, there is no cure. The uranium will long outlast the Veterans' and the Iraqis' bodies though; for, you see, it lasts virtually forever."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm

7. The war in Iraq is creating MORE hatred towards the US by other Arab states, as well as the Iraqi people.

8. The US has alienated some of its' traditional allies.

Bush excuse for going to war in Iraq was that the Iraqis had biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

The only reason the Bush administration has for beleiving this is that 10 years ago, the US sold Iraq these weapons of mass destruction so that they could fight Iran, the national enemy of the time. America was friendly with Iraq then, but has now turned on them through a) a Bush family fued with Saddam (started by George Bush senior) and b) desire for the vast oil reserves Iraq has.

Nice reasoning on Bush's part.This is supposed to have something to do with a feud between the Bush family and Saddam. How come people claim that on 9/11 Bush helped Saddam's family leave the country?

If the country of Iraq surrendered to the U.S., it would not stop the war, because we are not at war with that country.
In case you didn't notice there are troops in Afghanistan.

Wow, that is certainly how I think when I think of "liberation" just surrender and you will be free.. ummm mmmk.. :roll:

And I thought you could read. I said it would not stop the war, because we are [/b]not[b] at war with that country.

Ok, so you're not at war with Iraq.. must of been a dream.. yeah, that's the ticket, we all just imagined you bombing the sh*t out of it..lol

Not at war with Iraq is the silliest thing I've seen posted about Iraq and the war yet! You win the Stephistan award for the best spin in a year..lol not at war..lmao :shock:Show me the declaration of War that has been signed. Anyone? Talk about a spin... We are at war in Iraq not against Iraq.

Bush excuse for going to war in Iraq was that the Iraqis had biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

The only reason the Bush administration has for beleiving this is that 10 years ago, the US sold Iraq these weapons of mass destruction so that they could fight Iran, the national enemy of the time. America was friendly with Iraq then, but has now turned on them through a) a Bush family fued with Saddam (started by George Bush senior) and b) desire for the vast oil reserves Iraq has.

Nice reasoning on Bush's part.This is supposed to have something to do with a feud between the Bush family and Saddam. How come people claim that on 9/11 Bush helped Saddam's family leave the country?

No, no, he helped the Bin Laden family leave the country.. Saddam hasn't done any thing to any one since 91/92... wrong people.. please for the sake that is good and right in the world.. please at least read up on whats going on before posting an opinion based on no knowledge of the facts.. I beg this of you.

If the country of Iraq surrendered to the U.S., it would not stop the war, because we are not at war with that country.
In case you didn't notice there are troops in Afghanistan.

Wow, that is certainly how I think when I think of "liberation" just surrender and you will be free.. ummm mmmk.. :roll:

And I thought you could read. I said it would not stop the war, because we are [/b]not[b] at war with that country.

Ok, so you're not at war with Iraq.. must of been a dream.. yeah, that's the ticket, we all just imagined you bombing the sh*t out of it..lol

Not at war with Iraq is the silliest thing I've seen posted about Iraq and the war yet! You win the Stephistan award for the best spin in a year..lol not at war..lmao :shock:Show me the declaration of War that has been signed. Anyone? Talk about a spin... We are at war in Iraq not against Iraq.

Uh huh. That's why you took down the Iraqi government and killed Iraqi soldiers. For all the US army has done, it might as bloody well be at war with Iraq, whether the red tape was signed or not.

The war is illegal and immoral. I have yet to see anyone able to prove either of those statements. Who has been arrested for this illegal action? Immoral? How?

The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
If those people were not intruders in their country, they would be alive today. No I don't condone the burning of bodies, but I also don't condone the innocent men, women and children of Iraq that have been blown to bits by "smart" bombs. You are not invited guests. The "intruders" are alive and are going to be used as torches while still alive. Maybe not invited, but thanked. Do you forget so soon the words of the Iraqi leader at the State of the Union address?

Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
Get your facts straight. Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 period. And just where did I say Iraq was?

I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.
That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Doesn't the UN allow for a country to defend itself? Iraq is where we found people who were/are a threat to us. At that point we did not need UN approval nor should we have waited for it.
Was Iraq attacking the US? Who in Iraq was a treat to the US? Yes you need UN approval unless you are attacked.

Here is why I think the war is wrong:

1. The war against Iraq is illegal. (no UN approval)

2. The war against Iraq is immoral. Many people have died during this campaign of "Shock and Awe", including innocenr men, women and children.

3. The US should have allowed the UN inspectors to complete their job.

4. The UN inspectors were NOT finding any banned WMD, save a few short range missles that slightly exceeded the allowance given them by the UN, AND they were being destroyed by the team.

5. Iraq posed no threat to the US security by either terrorism or WMD.

6. The US is using deadly nuclear weapons, including bullets that are bad for the Iraqis as well as the troops:

"When the uranium bullets, missiles, or bombs hit something or explode most of the radioactive uranium turns instantly to very, very small dust particles, too fine to even see. When US Troopers or Iraqis breathe even a tiny amount into their lungs, as little as One Gram, it is the same as getting an X-Ray every hour for the rest of their shortened life.

The uranium cannot be removed, there is no treatment, there is no cure. The uranium will long outlast the Veterans' and the Iraqis' bodies though; for, you see, it lasts virtually forever."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm

7. The war in Iraq is creating MORE hatred towards the US by other Arab states, as well as the Iraqi people.

8. The US has alienated some of its' traditional allies.You keep using that term war against Iraq. When was this declared? As far as legalities go we are not at war with Iraq.

I think Jay needs to do a bit more homework :lol:

Look, this shouldn't get bogged down into an general Iraq war thread becasue god knows there are enough of them. I think what JayW is trying to say this these people [who have kidnapped the Japanese] are just as bad as the regeim that the Americans took out.


If you are against this, the real question you should be asking in this: What connection does this group have to the regiem of Sadam? Take for example this article by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3610521.stm

A similar group relased prsioners under similar circumstances. Unless you can prove the groups had direct ties to Sadam's goverment, then their beavhoir cannot be a justification for American's war in the first palce.

Yet people seem more than inclined to just attack the general idea instead of attacking JayW's logic in making this first thread.

Again, my views still stand.

I think Jay needs to do a bit more homework :lol:

I'm sure Jay means well.. *snicker* but yeah, so it would appear.

Ok,

That is as far as I am taking this one. Until you know who we are at war with and who we are not at war with, this discussion is totally useless. If anyone can show where and when we declared war on Iraq I will answer no more post.

Yet people seem more than inclined to just attack the general idea instead of attacking JayW's logic in making this first thread.

Again, my views still stand.
Me attack? I am such a peaceful kinda guy :lol:

I think Jay needs to do a bit more homework :lol:

And you need work on you're logic if you want to be so smug. Hit the search button if you want a general topic on Iraq.

Ok,

That is as far as I am taking this one. Until you know who we are at war with and who we are not at war with, this discussion is totally useless. If anyone can show where and when we declared war on Iraq I will answer no more post.
The US President George Walker Bush today 20 March 2003 delivered an address live on television announcing the beginning of war against President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. CRTV Online News brings to you the full text of the war declaration speech that was read from the White House’s Oval Office shortly after Iraq suffered the first US-led military strike that targeted a building in South Iraq believed to have been the meeting point of some 5 top Iraqi authorities.

http://www.crtv.cm/actualite_det.php?code=790

There ya go

I declare I am going to bed :shock:

um, u do know that other non-american people use this web site as well, america isnt the only country in the world. u said "we the americans" what about the rest of us, we i vote on your little servay thingy too? after all, our country played a huge part in this stupid war

I declare I am going to bed :shock:

I declare, good~night! :lol:

um, u do know that other non-american people use this web site as well, america isnt the only country in the world. u said "we the americans" what about the rest of us, we i vote on your little servay thingy too? after all, our country played a huge part in this stupid war

Again, what the HELL does this happen to do with the topic at hand outside of responding to off topic gibber.

We (The American's under the leadership of George W. Bush) who are participating in this so called "unneeded" "illegal" "wrong" war, are there to help liberate the Iraqi peoples from these type of abuses.
The war is illegal and immoral.

The people we are at war against have once again shown their true nature in this latest atrocity.
If the idea of burning someone alive is not enough to show that this war is needed then what will it take?
If those people were not intruders in their country, they would be alive today. No I don't condone the burning of bodies, but I also don't condone the innocent men, women and children of Iraq that have been blown to bits by "smart" bombs. You are not invited guests.

Maybe they should attack America again and take some Americans hostage and burn them alive would that be enough?
Get your facts straight. Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 period.

I wonder what it will take to make some people realize that what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing.
That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Listen to this man, he know what he's talking about.

Regards,

TNE

Ok,

That is as far as I am taking this one. Until you know who we are at war with and who we are not at war with, this discussion is totally useless. If anyone can show where and when we declared war on Iraq I will answer no more post.
The US President George Walker Bush today 20 March 2003 delivered an address live on television announcing the beginning of war against President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. CRTV Online News brings to you the full text of the war declaration speech that was read from the White House’s Oval Office shortly after Iraq suffered the first US-led military strike that targeted a building in South Iraq believed to have been the meeting point of some 5 top Iraqi authorities.

http://www.crtv.cm/actualite_det.php?code=790

There ya go

Checkmate Jay..

Checkmate Jay..


So what exactly did you add to this debate again...

I semi-agreed and semi-disagreed with the initial invasion, however the current occupation policy has gone out of control and coalition troops have been there way longer than originaly promised. As you can see with the recent developments, its no longer a walk in the park. The funny thing is, these are the type of people Saddam stopped from terrorising Iraq. Knowing the US, they will now turn to him for advice and give him his old job back in return :roll:

Iraq never attacked us, saddam used the weapons we sold him on the Iranians, like he was told to by Reagan. There were no Iraqis on the planes that attacked us on 9/11, in fact they were all saudis and egyptians (16 saudis, 4 egyptians) the cia funded the taliban to fight the russians in afghanistan, osama was a bush investor, bush let all the saudis fly home on 9/11.....waitaminute...why are we in Iraq?
well, saddam and his kids were sick, murdering people en masse and commiting atrocities daily.....so why didn't the first bush take him out when we were 100 miles south of baghdad the first war? oh, right, saddam may still have had some of those weapons reagan and bush had sold him ten years earlier.....so should we be there? no, was it good to remove saddam? yes.....but are bush one and bush two Idiots? YES!
but wait...they are oil men....so are the saudis who attacked us......but we're in Iraq aren't we? yeah...why? oh hell, don't worry about it boy, just do as we say and it'll be ok......but I wanna get the guys who attacked us!!
well, the saudis are our friends son...but didn't you say they were the hijackers on 9/11? well yes son, but those were radical elements......oh, so we'll find them in Iraq? absolutely!...you go look while I take care of business here....uh, ok ........

Ok,

That is as far as I am taking this one. Until you know who we are at war with and who we are not at war with, this discussion is totally useless. If anyone can show where and when we declared war on Iraq I will answer no more post.
The US President George Walker Bush today 20 March 2003 delivered an address live on television announcing the beginning of war against President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. CRTV Online News brings to you the full text of the war declaration speech that was read from the White House’s Oval Office shortly after Iraq suffered the first US-led military strike that targeted a building in South Iraq believed to have been the meeting point of some 5 top Iraqi authorities.

http://www.crtv.cm/actualite_det.php?code=790

There ya goLet's see this speech. Here let me copy it directly from your own link:

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

"On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.

"These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.

"More than 35 countries are giving crucial support, from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units.

"Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honour of serving in our common defence.

"To all of the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you.

"That trust is well placed.

"The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honourable and decent spirit of the American military.

"In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality

. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military; a final atrocity against his people.

"I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.

A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

"We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

"I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon.

"Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent.

"For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people and you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

"We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

"Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory.

"My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others.

"And we will prevail.

"May God bless our country and all who defend her." /quote

Now I have taken the trouble to highlight the only places in this speech where war was even mentioned. I think even a simple mind can now see that nowhere in this speech does President George W. Bush declare war on the country of Iraq. The only people who claim this was a declaration of War are the headline writers. And even they can only say we declared war against Suddam, not against the country.

Ok,

That is as far as I am taking this one. Until you know who we are at war with and who we are not at war with, this discussion is totally useless. If anyone can show where and when we declared war on Iraq I will answer no more post.
The US President George Walker Bush today 20 March 2003 delivered an address live on television announcing the beginning of war against President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. CRTV Online News brings to you the full text of the war declaration speech that was read from the White House’s Oval Office shortly after Iraq suffered the first US-led military strike that targeted a building in South Iraq believed to have been the meeting point of some 5 top Iraqi authorities.

http://www.crtv.cm/actualite_det.php?code=790

There ya goSnip

Jay W, don't give up your day job..lol :roll:

Look, this shouldn't get bogged down into an general Iraq war thread becasue god knows there are enough of them. I think what JayW is trying to say this these people [who have kidnapped the Japanese] are just as bad as the regeim that the Americans took out.


If you are against this, the real question you should be asking in this: What connection does this group have to the regiem of Sadam? Take for example this article by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3610521.stm

A similar group relased prsioners under similar circumstances. Unless you can prove the groups had direct ties to Sadam's goverment, then their beavhoir cannot be a justification for American's war in the first palce.

Yet people seem more than inclined to just attack the general idea instead of attacking JayW's logic in making this first thread.

Again, my views still stand.At least one person has came close to understanding what this is all about.

um, u do know that other non-american people use this web site as well, america isnt the only country in the world. u said "we the americans" what about the rest of us, we i vote on your little servay thingy too? after all, our country played a huge part in this stupid warJust in case you didn't look close enough to what is happening, the hostages are Japanesse. I hold a very high respect for all the countries that are helping to do the right thing in Iraq. I was not leaving out anyone. I can only, as an American, make a statement like we Americans because I cannot speak for anyone of a different nation.

Ok,

That is as far as I am taking this one. Until you know who we are at war with and who we are not at war with, this discussion is totally useless. If anyone can show where and when we declared war on Iraq I will answer no more post.
The US President George Walker Bush today 20 March 2003 delivered an address live on television announcing the beginning of war against President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. CRTV Online News brings to you the full text of the war declaration speech that was read from the White House’s Oval Office shortly after Iraq suffered the first US-led military strike that targeted a building in South Iraq believed to have been the meeting point of some 5 top Iraqi authorities.

http://www.crtv.cm/actualite_det.php?code=790

There ya goSnip

Jay W, don't give up your day job..lol :roll:How about that there you go getting snippy. I thought you would know enough to read the speech and not the headlines before making a claim.

I think this is great PR for us. I'm just hoping the admin can turn it into a real boon. Look at us free the hostages, we're so great, Ra Ra America.

Awesome, gives us some impetus to stay put.

um, u do know that other non-american people use this web site as well, america isnt the only country in the world. u said "we the americans" what about the rest of us, we i vote on your little servay thingy too? after all, our country played a huge part in this stupid warJust in case you didn't look close enough to what is happening, the hostages are Japanesse. I hold a very high respect for all the countries that are helping to do the right thing in Iraq. I was not leaving out anyone. I can only, as an American, make a statement like we Americans because I cannot speak for anyone of a different nation.

I think you were leaving someone out, what about the Japenese people? If your God-Damn country could keep its hands off some oil, and if your leader could keep a personal hatred of a certain person to himself then these Japenese fellars wouldn't be in the sitaution!

You keep using that term war against Iraq. When was this declared? As far as legalities go we are not at war with Iraq.

Yes, well, technically our country hasn't actually declared war since World War 2. By your logic, we weren't at war with North Korea or North Vietnam, either. Is that what you're saying?

That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Hmmm... perhapse you should choose another bit of international law for your argument. This is a better argument for US intervention than against it (especially considering the US was acting under several UN resolutions...)

um, u do know that other non-american people use this web site as well, america isnt the only country in the world. u said "we the americans" what about the rest of us, we i vote on your little servay thingy too? after all, our country played a huge part in this stupid warJust in case you didn't look close enough to what is happening, the hostages are Japanesse. I hold a very high respect for all the countries that are helping to do the right thing in Iraq. I was not leaving out anyone. I can only, as an American, make a statement like we Americans because I cannot speak for anyone of a different nation.

I think you were leaving someone out, what about the Japenese people? If your God-Damn country could keep its hands off some oil, and if your leader could keep a personal hatred of a certain person to himself then these Japenese fellars wouldn't be in the sitaution!
Hammer meets nail----drives in point :o

That is the problem, you are not doing the right thing. You are in violation of the Charter of the United Nations , Chapter I, Purposes and Principles,

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Hmmm... perhapse you should choose another bit of international law for your argument. This is a better argument for US intervention than against it (especially considering the US was acting under several UN resolutions...)
The US was NOT acting under UN Resolutions. The US sought UN approval and was unsuccessful. That is why this war is illegal.

"shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force"

There is no implied consent in those words.

dp

The war was legal under Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441, (and some 14 other resolutions according to one source?).
Resolution 678 authorizes use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and restore peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687 imposed an obligation to eliminate WMDs in order to restore peace.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of 687.

Iraqi territorial integrity and political independence are not under threat (even W isn't stupid enough to try and make Iraq part of the US, ehich your argument would entail).

Please note: I think the war was stupid and wasteful. But arguing from ignorance and lies does not help your cause.

The war was legal under Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441, (and some 14 other resolutions according to one source?).
Resolution 678 authorizes use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and restore peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687 imposed an obligation to eliminate WMDs in order to restore peace.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of 687.

Iraqi territorial integrity and political independence are not under threat (even W isn't stupid enough to try and make Iraq part of the US, ehich your argument would entail).

Please note: I think the war was stupid and wasteful. But arguing from ignorance and lies does not help your cause.

What threat was Iraq posing to the area at the time? After ten years of sanctions and US/UK air stikes, it wasn't in a position to pose a threat to anyone. Hasn't it since been proven as well that Iraq had no WMD's, even Powell is coming close to admitting that. Have you heard he has finally admitted that his intelligence on those mobile chemical weapons plants was "not soild"? If not, check out this story on www.9sbs.org.au

What threat was Iraq posing to the area at the time? After ten years of sanctions and US/UK air stikes, it wasn't in a position to pose a threat to anyone. Hasn't it since been proven as well that Iraq had no WMD's, even Powell is coming close to admitting that. Have you heard he has finally admitted that his intelligence on those mobile chemical weapons plants was "not soild"? If not, check out this story on www.9sbs.org.au

Yes. The intel was screwed up. But this was not necessarily clear before the fact.

(Note: I think this has been a screw up. Bush should come out with a mea maxima culpa. But he won't. )

The war was legal under Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.
Resolution 678 authorizes use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and restore peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687 imposed an obligation to eliminate WMDs in order to restore peace.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of 687.

Iraqi territorial integrity and political independence are not under threat (even W isn't stupid enough to try and make Iraq part of the US, ehich your argument would entail).

Please note: I think the war was stupid and wasteful. But arguing from ignorance and lies does not help your cause.
Despite your antagonistic approach, let's try this again:

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Now clearly, the US was using force against the political independence of Iraq, contrary to the Purposes of the United Nations.

Iraq was complying with UN Resolution 1441, the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, and the US kicked them out, which in itself was a violation of UN Resolution 1441 by the US as per follows:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

This begs the question: WHY didn't the US allow the inspectors to finish their job?

UN Resolution 1441 also states:

REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring states...

By invading Iraq's "sovereignity", the US was in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

Even IF Iraq failed to comply fully with 1441, the US was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security Council to go to war against Iraq.

The war was legal under Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.
Resolution 678 authorizes use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and restore peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687 imposed an obligation to eliminate WMDs in order to restore peace.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of 687.

Iraqi territorial integrity and political independence are not under threat (even W isn't stupid enough to try and make Iraq part of the US, ehich your argument would entail).

Please note: I think the war was stupid and wasteful. But arguing from ignorance and lies does not help your cause.


Despite your antagonistic approach, let's try this again:[quote]

Ad Hominem :roll:

[quote]Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Now clearly, the US was using force against the political independence of Iraq, contrary to the Purposes of the United Nations.

The US has shown every intenmtion of allowing Iraq to retain it's independence. there has been no move to integrate it into the US body politic.

Iraq was complying with UN Resolution 1441, the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, and the US kicked them out, which in itself was a violation of UN Resolution by the US as per follows:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

This begs the question: WHY didn't the US allow the inspectors to finish their job?

UN Resolution 1441 also states:

REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring states...

By invading Iraq's "sovereignity", the US was in violation of the Resolution.

Even IF Iraq failed to comply fully with 1441, the US was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security Council to go to war against Iraq.

The US was authorized to use force under earlier resolutions (678 and 687). 1441 found a material breach. It called for one more chance, but under the previous resolutions, the US had legal grounds once Iraq was found in material breach.

The war was legal under Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.
Resolution 678 authorizes use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and restore peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687 imposed an obligation to eliminate WMDs in order to restore peace.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of 687.

Iraqi territorial integrity and political independence are not under threat (even W isn't stupid enough to try and make Iraq part of the US, ehich your argument would entail).

Please note: I think the war was stupid and wasteful. But arguing from ignorance and lies does not help your cause.


Despite your antagonistic approach, let's try this again:

Ad Hominem :roll:

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Now clearly, the US was using force against the political independence of Iraq, contrary to the Purposes of the United Nations.

The US has shown every intenmtion of allowing Iraq to retain it's independence. there has been no move to integrate it into the US body politic.
If someone attacks the US, throws Bush in jail, three things have happened:

1. Your sovereignity has been violated, contrary to the UN Charter.

2. Your independence has been removed. You are now under control of an occupying force.

3. Your "freedom" to elect Bush has been removed because he is in jail.

The US is in violation of the UN Charter.

Iraq was complying with UN Resolution 1441, the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, and the US kicked them out, which in itself was a violation of UN Resolution by the US as per follows:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

This begs the question: WHY didn't the US allow the inspectors to finish their job?

UN Resolution 1441 also states:

REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring states...

By invading Iraq's "sovereignity", the US was in violation of the Resolution.

Even IF Iraq failed to comply fully with 1441, the US was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security Council to go to war against Iraq.

The US was authorized to use force under earlier resolutions (678 and 687). 1441 found a material breach. It called for one more chance, but under the previous resolutions, the US had legal grounds once Iraq was found in material breach.
Nowhere in 678, 687, or 1441 is the US authorized by the UN to invade Iraq. The US went to the UN to plead its' case for invasion, and it was not granted, therefore the US opted for a preemptive attack. Which is illegal.

Maybe they should attack America again

I'm sorry, when did Iraq attack America?
Almost every day after the Gulf War when Iraq tried to shoot down our planes and assassinate our president.

Maybe they should attack America again

I'm sorry, when did Iraq attack America?
Almost every day after the Gulf War when Iraq tried to shoot down our planes and assassinate our president.

Hey, wait, say something about how there's no such thing as seperation of church and state!

If someone attacks the US, throws Bush in jail, three things have happened:

1. Your sovereignity has been violated, contrary to the UN Charter.

2. Your independence has been removed. You are now under control of an occupying force.

3. Your "freedom" to elect Bush has been removed because he is in jail.

Again, the US has shown no intent of making Iraq a part of the US.

The US is in violation of the UN Charter.

Iraq was complying with UN Resolution 1441, the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, and the US kicked them out, which in itself was a violation of UN Resolution by the US as per follows:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

This begs the question: WHY didn't the US allow the inspectors to finish their job?

UN Resolution 1441 also states:

REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring states...

By invading Iraq's "sovereignity", the US was in violation of the Resolution.

Even IF Iraq failed to comply fully with 1441, the US was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security Council to go to war against Iraq.

The US was authorized to use force under earlier resolutions (678 and 687). 1441 found a material breach. It called for one more chance, but under the previous resolutions, the US had legal grounds once Iraq was found in material breach.
Nowhere in 678, 687, or 1441 is the US authorized by the UN to invade Iraq. The US went to the UN to plead its' case for invasion, and it was not granted, therefore the US opted for a preemptive attack. Which is illegal.

Use of force was called for under 678. It was reinforced under 687 and 1441. What do you call the invasion if it was not a use of force?

I personally believe that that the war is legitament(pardon me if i spell some words incorectly) even if there never any WMD's found. Saddam was a horible evil man who grew corrupt as he stayed in power. He killed and tourchered those who didnt agree with him. He let Terrorists train in his country wich was proven becuase we ran into a bunch on the way to The capital. In every war innocent blood is spilt what do you expect? We wouldnt have needed to go in there if Saddam just surrendered at the start. I could care less what the "real" reason we went in there as far as im concerned we are just finishing up a job we started. I dont see how you people can belive things would be better if Saddam was in power do your news providers forget to mention those mass graves found in a iraq? or those tourcher chambers in the jails? Or the stealing of money from Iraq Citizens when it was supposed to go to food and medicine? I would have thought that this was all propaganda if there wasnt evidence and pictures. This war was long over due :evil: (send me a teligram if you wish to share your opinion with me)

Doesn't the UN allow for a country to defend itself? Iraq is where we found people who were/are a threat to us. At that point we did not need UN approval nor should we have waited for it.
A threat eh? What did threaten you with? Harsh language?

If someone attacks the US, throws Bush in jail, three things have happened:

1. Your sovereignity has been violated, contrary to the UN Charter.

2. Your independence has been removed. You are now under control of an occupying force.

3. Your "freedom" to elect Bush has been removed because he is in jail.

Again, the US has shown no intent of making Iraq a part of the US.

The US is in violation of the UN Charter.

Iraq was complying with UN Resolution 1441, the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, and the US kicked them out, which in itself was a violation of UN Resolution by the US as per follows:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

This begs the question: WHY didn't the US allow the inspectors to finish their job?

UN Resolution 1441 also states:

REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring states...

By invading Iraq's "sovereignity", the US was in violation of the Resolution.

Even IF Iraq failed to comply fully with 1441, the US was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security Council to go to war against Iraq.

The US was authorized to use force under earlier resolutions (678 and 687). 1441 found a material breach. It called for one more chance, but under the previous resolutions, the US had legal grounds once Iraq was found in material breach.
Nowhere in 678, 687, or 1441 is the US authorized by the UN to invade Iraq. The US went to the UN to plead its' case for invasion, and it was not granted, therefore the US opted for a preemptive attack. Which is illegal.

Use of force was called for under 678. It was reinforced under 687 and 1441. What do you call the invasion if it was not a use of force?
You slice it and I'll dice it.

"Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier UN resolutions nor that the UN Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat."- - [Associated Press, 3/19/03]


Invasion of Iraq is illegal:

International Laws Violated:

Article 2 (Section 3- 4) of the United Nations Charter

Articles 39 to 50 of the United Nations Charter

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter

Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928

US laws violated:

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution

The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

At the bottom of the page, the suggested excuse of using previous Resolutions is refuted.

*************************************************************
I am also including an article written by Mr. Scowcroft, national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.

Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Burning alive 4 Americans, beating them, then hanging them, and then throwing a party is a really bad idea when your neighbors are US Marines...

You keep using that term war against Iraq. When was this declared? As far as legalities go we are not at war with Iraq.

Yes, well, technically our country hasn't actually declared war since World War 2. By your logic, we weren't at war with North Korea or North Vietnam, either. Is that what you're saying?Korea was/is considered a police action. Vietnam was/is considered a conflict. This is the main reason the returning soldiers were treated so badly. Anyone remember all the protesters shouting "baby killers" at the returning soldiers? I think the soldiers deserve better than that. All military actions have their oppositition, it just doesn't need to be focused on the men and women who serve their country (when they signed up, that is what they promised to do). Some where drafted, some ran off to Canada (the cowards and those who claimed to be against fighting) I just would like to see our military and our president have the support they deserve.

The war was legal under Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.
Resolution 678 authorizes use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and restore peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687 imposed an obligation to eliminate WMDs in order to restore peace.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of 687.

Iraqi territorial integrity and political independence are not under threat (even W isn't stupid enough to try and make Iraq part of the US, ehich your argument would entail).

Please note: I think the war was stupid and wasteful. But arguing from ignorance and lies does not help your cause.
Despite your antagonistic approach, let's try this again:

Article 2:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Now clearly, the US was using force against the political independence of Iraq, contrary to the Purposes of the United Nations.

Iraq was complying with UN Resolution 1441, the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, and the US kicked them out, which in itself was a violation of UN Resolution 1441 by the US as per follows:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

This begs the question: WHY didn't the US allow the inspectors to finish their job?

UN Resolution 1441 also states:

REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring states...

By invading Iraq's "sovereignity", the US was in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

Even IF Iraq failed to comply fully with 1441, the US was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security Council to go to war against Iraq.Looks like someone still doesn't wish to look at the last half of resolution 678 "restore peace and security to the area". Restoring security is one of the main objectives of this conflict.

Scroll up Jay and check out the links. Far more comprehensive than what I already posted before.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

Some very interesting reading for sure.

I don't really think current international law is very legitimate anyways... it's basically ad hoc, unenforced posturing. Until there's some kind of reform, I don't think international law arguments have very much weight.

I don't really think current international law is very legitimate anyways... it's basically ad hoc, unenforced posturing. Until there's some kind of reform, I don't think international law arguments have very much weight.
Well you could read what the lawyers suggest.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

It goes a little further than your beliefs.

I don't really think current international law is very legitimate anyways... it's basically ad hoc, unenforced posturing. Until there's some kind of reform, I don't think international law arguments have very much weight.
Well you could read what the lawyers suggest.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

It goes a little further than your beliefs.

Not really... I'm saying that even if the war is illegal, it's not that important, because the laws aren't any good anyways. The current system of international law is badly broken. Something that is illegal isn't then necessarily wrong.

I don't really think current international law is very legitimate anyways... it's basically ad hoc, unenforced posturing. Until there's some kind of reform, I don't think international law arguments have very much weight.
Well you could read what the lawyers suggest.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

It goes a little further than your beliefs.

Not really... I'm saying that even if the war is illegal, it's not that important, because the laws aren't any good anyways. The current system of international law is badly broken. Something that is illegal isn't then necessarily wrong.
It is extremely wrong for the President of one of the world's greatest powers, to completely circumvent the truth, and the UN.

Thousand of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children have died and/or are suffering terrible injuries, which I think is totally immoral. When was the last time that Saddam inflicted this much pain and suffering on his people? Now it is being imported. Made in the USA.....SAD :cry:

How does this make the world a safer place? It doesn't.

What is Bush's hidden agenda? Why the lies and deception?

The world is not taking a kindly view of this.

It is extremely wrong for the President of one of the world's greatest powers, to completely circumvent the truth, and the UN.

There's nothing wrong with circumventing the UN, even according to the UN itself! The UN has never been intended to replace foreign policy. It's not supposed to be a world government or international judge or something. Its decree is not law.

I agree though, lying about WMD (if indeed they were lying) is not acceptable.

Thousand of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children have died and/or are suffering terrible injuries, which I think is totally immoral. When was the last time that Saddam inflicted this much pain and suffering on his people? Now it is being imported. Made in the USA.....SAD :cry:

Well, even the highest estimates put the number of innocent Iraqi's killed at under 15000. When you consider that Saddam, on several occasions, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, this isn't really that bad. Consider that hundreds of thousands died after the first gulf war because Saddam refused to use 'oil for food' programs to actually feed his people. There's no comparison whatsoever, IMO.

How does this make the world a safer place? It doesn't.

Maybe not. International law isn't/shouldn't be based purely on security.

What is Bush's hidden agenda? Why the lies and deception?

The world is not taking a kindly view of this.

You guess is as good as mine. What does this have to do with international law however?

Mallberta, perhaps you haven't noticed, but Saddam has not practiced the genocide part of his career in the past 12 years. And you suggest that 15,000 deaths at the hands of the US is worth it? I fail to see your rationalization. One wrong doesn't make another right. Perhaps if it was your family and friends that were dying, you wouldn't take such a cavalier attitude about this.

It is relatively easy to sit at a keyboard 10,000 miles away, safe and secure, knowing that it is unlikely that an armed soldier is going to bust down your door.

This whole war is bogus and has been from the start. The US was under no threat from Saddam. Iraq had no air force, no WMD, and was not linked with Al-Queda. The weapons inspectors were doing their job.

The US has just demonstrated that they are above the law and I for one find that a scary proposition.

Here is an interesting link, dated BEFORE the war started against Iraq:

Efforts to show Iraq-Qaeda link cause friction within FBI and CIA

http://www.iht.com/articles/85354.html

James Risen and David Johnston The New York Times
Monday, February 3, 2003

Hooray for war! :lol:

Mallberta, perhaps you haven't noticed, but Saddam has not practiced the genocide part of his career in the past 12 years. And you suggest that 15,000 deaths at the hands of the US is worth it? I fail to see your rationalization. One wrong doesn't make another right. Perhaps if it was your family and friends that were dying, you wouldn't take such a cavalier attitude about this.

Actually, starvation directly due to Saddam's leadership is well documented and was pervasive up to and including the invasion. It has been claimed that several hundred thousand starved or died of easily preventable illness directly due to Hussein's abuse of food for oil programs. This is not acceptable. In the last decade, some four or five hundred thousand dead can probably be directly attributed to the Ba'athist regime. The bottom line is that the number killed by the US is way, way below the number killed, directly or indirectly, by Saddam on an average year.

It is relatively easy to sit at a keyboard 10,000 miles away, safe and secure, knowing that it is unlikely that an armed soldier is going to bust down your door.


Which is something I would have had to worry about even more if Hussein was still in power. The US has not taken to routine executions of peaceful disidents. The average Iraqi is safer right now.

This whole war is bogus and has been from the start. The US was under no threat from Saddam. Iraq had no air force, no WMD, and was not linked with Al-Queda. The weapons inspectors were doing their job.

The US was not under any threat from the Serbs or the Rwandans either, but I think they should have intervened there as well.

The US has just demonstrated that they are above the law and I for one find that a scary proposition.

International law is broken, ineffective, and not based on any kind of reasonable morality.

Here is an interesting link, dated BEFORE the war started against Iraq:

Efforts to show Iraq-Qaeda link cause friction within FBI and CIA

http://www.iht.com/articles/85354.html

James Risen and David Johnston The New York Times
Monday, February 3, 2003

I don't approve of the way the US tried to justify this war, and never have I claimed to support their political maneouverings. This point is moot, IMO.

If some of you watched the news, you would know by now that these hostages they threatened to burn have been released...

First, I am not asserting the complete legality or the illegality of the war. The legality of the war has been murkey. I do assert that there is a basis for the legality argument. Furthermore, putting forth an argument that the war was illegal, when the case for it is not clear, distracts from other, more important issues, including clear violations of international humanitarian law by both parties.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

We can sit here and argue til we are both blue in the face. But the fact remains that there has been good legal opinion in support of the legality of the current use of force in Iraq, as I have repeatedly said. As someone stated earlier (it may have been on another thread) no one here is an expert on international law.
This will be my last post on the topic, unless someone can present a fresh and compelling argument that the war was clearly illegal.

I leave some legal opinions supporting the legality: (all bolding mine)

James Crawford
Professor of international law, Cambridge University
Was the war in Iraq legal? "It comes down to a political judgment. If Iraq had retained weapons of mass destruction, that would have been a breach. The question was whether earlier resolutions delegated to individual countries the right to act by themselves. It's very unlikely it would have done so without express language which they used in the earlier Kuwait resolutions. Where you had quite a difficult question of assessment, the likelihood that the UN security council would have allowed countries to form their own judgment seems doubtful."

Malcolm Shaw QC
Professor of international law, Leicester University
Was the war in Iraq legal? "On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction.
The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the security council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160002,00.html)

Memorandum of Advice on the Use of Force Against Iraq, provided by the Attorney General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, March 18, 2003.
MEMORANDUM OF ADVICE
USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
We have been asked whether, in the current circumstances, any deployment of Australian forces to Iraq and subsequent military action by those forces would be consistent with Australia’s obligations under international law. The short answer is ‘yes’. Existing United Nations Security Council resolutions provide authority for the use of force directed towards disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and restoring international peace and security in the area. This existing authority for the use of force would only be negated in current circumstances if the Security Council were to pass a resolution that required Member States to refrain from the use of force against Iraq.
Bill Campbell QC First Assistant Secretary Office of International Law Attorney-General’s Department
Chris Moraitis Senior Legal Adviser Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
12 March 2003 (http://www.pm.gov.au/iraq/displayNewsContent.cfm?refx=96)

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) is most important. It finds Iraq in material breach of previous resolutions. These resolutions not only allow for, but call for, the US (and others) to use force against Iraq. It simply does not prohibit the US from doing so.

First, I am not asserting the complete legality or the illegality of the war. The legality of the war has been murkey. I do assert that there is a basis for the legality argument. Furthermore, putting forth an argument that the war was illegal, when the case for it is not clear, distracts from other, more important issues, including clear violations of international humanitarian law by both parties.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

We can sit here and argue til we are both blue in the face. But the fact remains that there has been good legal opinion in support of the legality of the current use of force in Iraq, as I have repeatedly said. As someone stated earlier (it may have been on another thread) no one here is an expert on international law.
This will be my last post on the topic, unless someone can present a fresh and compelling argument that the war was clearly illegal.

I leave some legal opinions supporting the legality: (all bolding mine)

James Crawford
Professor of international law, Cambridge University
Was the war in Iraq legal? "It comes down to a political judgment. If Iraq had retained weapons of mass destruction, that would have been a breach. The question was whether earlier resolutions delegated to individual countries the right to act by themselves. It's very unlikely it would have done so without express language which they used in the earlier Kuwait resolutions. Where you had quite a difficult question of assessment, the likelihood that the UN security council would have allowed countries to form their own judgment seems doubtful."

Malcolm Shaw QC
Professor of international law, Leicester University
Was the war in Iraq legal? "On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction.
The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the security council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160002,00.html)

Memorandum of Advice on the Use of Force Against Iraq, provided by the Attorney General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, March 18, 2003.
MEMORANDUM OF ADVICE
USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
We have been asked whether, in the current circumstances, any deployment of Australian forces to Iraq and subsequent military action by those forces would be consistent with Australia’s obligations under international law. The short answer is ‘yes’. Existing United Nations Security Council resolutions provide authority for the use of force directed towards disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and restoring international peace and security in the area. This existing authority for the use of force would only be negated in current circumstances if the Security Council were to pass a resolution that required Member States to refrain from the use of force against Iraq.
Bill Campbell QC First Assistant Secretary Office of International Law Attorney-General’s Department
Chris Moraitis Senior Legal Adviser Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
12 March 2003 (http://www.pm.gov.au/iraq/displayNewsContent.cfm?refx=96)

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) is most important. It finds Iraq in material breach of previous resolutions. These resolutions not only allow for, but call for, the US (and others) to use force against Iraq. It simply does not prohibit the US from doing so.
Whether Iraq was in material breach or not, the US would still have to seek a vote of the Security Council to use force. Knowing full well that at least France would "veto" such a request for armed intervention, the US did not seek a vote and acted independently.

In Bush's declaration of war on Iraq, nowhere did he mention that he was attacking because Iraq was in "breach of UN Resolutions". Why not? He would not dare to insist that he was acting on behalf of the UN, because he himself was violating the UN Charter to attack.

"According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically [u]authorizes the use of military force."

Article 41:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.


Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.